Anda di halaman 1dari 39

1.

Abella Jr V CSC, 442 SCRA 207 1982 under the Civil Service Academy,
2. Victorias Milling Company Inc. V SSS pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 850, which
4S was then the required eligibility for said
3. Rizal Empire Insurance Group V NLRC position.
150 SCRA 565
4. Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A The CSC issued Memorandum
Tolentino Jr V Comelec GR#: 189698 Circular No. 21, series of 1994 (Pertinent
(2/28/2010) provision: Positions covered by the CES: (a)
5. Leah M. NAzareno V City of the position is a career position, (b) above
Dumaguete GR# 181559, 10/02/2009 division chief level (c) duties and
6. De La Rama v CA GR# 131136 responsibilities require performance of
7. Quirog V Aumentado executive or managerial functions. Upon
8. Municipal Board of Canvasser of Glen promotion or transfer to other Career
V Comelec GR# 150946 Executive Service (CES) positions, these
9. Cerafica V Comelec GR# 205136 incumbents shall be under temporary status
12/2/2014 in said other CES positions until they qualify.’)
10. BPI Leasing Corp. V CA 416 S4
11. RCPI V NTC 184 SCRA 517 “Two years after retirement,
12. PPA Employees Hired After V COA petitioner was hired by the SBMA on a
469 SCRA 397 contractual basis. He was issued by SBMA a
13. De Jesus V COA 294 SCRA 152 permanent employment as Department
14. NEA V Gonzaga GR# 158 SCRA 761 Manager III, Labor and Employment Center.
15. Lokin V Comelec GR# 180443 However, when said appointment was
16. Taxi Cab Operators of MMLA V Board submitted to CSC Regional Office No. III, it
of Transportation 114 SCRA 597 was disapproved on the ground that
17. Macario Katipon Jr V Jerome Kapson petitioner’s eligibility was not appropriate.
18. Bellica V Executive Secretary Petitioner was advised by SBMA of the
19. Ynot V IAC disapproval of his appointment. In view
thereof, petitioner was issued a temporary
1. Abella Jr vs CSC appointment. The CSC affirmed the
Date: November 17, 2004 disapproval of his permanent appointment.
Petitioner: Francisco Abella Jr The CA shunned the issue of constitutionality
Respondent: CSC of the Memo Circular. It ruled that petitioner
has no standing as only the appointing officer
Ponente: Panganiban may request reconsideration of the action
taken by the CSC. Also, petitioner was not the
Facts: real party in interest as his appointment was
Petitioner, a lawyer, retired from the dependent on the CSC’s approval.
Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA), as
Department Manager of the Legal Services Issue:
Department. He held a civil service eligibility Who may file reconsideration or
for the position of Department Manager, appeal?
having completed the training program for
Executive Leadership and Management in
Ratio: A permanent appointment in the may compel the exercise of an appointment
career service is issued to a person who has for a favored person.
met the requirements of the position to The CSC’s disapproval of an
which the appointment is made in appointment is a challenge to the exercise of
accordance with the provisions of law, the the appointing authority’s discretion. The
rules and the standards promulgated appointing authority must have the right to
pursuant thereto. It implies the civil service contest the disapproval. Thus, Section 2 of
eligibility of the appointee. The law requires Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular 40, s.
the appointment to be submitted to the CSC 1998 is justified insofar as it allows the
which will ascertain, in the main, whether the appointing authority to request
proposed appointee is qualified to hold the reconsideration or appeal.
position and whether the rules pertinent to Appointee’s Legal Standing to Challenge the
the process of appointment were observed. CSC Disapproval
The appointing officer and the CSC While there is justification to allow the
acting together, though not concurrently but appointing authority to challenge the CSC
consecutively, make an appointment disapproval, there is none to preclude the
complete In acting on the appointment, the appointee from taking the same course of
CSC determines whether the appointee action. Aggrieved parties, including the CSC,
possesses the appropriate civil service should be given the right to file MRs or to
eligibility or the required qualifications. If the appeal.
appointee does, the appointment must be Although commonly directed
approved; if not, it should be disapproved. towards ensuring that only certain parties
According to the CA, only the appointing can maintain an action, “legal standing” and
authority had the right to challenge the CSC’s “real party in interest” are different
disapproval. It relied on Section 2 of Rule VI concepts. “The question in standing is
of CSC Memorandum Circular 40, s. 1998, whether such parties have ‘alleged such a
which provides: “Section 2. Request for personal stake in the outcome of the
Reconsideration of, or appeal from, the controversy to assure that concrete
disapproval of an appointment may be made adverseness which sharpens the
by the appointing authority and submitted to presentation of issues upon which the court
the Commission within fifteen (15) calendar so largely depends for illumination of difficult
days from receipt of the disapproved constitutional questions. On the other hand,
appointment.” the question as to ‘real party-in-interest’ is
whether he is ‘the party who would be
Appointing Authority’s Right to Challenge CSC [benefited] or injured by the judgment, or
Disapproval the ‘party entitled to the avails of the suit.’”
The power of appointment If legal standing is granted to
necessarily entails the exercise of judgment challenge the constitutionality or validity of a
and discretion. Significantly, “the selection of law or governmental act despite the lack of
the appointee -- taking into account the personal injury on the challenger’s part, then
totality of his qualifications, including those more so should petitioner be allowed to
abstract qualities that define his personality - contest the CSC Order disapproving his
- is the prerogative of the appointing appointment. Clearly, he was prejudiced by
authority.” No tribunal, not even this Court, the disapproval, since he could not continue
his office. Although petitioner had no vested Petition assailing the CA Decision, which had
right to the position, it was his eligibility that previously denied his Petition for Certiorari
was being questioned. Corollary to this for being the wrong remedy and for being
point, he should be granted the opportunity filed out of time. The CSC Resolutions then
to prove his eligibility. He had a personal were already final and could no longer be
stake in the outcome of the case, which elevated to the CA. Mathay’s Petition for
justifies his challenge to the CSC act that Certiorari filed with the CA was improper,
denied his permanent appointment. because there was an available remedy of
appeal. And the CSC could not have acted
The Appointee a Real Party in Interest without jurisdiction, considering that it was
The rule refers to a real or present empowered to recall an appointment initially
substantial interest as distinguished from a approved.
mere expectancy; or from a future, The right of the appointee to seek MR or
contingent, subordinate, or consequential appeal was not the issue in Mathay. At any
interest. The appointee is rightly a real party rate, the present case is being decided en
in interest too. He is also injured by the CSC banc, and the ruling may reverse previous
disapproval, because he is prevented from doctrines laid down by this Court.
assuming the office in a permanent
capacity. Moreover, he would necessarily Issue:
benefit if a favorable judgment is obtained, WON the Section 4 of the CSC Memo Circular
as an approved appointment would confer is unconstitutional
on him all the rights and privileges of a
permanent appointee. Held:

Appointee Allowed Procedural Relief Ratio: In the exercise of its authority, the CSC
The view that only the appointing deemed it appropriate to clearly define and
authority may request reconsideration or identify positions covered by the Career
appeal is too narrow. The appointee should Executive Service. Logically, the CSC had to
have the same right. , CSC Resolution 99- issue guidelines to meet this objective,
1936 recognizes the right of the adversely specifically through the issuance of the
affected party to appeal to the CSC Regional challenged Circular.
Offices prior to elevating a matter to the CSC Career Service Classified by Levels
Central Office. The adversely affected party Positions in the career service, for which
necessarily includes the appointee. This appointments require examinations, are
judicial pronouncement does not override grouped into three major levels:
Mathay v. CSC, which the CA relied on. The “(a) The first level shall include clerical,
Court merely noted in passing -- by way of trades, crafts, and custodial service positions
obiter -- that based on a similar provision, which involve non-professional or sub[-
only the appointing officer could request ]professional work in a non-supervisory or
reconsideration of actions taken by the CSC supervisory capacity requiring less than four
on appointments. years of collegiate studies;
In that case, QC Mayor Mathay Jr. “(b) The second level shall include
sought the nullification of CSC Resolutions professional, technical, and scientific
that recalled his appointment. He filed a positions which involve professional,
technical, or scientific work in a non- and second level employees in the civil
supervisory or supervisory capacity requiring service -- pertains only to rank, not to the
at least four years of college work up to position to which the employee may be
Division Chief level; and appointed Second, petitioner had neither
“(c) The third level shall cover positions in the rank nor position prior to his
Career Executive Service.” reemployment. One cannot claim security of
Entrance to the different levels requires the tenure if one held no tenure prior to
corresponding civil service eligibility. Those appointment.
in the third level (CES positions) require
Career Service Executive Eligibility (CSEE) as a Due Process Not Violated
requirement for permanent appointment. The classification of positions in
The challenged Circular did not revoke career service was a quasi-legislative, not a
petitioner’s ELM eligibility. He was quasi-judicial, issuance. This distinction
appointed to a CES position; however, his determines whether prior notice and hearing
eligibility was inadequate. Eligibility must are necessary.
necessarily conform to the requirements of In exercising its quasi-judicial
the position, which in petitioner’s case was a function, an administrative body adjudicates
CSEE. the rights of persons before it, in accordance
with the standards laid down by the law. The
Rights Protected determination of facts and the applicable
The challenged Circular protects the law, as basis for official action and the
rights of incumbents as long as they remain exercise of judicial discretion, are essential
in the positions to which they were for the performance of this function. On
previously appointed. They are allowed to these considerations, it is elementary that
retain their positions in a permanent due process requirements, as enumerated in
capacity, notwithstanding the lack of Ang Tibay, must be observed. These
CSEE. Clearly, the Circular recognizes the requirements include prior notice and
rule of prospectivity of regulations; hence, hearing.
there is no basis to argue that it is an ex post On the other hand, quasi-legislative power is
facto law or a bill of attainder. These terms, exercised by administrative agencies through
which have settled meanings in criminal the promulgation of rules and regulations
jurisprudence, are clearly inapplicable here. within the confines of the granting statute
The government service of petitioner ended and the doctrine of non-delegation of certain
when he retired in 1996; thus, his right to powers flowing from the separation of the
remain in a CES position, notwithstanding his great branches of the government. Prior
lack of eligibility, also ceased. Upon his notice to and hearing of every affected party,
reemployment years later as department as elements of due process, are not required
manager III at SBMA in 2001, it was necessary since there is no determination of past
for him to comply with the eligibility events or facts that have to be established or
prescribed at the time for that position. ascertained. As a general rule, prior notice
and hearing are not essential to the validity
Security of Tenure Not Impaired of rules or regulations promulgated to
First, security of tenure in the Career govern future conduct.
Executive Service -- except in the case of first
Significantly, the challenged Circular was an employees' respective monthly premium
internal matter addressed to heads of contributions.
departments, bureaus and agencies. It
needed no prior publication, since it had Counsel further questioned the validity of the
been issued as an incident of the circular for lack of authority on the part of the
administrative body’s power to issue Social Security Commission to promulgate it
guidelines for government officials to follow without the approval of the President and for
in performing their duties. lack of publication in the Official Gazette.

Disapproval of Appointment
Since petitioner had no CES eligibility, the ISSUE:
CSC correctly denied his permanent
appointment. The appointee need not have Whether or not Circular No. 22 is a rule or
been previously heard, because the nature of regulation, as contemplated in Section 4(a) of
the action did not involve the imposition of Republic Act 1161 empowering the Social
an administrative disciplinary measure. The Security Commission "to adopt, amend and
CSC, in approving or disapproving an repeal subject to the approval of the
appointment, merely examines the President such rules and regulations as may
conformity of the appointment with the law be necessary to carry out the provisions and
and the appointee’s possession of all the purposes of this Act.”
minimum qualifications and none of the
disqualification. RULING:

There can be no doubt that there is a


2. Victoria’s Milling Company, Inc v. Social distinction between an administrative rule or
Security Commission regulation and an administrative
interpretation of a law whose enforcement is
FACTS: entrusted to an administrative body.

On October 15, 1958, the Social Security When an administrative agency promulgates
Commission issued Circular No. 22 requiring rules and regulations, it "makes" a new law
all employers to include in the Employee's with the force and effect of a valid law, while
remuneration (salary) all bonuses and when it renders an opinion or gives a
overtime pay, as well as the cash value of statement of policy, it merely interprets a
other media of remuneration (service). pre-existing law. Rules and regulations when
promulgated may be enforced by a penal
Upon receipt of a copy thereof, petitioner sanction provided therein.
Victorias Milling Company, Inc., through
counsel, wrote the Social Security In this sense, it has been said that rules and
Commission in effect protesting against the regulations are the product of a delegated
circular as contradictory to a previous power to create new or additional legal
Circular No. 7 dated October 7, 1957 provisions that have the effect of law.
expressly excluding overtime pay and bonus
in the computation of the employers' and
Therefore, Circular No. 22 purports merely to "General Information, Office Behavior and
advise employers-members of the System of Other Rules and Regulations." In the same
what, in the light of the amendment of the year, without change in his position-
law, they should include in determining the designation, he was transferred to the Claims
monthly compensation of their employees Department and his salary was increased to
upon which the social security contributions P450.00 a month. In 1980, he was
should be based, and that such circular did not transferred to the Underwriting Department
require presidential approval and publication and his salary was increased to P580.00 a
in the Official Gazette for its effectivity. month plus cost of living allowance, until he
was transferred to the Fire Department as
The Resolution appealed from is hereby filing clerk. In July, 1983, he was made an
affirmed, with costs against appellant. So inspector of the Fire Division with a monthly
ordered. salary of P685.00 plus allowances and other
benefits.
In favor with Social Security Commission.
Costs against Victoria’s Milling Company. On October 15, 1983, private respondent
Rogelio R. Coria was dismissed from work,
allegedly, on the grounds of tardiness and
unexcused absences. Accordingly, he filed a
complaint with the Ministry of Labor and
Employment (MOLE), and in a Decision dated
March 14, 1985 (Record, pp. 80-87), Labor
Arbiter Teodorico L. Ruiz reinstated him to
his position with back wages. Petitioner filed
3. RIZAL EMPIRE INSURANCE GROUP AND/OR an appeal with the National labor Relations
SERGIO CORPUS, petitioners, vs. Commission (NLRC) but, in a Resolution
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, dated November 15, 1985 (Ibid, pp. 31-32),
TEODORICO L. RUIZ, as Labor Arbiter and the appeal was dismissed on the ground that
ROGELIO R. CORIA, respondents. the same had been filed out of time. Hence,
the instant petition.
G.R. No. 73140
May 29, 1987 Issue:

Facts: Whether or not NLRC committed a grave


abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
In August, 1977, herein private respondent jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner’s appeal
Rogelio R. Coria was hired by herein on a technicality.
petitioner Rizal Empire Insurance Group as a
casual employee with a salary of P10.00 a Held:
day. On January 1, 1978, he was made a
regular employee, having been appointed as Rule VIII of the Revised Rules of the National
clerk-typist, with a monthly salary of P300.00. Labor Relations Commission on appeal,
Being a permanent employee, he was provides:
furnished a copy of petitioner company's
SECTION 1. (a) Appeal. — Decision or orders promotions in rank and salary of the private
of a labor Arbiter shall be final and executory respondent indicate he must have been a
unless appealed to the Commission by any or highly efficient worker, who should be
both of the parties within ten (10) calendar retained despite occasional lapses in
days from receipt of notice thereof. punctuality and attendance. Perfection
cannot after all be demanded.
SECTION 6. No extension of period. — No
motion or request for extension of the period WHEREFORE, this petition is DISMISSED.
within which to perfect an appeal shall be
entertained. SO ORDERED.

The record shows that the employer


(petitioner herein) received a copy of the
decision of the Labor Arbiter on April 1, 1985. 4. Quinto and Tolentino vs COMELEC GR No.
It filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File 189698
Memorandum of Appeal on April 11, 1985
and filed the Memorandum of Appeal on FACTS:
April 22, 1985. Pursuant to the "no extension
policy" of the National Labor Relations The court declared as unconstitutional the
Commission, aforesaid motion for extension second provisio in the third paragraph of sec
of time was denied in its resolution dated 13 of RA 9369, Sec 66 of the Omnibus
November 15, 1985 and the appeal was Election Code and Sec 4 of the COMELEC
dismissed for having been filed out of time. Resolution 8679 that they violate the equal
protection clause of the Constitution.
The Revised Rules of the National Labor
Relations Commission are clear and explicit BACKGROUND:
and leave no room for interpretation.
Moreover, it is an elementary rule in Dec 1, 2009 The Court declared the second
administrative law that administrative provisio in the third paragraph of sec 13 of RA
regulations and policies enacted by 9369, Sec 66 of the Omnibus Election Code
administrative bodies to interpret the law and Sec 4 of the COMELEC Resolution 8679
which they are entrusted to enforce, have as unconstitutional.
the force of law, and are entitled to great
respect (Espanol v. Philippine Veterans Dec 14, 2009 COMELEC filed the motion for
Administration, 137 SCRA 314 [1985]). reconsideration.

Under the above-quoted provisions of the The second provisio in the third paragraph of
Revised NLRC Rules, the decision appealed sec 13 of RA 9369, Sec 66 of the Omnibus
from in this case has become final and Election Code and Sec 4 of the COMELEC
executory and can no longer be subject to Resolution 8679: “Any person holding a
appeal. public appointive office or position, including
active members of the Armed Forces of the
Even on the merits, the ruling of the Labor Philippines, and officers and employees in
Arbiter appears to be correct; the consistent GOCCs shall be considered ipso facto
resigned from his office upon filling of his intended to prohibit legislation which is
certificate of candidacy“ limited either in the object to which it is
directed or by territory within which it is to
ISSUE: operate. It does not demand absolute
equality among residents; it merely requires
Whether or not the second provisio in the that all persons shall be treated alike under
third paragraph of sec 13 of RA 9369, Sec 66 like circumstances and conditions both as to
of the Omnibus Election Code and Sec 4 of priveleges conferred and liabilities enforced.
the COMELEC Resolution 8679, violate the The equal protection clause is not enfringed
equal protection clause of the constitution. by legislation which applies only to those
persons falling within a specified class, if it
HELD: applies alike to all persons within such class
and reasonable ground exists for making a
The Court reversed their previous decision distinction between those who fall within
and declared the second provisio in the third such class and those who do not.
paragraph of sec 13 of RA 9369, Sec 66 of the
Omnibus Election Code and Sec 4 of the Substantial distinctions clearly exists
COMELEC Resolution 8679 as constitutional. between elective officials and appointive
officials. Elective officials occupy their office
RULING: by virtue of the mandate of the electorate.
Appointive officials hold their office by virtue
These laws and regulations implement Sec 2 of their designation by an appointing
Art IX-B of the 1987 Constitution which authority.
prohibits civil service officers and employees
from engaging in any electioneering or
partisan political campaign. 5. Nazareno vs. City of Dumaguete (2009)

The intention to impose a strict limitation on Doctrine: The general rule is that
the participation of civil service officers and appointments shall take effect immediately;
employees in partisan political campaign is and should the appointees already assume
unmistakable. the duties of their positions, they shall be
entitled to receive their salary at once. There
The equal protection of the law clause in the is no need to wait for the approval of the
constitution is not absolute, but is subject to appointments by the CSC. The appointments
reasonable classification if the groupings are shall be effective until disapproved by the
characterized by substantial distinctions that CSC.
make real differences, one class may be
treated and regulated different from the Facts:
other. 1. The 52 petitioners in this case were
all bona fide employees of the City of
The equal protection of the law clause is Dumaguete appointed to various
against undue favor and individual or class positions by City Mayor Felipe
privelege, as well as hostile discrimination or Antonio B. Remollo, Jr. sometime in
the oppression of inequality. It is not
June 2001, shortly before the end of that generally, it is the appointing
his term. officer who appeals invalidated
2. On July 2001, the newly elected appointments but relaxed the rule in
Mayor Perdices announced that he this case as the appointing authority
was not recognizing the was no longer in power. However,
appointments made by former the appeal was still dismissed.
Mayor Remollo. Thereafter, the 6. The petitioners filed before the CA a
Treasurer was directed not to make petition for certiorari. The CA
any disbursements pertaining to dismissed this and affirmed the CSC
petitioners and petitioners’ names decision. The petitioners filed a
were deleted from the list of petition for the review of this
employees. decision before the SC.
3. The petitioners filed a petition for 7. Meanwhile, the RTC granted the
Mandamus with injunction and injunction prayed for in the Civil
damages before the RTC of Case. But upon a motion for
Dumaguete against the Mayor and 4 reconsideration filed by the
other City Officers (Civil Case). On respondents, the RTC lifted the
the same day, Director II Fabio injunction. The CA affrimed. This
Abucejo (Abucejo) of the Civil Service Court also affirmed on the ground
Commission Field Office (CSC-FO), that the petitioners had already
pursuant to CSC Memorandum availed the remedies of law when
No.001374, invalidated and revoked they appealed the decision of the
the appointments made by former CSC FO to the CSC RO and then to
Mayor Remollo in June 2001 because the CSC Proper. Hence, the
the appointments were in violation injunction was lifted.
of Items No. 3(d) and 4 of CSC 8. The petitioners filed a motion to
Resolution No. 010988 dated 4 June declare the respondents in default in
2001, which prohibit the outgoing the Civil Case. This was denied by the
chief executive from making mass RTC but the CA declared the
appointments after elections. respondents in default.
4. A copy of the CSC-FO’s findings were 9. The RTC dismissed the case. Hence
given to the petitioners and upon this petition.
receipt, they filed a motion for
reconsideration before the CSC Petitioner’s argument:
Regional Office VII. The CSC RO 1. They should receive their salaries for
dismissed this reasoning that the the meantime because their
motion should be filed before the appointments are valid until
CSC FO. The petitioners filed another declared invalid (citing an
motion to treat their first motion as unnumbered CSC Memorandum
an appeal. The CSC RO dismissed Circular, issued on 6 December 2001,
appeal and affirmed the CSC FO’s with the subject matter: “Reiteration
decision. of the Strict Implementation of
5. Petitioners elevated the case to the Section 1, Rule IV and Section 3,
CSC Proper. The CSC Proper noted Rules VI, both of Memorandum
Circular No. 40, s. 1998, otherwise in accordance with
known as the Revised Omnibus Rules pertinent laws and rules
on Appointments and Other shall take effect
Personnel Actions.”) immediately upon its
issuance by the appointing
Respondent’s argument: authority, and if the
1. The right of the petitioners to their appointee has assumed the
positions and salaries is unclear thus, duties of the position, he
mandamus will not lie. The RTC took shall be entitled to receive
note that the invalidation of his salary at once without
petitioners’ appointments by the CSC awaiting the approval of his
Proper was then pending appeal appointment by the
before the Court of Appeals and Commission. The
unless it was reversed, petitioners’ appointment shall remain
right to the salaries, salary effective until disapproved
adjustments, and other emoluments by the Commission. x x x
claimed, were doubtful.
Section 3. When an
Issues: appointment is
1. Whether petitioners are entitled to disapproved, the
the issuance of a writ of mandamus services of the appointee
ordering respondents to pay shall be immediately
petitioners’ salaries, salary terminated, unless a
adjustments, and other emoluments, motion for
from 28 September 2001 until this reconsideration or
Court finally resolves the issue of the appeal is seasonably
validity of petitioners’ appointments filed.
NO
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to Services
an award for damages resulting from rendered by a person for
the invalidation of their the duration of his
appointments NO disapproved
appointment shall not be
credited as government
Held/Ratio: Petition is denied. service for whatever
A. On their right to compel the City purpose.
Government to pay their salaries
1. The Court noted the following If the
pertinent rules: appointment was
Rule IV of the Revised disapproved on grounds
Omnibus Rules on which do not constitute
Appointments and Other a violation of civil service
Personnel Actions, Section law, such as failure of the
1. An appointment issued appointee to meet the
Qualification Standards 4. Nevertheless, the aforementioned
(QS) prescribed for the general rules cannot be simply
position, the same is applied to the case at bar given its
considered effective peculiar circumstances.
until disapproved by the 5. Section 3 above only applies if there
Commission or any of its was no violation of civil service laws
regional or field but if there was, Section 4 states
offices. The appointee is that: “The appointing authority shall
meanwhile entitled to be personally liable for the salary of
payment of salaries from appointees whose appointments
the government. have been disapproved for violation
of pertinent laws such as the
If a motion for publication requirement pursuant to
reconsideration or an RA 7041.”
appeal from the a. This consistent with Sec 65,
disapproval is seasonably Chapter 10, Book V of the
filed with the proper Administrative Code which
office, the appointment is states that: “No person
still considered to be employed in the Civil Service
effective. The disapproval in violation of Civil Service
becomes final only after law and rules shall be entitled
the same is affirmed by to receive pay from the
the Commission. government, but the
appointing authority
2. The general rule is that responsible for such unlawful
appointments shall take effect employment shall be
immediately; and should the personally liable for the pay
appointees already assume the that would have accrued had
duties of their positions, they shall the employment been lawful,
be entitled to receive their salary at and the disbursing officials
once. There is no need to wait for shall make payment to the
the approval of the appointments by employee of such amount
the CSC. The appointments shall be from the salary of the officers
effective until disapproved by the so liable.”
CSC. 6. The rules laid down by the CSC in
3. The CSC has a three-tiered CSC Resolution No. 010988, dated 4
organizational structure, i.e., the June 2001, are deemed included in
CSC-FO, the CSC-RO, and the CSC what is the “civil service law,” it
Proper acting as a collegial body. The having the force and effect of law.
disapproval of the appointments by 7. Since petitioners’ right to the
the CSC FO and CSC RO is not final payment of their salaries by the City
and executory until affirmed by the Government of Dumaguete is still
CSC Proper. unsettled at this point, the Court
cannot issue a writ of mandamus
against respondents to make such employees, for lack of merit. The CSC upheld
payment. Mandamus applies only the validity of the appointments on the
where the petitioner’s right is ground that they had already been
founded clearly in law and not when approved by the Head of the CSC Field
it is doubtful. Until the SC finally Office in Lucena City, and for petitioner’s
resolves the pending petition for failure to present evidence that would
review of the CA’s affirmation of the warrant the revocation or recall of the said
CSC Proper’s disapproval of the appointments.
petitioners’ appointments, the issue Issue:
of who will pay their salaries cannot Whether or not the recall made by
be settled. petitioner is valid.
B. On damages Ruling:
1. Mayor Perdices’ refusal to re-appoint No. It is the CSC that is authorized to recall
petitioners is merely in exercise of an appointment initially approved, but only
the former’s discretion and does not when such appointment and approval are
constitute bad faith. proven to be in disregard of applicable
provisions of the civil service law and
regulations. Rule V, Section 9 of the
Omnibus Implementing Regulations of the
Revised Administrative Code specifically
6. Conrado L. De Rama, petitioner, vs. The provides that “an appointment accepted by
Court Of Appeals (Ninth Division, The Civil the appointee cannot be withdrawn or
Service Commission), Eladio Martinez, Divino revoked by the appointing authority and
De Jesus, Morell Ayala, Aristeo Catalla, Daisy shall remain in force and in effect until
Porta, Flordeliza Oriasel, Graciela Glory, disapproved by the Commission.
Felecidad Orinday, Ma. Petra Muffet Luce,
Elsa Marino, Bernardita Mendoza, Jane Accordingly, the appointments of the private
Macatangay, Adelfo Glodoviza and Florino respondents may only be recalled on the
Ramos, respondents. following grounds: (a) Non-compliance with
Facts: the procedures/criteria provided in the
Upon his assumption to the position of agency’s Merit Promotion Plan; (b) Failure to
Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, petitioner pass through the agency’s
Conrado L. de Rama wrote a letter dated Selection/Promotion Board; (c) Violation of
July 13, 1995 to the Civil Service Commission the existing collective agreement between
(or CSC), seeking the recall of the management and employees relative to
appointments of fourteen (14) municipal promotion; or (d) Violation of other existing
employees. Justifying his recall request on civil service law, rules and regulations.
the allegation that the appointments of the
said employees were “midnight” 7. QUIROG vs.AUMENTADO
appointments of the former mayor, Ma. Facts:
Evelyn S. Abeja, done in violation of Article Liza M. Quirog was permanently appointed
VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution. The as Department Head of the Office of the
CSC denied petitioner’s request for the Bohol Provincial Agriculture by then Bohol
recall of the appointments of the fourteen Governor Rene L. Relampagos. The
appointment was confirmed by the midnight appointment. The CA ruled against
Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Quirog was the petitioners.
likewise certified by the Personnel Selection Issues
Board (PSB) as one of the two candidates : (1) WON petitioners Relampagos and
qualified for the position. Quirog have the legal standing to file a
However, the Director of CSCROVII motion for reconsideration of, or appeal
invalidated Quirog’s appointment upon the from the disapproval of the latter's
finding that the same was part of the bulk appointment by theCSC 2) WON the subject
appointments issued by Gov Relampagos appointment was a midnight appointment.
after May 14, 2001 elections in violation of a Held
CSC Resolution prohibiting the issuance of : 1.) Yes.In the recent case of Abella, Jr. v.
midnight appointments. In a motion for Civil Service Commission, the Court declared
reconsideration, it was contended by the that both the appointing authority and the
Relampagos and Quirog that the appointee are equally real parties in interest
appointment cannot be considered a who have the requisite legal standing to
midnight appointment because it was made bring an action challenging a CSC
days before the expiration of Relampago’s disapproval of an appointment. Clearly,
term and that Quirog was already the acting pursuant to Abella, Jr., Quirog had the right
Provincial Agriculturists a year prior to said to ask for reconsideration of, or to appeal
appointment. The CSCROVII however ruled the adverse ruling of CSCROVII. In contrast,
that Quirog and Relampagos had no legal Relampagos, by reason of the expiration of
personality to file the pleadings. That under his term as governor, had lost the legal
Section 2, Rule VI of CSC Memorandum personality to contest the disapproval of the
Circular (MC) No. 40, series of 1998 only the appointment. 2.) No. It cannot also be said
appointing officer may request that Quirog's appointment was a midnight
reconsideration of the disapproval of an appointment. The constitutional prohibition
appointment by the Civil Service on so-called midnight appointments,
Commission. Even if Relampagos was the one specifically, those made within two (2)
who appointed Quirog, he could not file a months immediately prior to the next
motion for reconsideration because his term presidential elections, applies only to the
as governor had already expired. On appeal President or Acting President. The
with the CSC, the latter ruled in favor of the appointment of Quirog cannot be
petitioners. It ruled that the appointee categorized as a midnight appointment. For
Quirog be allowed to question the decision it is beyond dispute that Quirog had been
and that the latter was not a midnight discharging and performing the duties
appointment. On appeal with the CA, it was concomitant with the subject position for a
however contended by then incumbent year prior to her permanent appointment
Bohol Governor Erico B. Aumentado that thereto. Surely, the fact that she was only
Quirog and Relampagos had no legal permanently appointed to the position of
personality to file a motion for PGDH-OPA after a year of being the Acting
reconsideration of the disapproved Provincial Agriculturist more than
appointment or to appeal the same and adequately shows that the filling up of the
insisted that Quirog's appointment was a position resulted from deliberate action and
a careful consideration of the need for the
appointment and the appointee's Vice-Chairman and Secretary are not
qualifications. The fact that Quirog had been qualified under the Omnibus Election
the Acting Provincial Agriculturist since June Code;[1] b) the canvassing proceedings,
2000 all the more highlights the public need which were initially held in the Session Hall
for said position to be permanently filled up. of the Sangguniang Bayan of Glan, were
later transferred to the Provincial Capitol of
Danao Province, contrary to COMELEC
Resolution No. 3848;[2] c) the Secretary of
8. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF the MBC failed to record the minutes of the
GLAN, ENRIQUE B. YAP, JR., VENANCIO S. canvassing proceedings since the start of the
WATA, JR., GILDO VILLORENTE, SR., JING canvass; d) neither Benzonan nor her
MUSA, BENEDICTO L. RUIZ, ANANIAS S. representatives were notified of the last
EMNACE, VANNEVAR B. ALEGADO, ALITO three days of the canvassing proceedings
ARNOLD CARIO, SATURNINO BAG, JR., and and, consequently, they were not able to
FEDERICO J. TANGAN, petitioners, vs. participate therein; e) a substantial number
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, (En Banc) and of the election returns had been tampered
FLORA L. BENZONAN, respondents. with or falsified; and f) the MBC had falsified
DECISION the certificate of canvass votes.[3]
AZCUNA, J.:
The present petition for certiorari, under On December 4, 2001, the COMELEC en
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, originated banc issued a resolution[4] finding that,
from SPC No. 01-032, a pre-proclamation based on the evidence presented, the
controversy instituted by respondent Flora canvass of votes had been conducted in a
L. Benzonan with the Commission on place other than the previous venue at the
Election (COMELEC) en banc. Benzonan, inception of the proceedings to which all
who was a mayoralty candidate in the were notified. Thus, the proclamations of
Municipality of Glan, Sarangani during the the winning candidates were declared null
May 14, 2001 elections, sought to declare and void and a re-canvass of the election
null and void the canvass conducted by the returns was ordered.
Municipal Board of Canvassers (MBC) of
Glan, Sarangani and to recall the To reverse the COMELEC en bancs
proclamation of petitioners Enrique B. Yap, resolution, petitioners filed the present
Jr., Venancio S. Wata, Jr., Gildo Villorente, petition with a prayer for a temporary
Sr., Ting Musa, Benedicto L. Ruiz, Ananias S. restraining order and preliminary
Emnace, Vannevar B. Alegado, Alito Arnold prohibitory injunction.[5] On December 21,
Carino, Saturnino Bag, Jr. and Federico J. 2001, the Court issued a temporary
Tangan, as duly elected Mayor, Vice-Mayor restraining order directing the COMELEC to
and members of the Sangguniang Bayan of cease and desist from implementing its
Glan, Sarangani, respectively. December 4, 2001 resolution.

Benzonan argued her pre-proclamation case Although not raised as an issue, the Court is
on the grounds that: a) after the original and compelled to resolve whether the COMELEC
second MBC had resigned, the third MBC has jurisdiction over this case.
was illegally constituted as its Chairman,
Section 3 (c) of Article IX-C of the quasi-judicial powers, as the illegality of the
Constitution reads: composition and proceedings of the MBC,
including the falsification of election returns
The Commission on Elections may sit en and certificate of canvass, were alleged to
banc or in two divisions, and shall be in issue.[10] Furthermore, in her
promulgate its rules of procedure in order to comment to the petition dated January 9,
expedite the disposition of election cases, 2000,[11] Benzonan categorically stated that
including pre-proclamation controversies. it is not disputed that what is involved here
All such election cases shall be heard and is a pre-proclamation controversy.
decided in division, provided that motions
for reconsideration of decisions shall be Also undisputed is the fact that Benzonan
decided by the Commission en banc. filed her pre-proclamation case directly with
the COMELEC en banc and that the case was
Beginning with Sarmiento v. COMELEC[6] subsequently decided by the COMELEC,
and reiterated in subsequent cases,[7] the sitting en banc. As aforestated, the
most recent being Balindong v. COMELEC,[8] COMELEC en banc is without jurisdiction to
the Court has upheld this constitutional decide cases involving these types of
mandate and consistently ruled that the controversies in the first instance. Thus, the
COMELEC sitting en banc does not have the procedure taken by Benzonan resulted in a
requisite authority to hear and decide resolution in her favor that the Court must
election cases in the first instance. This declare null and void and set aside.
power pertains to the divisions of the
Commission and any decision by the WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
Commission en banc as regards election petition is GRANTED. The resolution of the
cases decided by it in the first instance is COMELEC en banc dated December 4, 2001
null and void for lack of jurisdiction. in SPC No. 01-032 is hereby declared null
and void and set aside, and the COMELEC is
It is important to clarify, however, that not directed to assign SPC No. 01-032 to a
all cases relating to election laws filed division.
before the COMELEC are required to be first
heard by a division. Under the Constitution, No costs.
the COMELEC exercises both administrative
and quasi-judicial powers. The COMELEC en SO ORDERED.
banc can act directly on matters falling
within its administrative powers. It is only
when the exercise of quasi-judicial powers 9. OLIVIA DA SILVA CERAFICA v.
are involved that the COMELEC is mandated COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS G.R. No.
to decide cases first in division, and then, 205136, 02 December 2014,EN BANC ,
upon motion for reconsideration, en (Perez, J.)
banc.[9] Doctrine:
COMELEC has the ministerial duty to receive
It is clear that SPC No. 01-032 is one that and acknowledge receipt of COCs. The
involves a pre-proclamation controversy question of eligibility or ineligibility of a
that requires the exercise of the COMELECs
candidate is thus beyond the usual and ISSUE:
proper cognizance of the COMELEC. Was there a valid substitution?
Facts: RULING:
On October 2012, Kimberly filed her Yes, in declaring that Kimberly, being under
certificate of candidacy (COC) for Councilor, age, could not be considered to have filed a
City of Taguig for the 2013 Elections. Her valid COC and, thus, could not be validly
COC stated that she was born on 29 October substituted by Olivia, we find that the
1992, or that she will be twenty (20) years of COMELEC gravely abused its discretion.
age on the day of the elections, in Firstly, subject to its authority over nuisance
contravention of the requirement that one candidates and its power to deny due
must be at least twenty-three (23) years of course to or cancel COCs under Sec. 78,
age on the day of the elections. As such, Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 881, the
Kimberly was summoned to a clarificatory COMELEC has the ministerial duty to receive
hearing due to the age qualification. Instead and acknowledge receipt of COCs. The
of attending the hearing, Kimberly opted to question of eligibility or ineligibility of a
file a sworn Statement of Withdrawal of candidate is thus beyond the usual and
COC. Simultaneously, Olivia filed her own proper cognizance of the COMELEC.
COC as a substitute of Kimberly. The UST Law Review, Vol. LIX, No. 1, May 2015
COMELEC rendered a decision ordering the The next question then is whether Olivia
cancellation of Kimberly’s COC, and the complied with all of the requirements for a
denial of the substitution of Kimberly by valid substitution; we answer in the
Olivia. COMELEC argued that Olivia cannot affirmative. First, there was a va lid
substitute Kimberly as the latter was never withdrawal of Kimberly’s COC after the last
an official candidate because she was not day for the filing of COCs; second, Olivia
eligible for the post by reason of her age, belongs to and is certified to by the same
and that; moreover, the COC that Kimberly political party to which Kimberly belongs;
filed was invalid because it contained a and third, Olivia filed her COC not later than
material misrepresentation relating to her mid-day of election day.
eligibility for the office she seeks to be
elected to. Olivia countered that although
Kimberly may not be qualified to run for 10. BPI LEASING CORP. vs. CA, et al.
election because of her age, it cannot be GR No. 127624, 18 Nov. 2003
denied that she still filed a valid COC and FACTS:
was, thus, an official candidate who may be BLC is a corporation engaged in the business
substituted. Olivia also claimed that there of leasing properties. For the calendar year
was no ground to cancel or deny Kimberly’s 1986, it paid Commissioner of Internal
COC on the ground of lack of qualification Revenue a total of P1, 139,041.49
and material misrepresentation because she representing 4% contractor’s percentage tax
did not misrepresent her birth date to as imposed by the National Internal Revenue
qualify for the position of councilor, and as Code. However, in November 1986, CIR
there was no deliberate attempt to mislead issued a Revenue Regulation which provides
the electorate, which is precisely why she that companies registered under RA 5980,
withdrew her COC upon learning that she likeBLC, are no longer liable for contractor’s
was not qualified. percentage tax, instead, subject only to
gross receipts tax. Thereafter, BLC filed a
claim for refund before the CIR and 11. RCPI vs NTC Case Digest
simultaneously filed a petition for review RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE
before the Court of Tax Appeal in order to PHILIPPINES, INC. (RCPI) vs. NATIONAL
stop the running of the prescriptive period TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (NTC)
for refunds. Both cases were denied, despite and JUAN A. ALEGRE
motion for reconsideration by BLC, hence, G.R. No. 93237 November 6, 1992
they appealed before the Court of Appeals,
which the latter affirmed the decision of CTA Facts:
and CIR. Aggrieved by the decision, BLC Private respondent Juan A. Alegre's wife, Dr.
instituted a petition before the SC. However, Jimena Alegre, sent two (2) RUSH telegrams
the certification against non-forum shopping through petitioner RCPI's facilities in Taft
attached to the petition was signed by the Ave., Manila at 9:00 in the morning of 17
counsel on record of the BLC, who was not March 1989 to his sister and brother-in-law
specifically authorized to do so. in Valencia, Bohol and another sister-in-law
ISSUE: in Espiritu, Ilocos Norte.
Whether or not a lawyer is authorized to Both telegrams did not reach their
validly sign, for and in behalf of itsclient, the destinations on the expected dates. So,
certification of non-forum shopping. private respondent filed a letter-complaint
HELD: against RCPI with National
It was held that while the certification of Telecommunications Commission (NTC) for
non-forum shopping may be signed,for an poor service, with a request for the
on behalf of a corporation, by a specifically imposition of the appropriate punitive
authorized lawyer who haspersonal sanction against the company. Taking
knowledge of the facts required to be cognizance of the complaint, NTC directed
disclosed in such document, it doesnot RCPI to answer the complaint and set the
mean that any lawyer, acting on behalf of initial hearing.
the corporation he is representing,may
routinely sign a certification of non-forum NTC held that RCPI was administratively
shopping – the lawyer must be“specifically liable for deficient and inadequate service
authorized” in order to validly sign the under Section 19(a) of C.A. 146 and imposed
certification.Since powers of corporations the penalty of fine payable within thirty (30)
are exercised through their board of days from receipt in the aggregate amount
directorsand/or duly authorized officers and of one thousand pesos.
agents, physical acts, like the signing of Hence, RCPI filed this petition for review
documents, can be performed only by invoking C.A. 146 Sec. 19(a) which limits the
natural persons duly authorized for jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission
thepurpose by corporate by laws or by (precursor of the NTC) to the fixing of rates.
specific acts of the board of directors.
Beingcounsel of record does not vest upon a ISSUE:
lawyer the authority to execute Whether or not Public Service Commission
thecertification on behalf of his (precursor of the NTC) has jurisdiction to
client.PETITION DENIED. impose fines.
HELD: 12. PPA Employees Hired After July 1, 1998
The decision appealed from is reversed and vs. COA
set aside for lack of jurisdiction of the NTC 469 SCRA 397
to render it. NTC has no jurisdiction to
impose a fine. Under Section 21 of C. A. 146, Facts: PPA has been paying its officials and
as amended, the Commission was employees COLA and amelioration allowance
empowered to impose an administrative equivalent to 40% and 10%, respectively, of
fine in cases of violation of or failure by a their basic salary pursuant to various
public service to comply with the terms and legislative and administrative issuances.
conditions of any certificate or any orders, During the last quarter of 1989, the PPA
decisions or regulations of the Commission. discontinued the payment thereof in view of
Petitioner operated under a legislative Corporate Compensation Circular (CCC) No.
franchise, so there were no terms nor 10 prescribing the implementing rules and
conditions of any certificate issued by the regulations of R.A. No. 6758 otherwise
Commission to violate. Neither was there known as the Salary Standardization Law
any order, decision or regulation from the which integrated said allowances into the
Commission applicable to petitioner that the basic salary effective July 1, 1989. However,
latter had allegedly violated, disobeyed, the Supreme Court in the case of Rodolfo de
defied or disregarded. Jesus, et al. vs. COA, G.R. No. 109023 dated
No substantial change has been brought August 12, 1998, declared CCC No. 10 as
about by Executive Order No. 546 invoked ineffective and unenforceable due to non-
by the Solicitor General's Office to bolster publication. Consequently, the PPA Board of
NTC's jurisdiction. The Executive Order is not Directors passed Resolution No. 1856
an explicit grant of power to impose directing the payment of COLA and
administrative fines on public service amelioration backpay to PPA personnel in the
utilities, including telegraphic agencies, service during the period July 1, 1989 to
which have failed to render adequate March 16, 1999, the date of publication of
service to consumers. Neither has it CCC No. 10. “Doubting the validity of said
expanded the coverage of the supervisory Resolution, the PPA Auditor requested the
and regulatory power of the agency. There opinion of the General Counsel on the
appears to be no alternative but to reiterate propriety of the payment of the backpay. In
the settled doctrine in administrative law fully concurring with the recommendation of
that: the then Director, CAO II, the General
Too basic in administrative law to need Counsel ruled that ‘in order for a PPA
citation of jurisprudence is the rule that employee to be entitled to backpay
jurisdiction and powers of administrative representing COLA and amelioration pay
agencies, like respondent Commission, are equivalent to 40% and 10% respectively, of
limited to those expressly granted or their basic salary, the following conditions
necessarily implied from those granted in must concur: (1) he has to be an incumbent
the legislation creating such body; and any as of July 1, 1989; and (2) has been receiving
order without or beyond such jurisdiction is the COLA and amelioration pay as of July 1,
void and ineffective (Globe Wireless case). 1989.’ Aggrieved, PPA sought
reconsideration of the said advisory opinion
which was denied by the General Counsel in
a 1st Endorsement dated September 13, pay corresponding to the said benefits, from
2001, since she found no cogent reason to July 1, 1989 to the new effectivity date of
set aside the earlier opinion. The PPA Auditor DBM-CCC No. 10 -- March 16, 1999. The
accordingly ruled against the grant of the principle of equal protection is not a barren
subject backpay. The COA ruled that “in the concept that may be casually swept aside.
absence of effective integration of the COLA While it does not demand absolute equality,
and amelioration allowance into the basic it requires that all persons similarly situated
salary in 1989, the inevitable conclusion is be treated alike, both as to privileges
that they are deemed not integrated from conferred and liabilities enforced. Verily,
the time RA 6758 was promulgated until equal protection and security shall be
DBM-CCC No. 10 was published in March accorded every person under identical or
1999.” During that period, it thus disallowed analogous circumstances.
the disputed allowances on the ground that
these fell under the second sentence of WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and
Section 12 of RA 6758. It held that only the assailed Decision and Resolution of the
officials hired on or before July 1, 1989 was Commission on Audit ANNULLED and SET
entitled to receive back pay equivalent to the ASIDE. No costs.
additional compensation (COLA and
amelioration allowance) mentioned. 13. PPA Employees Hired After July 1, 1998
vs. COA
Issue: Whether or not herein petitioners who 469 SCRA 397
were hired by the Philippine Ports Authority
on various dates after July 1, 1989 -- are Facts:
entitled to the payment of back pay for cost PPA has been paying its officials and
of living allowance (COLA) and amelioration employees COLA and amelioration allowance
allowance? equivalent to 40% and 10%, respectively, of
their basic salary pursuant to various
Held: Court held that the COLA of legislative and administrative issuances.
government employees from 1989 to 1999 During the last quarter of 1989, the PPA
was not “deemed integrated into their discontinued the payment thereof in view of
salaries.” This means that the COLA during Corporate Compensation Circular (CCC) No.
that period is a legally demandable and 10 prescribing the implementing rules and
enforceable right. Employees of regulations of R.A. No. 6758 otherwise
government-owned and controlled known as the Salary Standardization Law
corporations, whether incumbent or not, are which integrated said allowances into the
entitled to the COLA from 1989 to 1999 as a basic salary effective July 1, 1989. However,
matter of right. Hence, in consonance with the Supreme Court in the case of Rodolfo de
the equal-protection clause of the Jesus, et al. vs. COA, G.R. No. 109023 dated
Constitution, and considering that the August 12, 1998, declared CCC No. 10 as
employees were all similarly situated as to ineffective and unenforceable due to non-
the matter of the COLA and the amelioration publication. Consequently, the PPA Board of
allowance, they should all be treated Directors passed Resolution No. 1856
similarly. All -- not only incumbents as of July directing the payment of COLA and
1, 1989 -- should be allowed to receive back amelioration backpay to PPA personnel in the
service during the period July 1, 1989 to allowance (COLA) and amelioration
March 16, 1999, the date of publication of allowance?
CCC No. 10. “Doubting the validity of said
Resolution, the PPA Auditor requested the Held:
opinion of the General Counsel on the Court held that the COLA of government
propriety of the payment of the backpay. In employees from 1989 to 1999 was not
fully concurring with the recommendation of “deemed integrated into their salaries.” This
the then Director, CAO II, the General means that the COLA during that period is a
Counsel ruled that ‘in order for a PPA legally demandable and enforceable right.
employee to be entitled to backpay Employees of government-owned and
representing COLA and amelioration pay controlled corporations, whether incumbent
equivalent to 40% and 10% respectively, of or not, are entitled to the COLA from 1989 to
their basic salary, the following conditions 1999 as a matter of right. Hence, in
must concur: (1) he has to be an incumbent consonance with the equal-protection clause
as of July 1, 1989; and (2) has been receiving of the Constitution, and considering that the
the COLA and amelioration pay as of July 1, employees were all similarly situated as to
1989.’ Aggrieved, PPA sought the matter of the COLA and the amelioration
reconsideration of the said advisory opinion allowance, they should all be treated
which was denied by the General Counsel in similarly. All -- not only incumbents as of July
a 1st Endorsement dated September 13, 1, 1989 -- should be allowed to receive back
2001, since she found no cogent reason to pay corresponding to the said benefits, from
set aside the earlier opinion. The PPA Auditor July 1, 1989 to the new effectivity date of
accordingly ruled against the grant of the DBM-CCC No. 10 -- March 16, 1999. The
subject backpay. The COA ruled that “in the principle of equal protection is not a barren
absence of effective integration of the COLA concept that may be casually swept aside.
and amelioration allowance into the basic While it does not demand absolute equality,
salary in 1989, the inevitable conclusion is it requires that all persons similarly situated
that they are deemed not integrated from be treated alike, both as to privileges
the time RA 6758 was promulgated until conferred and liabilities enforced. Verily,
DBM-CCC No. 10 was published in March equal protection and security shall be
1999.” During that period, it thus disallowed accorded every person under identical or
the disputed allowances on the ground that analogous circumstances.
these fell under the second sentence of
Section 12 of RA 6758. It held that only WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED and
officials hired on or before July 1, 1989 was the assailed Decision and Resolution of the
entitled to receive back pay equivalent to the Commission on Audit ANNULLED and SET
additional compensation (COLA and ASIDE. No costs.
amelioration allowance) mentioned.
14. Rodolfo S. De Jesus, et al. vs. Commission
Issue: on Audit
Whether or not herein petitioners who were 294 SCRA 152, G.R. No. 149154, June 10,
hired by the Philippine Ports Authority on 2003
various dates after July 1, 1989 -- are entitled Facts: The Board of Directors (BOD) of the
to the payment of back pay for cost of living Catbalogan Water District granted to
themselves RATA, rice allowance, For review under Rule 45 are the March 6,
productivity incentive, anniversary, and year- 2003 Decision1 and June 10, 2003
end bonus and cash gifts, as authorized by Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
Resolution No. 313 of the Local Water CA-G.R. SP No. 68769, which dismissed
Utilities Administration (LWUA). The COA petitioner’s appeal of the July 23, 2001
disallowed and ordered the refund of these Order3 of the Pagadian City Regional Trial
allowances as they are not allowed by P.D. Court (RTC), Branch 21 in Civil Case No.
No. 198, the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 4282-2K, and denied petitioner’s Motion for
1973. Reconsideration, respectively.

Issue: Whether COA is vested with authority On November 13, 2000, respondent
to disallow release of allowance not Victoriano B. Gonzaga filed his Certificate of
authorized by law even if authorized by the Candidacy for membership in the Board of
LWUA. Directors of Zamboanga del Sur II Electric
Cooperative, Inc., District II (ZAMSURECO).
Later that day, the screening committee
Held: Art. IX, Sec. 2 D of the Constitution resolved to disqualify respondent because
mandates the COA to audit all the his spouse was an incumbent member of
government agencies, including the Sangguniang Bayan of Diplahan,
government-owned and controlled Zamboanga del Sur. Based on the Electric
corporations (GOCC) with original charters. Cooperative Election Code (ECEC),
The COA is vested with authority to disallow promulgated by petitioner National
illegal or irregular disbursements of Electrification Administration (NEA), a
government funds. A Water District is a candidate whose spouse occupies an
GOCC with a special charter since it is elective government position higher than
created pursuant to special law, PD 198. The Barangay Captain is prohibited to run as
COA can disallow allowances not authorized director of an electric cooperative.
by law, even if authorized by the LWUA. ZAMSURECO’s by-laws, however, do not
Considering that the disallowed allowances provide for such ground for disqualification.4
were received in good faith, without
knowledge that payment had no legal basis, On November 21, 2000, respondent filed a
the allowances need not to be refunded. Petition for Prohibition and Damages,
docketed as Civil Case No. 4282-2K with the
Pagadian City RTC.

ZAMSURECO filed a Motion to Dismiss and


15. NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION Answer on November 24, 2000, which the
ADMINISTRATION, petitioner, vs. RTC denied. However, it issued a temporary
VICTORIANO B. GONZAGA, respondent. restraining order, ordering ZAMSURECO’s
officials to refrain from conducting the
DECISION election for directorship set on December 2,
2000.
VELASCO, JR., , J.:
The RTC said that the petition was directorship, issued summons to NEA, and
dismissible because of the failure of required NEA to comment if the ECEC was
respondent to exhaust all administrative published in any newspaper of general
remedies, as required by Section 2, 2.C of circulation.7
the ECEC Guidelines on the Conduct of
District Elections for Electric Cooperative. On January 29, 2001, NEA filed a motion for
The section required that "a protest arising extension of time to file an answer, and
from disqualification shall be filed with subsequently on April 10, 2001, a Motion for
the screening committee in not less than Leave to Admit Pleading to which a Motion
FIVE (5) days before the election. The to Dismiss was attached. NEA questioned
screening committee shall decide the the jurisdiction of the RTC and alleged that
protest within FORTY-EIGHT (48) hours from respondent failed to exhaust administrative
receipt thereof. Failure of the applicant to remedies.8
file his/her protest within the above-cited
period shall be deemed a waiver of his right In its July 23, 2001 Order,9 the RTC denied
to protest."5 petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss for being filed
out of time. More importantly, it noted
As observed by the RTC, respondent had NEA’s failure to state whether the ECEC was
urgently filed the petition on November 21, indeed published in a newspaper of general
2000 because the election sought to be circulation as required by the New Civil Code
restrained was going to be held on and the Administrative Code of 1987. The
December 2, 2000 and November 20 was a RTC said the failure rendered the ECEC null
holiday. Under the circumstances, and void. As regards the lack of jurisdiction
respondent had little time to exhaust the and non-exhaustion of administrative
remedy in Sec. 2 of the Guidelines, such that remedies, the RTC noted that NEA
an exception could be made. More erroneously relied on Sec. 59 of Presidential
importantly, according to the RTC, the rule Decree No. (PD) 269 and misapplied the
on exhaustion of administrative remedies cases it cited.
cannot be invoked in the instant case since
the guidelines prescribing the administrative According to the RTC, Sec. 59 of PD 269
remedy is a subject matter of the ECEC, refers to "order, ruling or decision of the
which is at issue, and is exactly what is being NEA" in the exercise of NEA’s quasi-judicial
sought to be invalidated.6 functions. And the RTC noted that Secs. 51
to 58 refer to hearings, investigations, and
On December 12, 2000, respondent filed a procedures. On the other hand, the validity
motion to withdraw the amended petition, of the ECEC, subject of the instant petition,
and to admit a second amended petition was an exercise of NEA’s quasi-legislative
that impleaded NEA as indispensable party. function or rule-making authority.
Respondent also averred that the ECEC was
null and void because it had not been Further, according to the RTC, NEA took Sec.
published. On December 20, 2000, the RTC 58 of PD 269 out of context when it said Sec.
admitted the second amended petition, 58 dealt with the administrative remedy
issued a writ of preliminary injunction to available to petitioner. It said that Sec. 58
prevent the conduct of election for presupposed a ruling or decision of the NEA
and there was none in the case before it. SEC. 59. Court Review.—The
The RTC ruled in favor of Gonzaga, and Supreme Court is hereby given
ordered ZAMSURECO to accept Gonzaga’s jurisdiction to review any order,
certificate of candidacy for director.10 The ruling or decision of the NEA and to
RTC denied NEA’s motion for modify or set aside such order, ruling
reconsideration. or decision when it clearly appears
that there is no evidence before the
The CA Ruled that the Courts Have NEA to support reasonably such
Jurisdiction Over order, ruling or decision, or that the
Issues on Legality of Codes same is contrary to law, or that it
was without the jurisdiction of the
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA. NEA. The evidence presented to the
The CA denied due course and dismissed the NEA, together with the record of the
petition. It said that NEA was not exercising proceedings before the NEA, shall be
its quasi-judicial powers but its rule-making certified by the NEA to the Supreme
authority. In the case before the trial court, Court. Any order, ruling or decision
the CA stressed that the issue involved the of the NEA may likewise be reviewed
interpretation of the ECEC, and to this by the Supreme Court upon writ of
extent, NEA had no jurisdiction because the certiorari in proper case. The
issue is within the province of the courts. procedure for review, except as
herein provided, shall be presented
The CA denied petitioner’s Motion for by rules of the Supreme Court. Any
Reconsideration in its June 10, 2003 order or decision of the NEA may be
Resolution. Hence, we have this petition. reviewed on the application of any
person or public service entity
The Issues aggrieved thereby and who was a
party in the subject proceeding, by
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF certiorari in appropriate cases or by
APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING a petition for review, which shall be
SECTION 59 OF P.D. 269 filed within thirty (30) days from the
notification of the NEA order,
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF decision or ruling on reconsideration.
APPEALS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE Said petition shall be placed on file in
TRIAL COURT’S NULLIFICATION OF the office of the Clerk for the
THE ECEC Supreme Court who shall furnish
copies thereof to the NEA and other
Issues Involving NEA’s Rule-Making Authority interested parties.
Are Cognizable by Regular Courts
Petitioner argues that based on the
The petition has no merit. foregoing provision, only the Supreme Court
has the authority to review the "acts" of NEA
Sec. 59 of PD 269 provides: as an administrative body with adjudicative
and rule-making power. It cited NEA v.
Mendoza, using the Court’s pronouncement it offered no proof of publication in
that: the Official Gazette nor in a newspaper of
general circulation. Without compliance
[T]he power of judicial review of with the requirement of publication, the
NEA’s order or decision pertains to rules and regulations contained in the ECEC
the Supreme Court as decreed in cannot be enforced and implemented.
Section 59 of P.D. 269 which vests
specifically on the Supreme Court the Article 2 of the New Civil Code provides that
jurisdiction to review any order, laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days
ruling or decision of the NEA and to following the completion of their publication
modify or set aside such orders, in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
rulings or decisions.11 general circulation in the Philippines, unless
it is otherwise provided.
It is obvious that Sec. 59 of PD 269 refers to
"order, ruling or decision" of NEA. What is Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known
being challenged in this case is the decision as the Administrative Code of 1987,
of the screening committee of ZAMSURECO reinforced the requirement of publication
to disqualify respondent. Likewise assailed is and outlined the procedure, as follows:
the validity of the ECEC, particularly,
whether the requirement of publication was Sec. 3. Filing. (1) Every Agency shall
complied with. The ECEC was issued by NEA file with the University of the
pursuant to its rule-making authority, not its Philippines Law Center three (3)
quasi-judicial function. Hence, the issue Certified copies of every rule
regarding the controversy over respondent’s adopted by it. Rules in force on the
disqualification and the question on the date of effectivity of this Code which
ECEC’s validity are within the inherent are not filed within three (3) months
jurisdiction of regular courts to review. from that date shall not thereafter
Petitioner’s reliance on NEA is misplaced. be the basis of any sanction against
The subject in that case was the electricity any party or persons.
rates charged by a cooperative, a matter
which is clearly within NEA’s jurisdiction. The (2) The Records Officer of the
issue in the present petition, however, agency, or his equivalent
centers on the validity of NEA’s rules in light functionary, shall carry out the
of the publication requirements of the requirements of this section under
Administrative Code and New Civil Code. pain of disciplinary action.
The present issue is cognizable by regular
courts. (3) A permanent register of all rules
shall be kept by the issuing agency
With regard to the second issue, we find no and shall be open to public
error in the appellate and trial courts’ inspection.
nullification of the ECEC. The CA correctly
observed that while ZAMSURECO complied Sec. 4. Effectivity – In addition to
with the requirements of filing the code with other rule-making requirements
the University of the Philippines Law Center, provided by law not inconsistent
with this Book, each rule shall public, need not be published.
become effective fifteen (15) days Neither is publication required of the
from the date of filing as above so-called letters of instructions
provided unless a different date is issued by administrative superiors
fixed by law, or specified in this rule. concerning the rules or guidelines to
be followed by their subordinates in
Sec. 18. When Laws Take Effect – the performance of their duties.
Laws shall take effect after Fifteen (Emphasis supplied.) 12
(15) days following the completion of
their publication in the Official The aforequoted ruling was reiterated
Gazette or in a newspaper of general in Dadole v. Commission on Audit,13 De Jesus
circulation, unless it is otherwise v. Commission on Audit,14 andPhilippine
provided. International Trading Corporation v.
Commission on Audit.15
We have already emphasized and clarified
the requirement of publication in this In the case at bar, the ECEC was issued by
Court’s Resolution in Tañada v. Tuvera: petitioner pursuant to its rule-making
authority provided in PD 269, as amended,
We hold therefore that all statutes, particularly Sec. 24:
including those of local application
and private laws, shall be published Section 24. Board of Directors. — (a)
as a condition for their effectivity The Management of a Cooperative
which shall begin fifteen (15) days shall be vested in its Board, subject
after publication unless a different to the supervision and control of
effectivity date is fixed by the NEA which shall have the right to be
legislature. represented and to participate in all
Board meetings and deliberations
Covered by this rule are presidential and to approve all policies and
decrees and executive orders resolutions.
promulgated by the President in the
exercise of legislative powers The composition, qualifications, the
whenever the same are validly manner of elections and filling of
delegated by the legislature or, at vacancies, the procedures for
present, directly conferred by the holding meetings and other similar
Constitution. Administrative rules provisions shall be defined in the By-
and regulations must also be laws of the Cooperative subject to
published if their purpose is to NEA policies, rules and regulations x
enforce or implement existing law x x.
pursuant also to a valid delegation.
The ECEC applies to all electric cooperatives
Interpretative regulations and those in the country. It is not a mere internal
merely internal in nature, that is, memorandum, interpretative regulation, or
regulating only the personnel of the instruction to subordinates. Thus, the ECEC
administrative agency and not the should comply with the requirements of the
Civil Code and the Administrative Code of As stated above, a requirement under Rule
1987. In previous cases involving the 63 is that the petition for declaratory relief
election of directors for electric must be filed "before any breach or
cooperatives, the validity of the ECEC was violation" the questioned document may
not put in issue. The ECEC then enjoyed the cause. In the instant case, it cannot be
presumption of validity. In this case, gainsaid that a breach has not yet occurred
however, respondent directly questioned since an actual dispute has already arisen
the validity of the ECEC in his second between ZAMSURECO and respondent––the
amended petition. The trial court thus screening committee of the cooperative on
required petitioner to show proof of the erroneous implementation of a code
publication of the ECEC. Petitioner could whose legality and implementation is being
have easily provided such proof had the questioned.
ECEC actually been published in the Official
Gazette or newspaper of general circulation On the other hand, it is familiar and
in the country. This simple proof could have fundamental doctrine that a writ of
immediately laid this case to rest. prohibition or mandamus may issue when "x
Petitioner’s failure to do so only implies that x x a board unlawfully excludes another
the ECEC was not published accordingly, a from x x x enjoyment of a right or office to
fact supported by the certification from the which such other is entitled x x x."16
National Printing Office.
Considering that the screening committee of
Lastly, petitioner avers that a petition for the board has excluded respondent from
mandamus and prohibition should not have being elected as board member of
been resorted to by respondent. The proper ZAMSURECO because of the latter’s
recourse, according to petitioner, is a improper implementation of the code, a
petition for declaratory relief. Petitioner petition for mandamus and prohibition is
miserably errs on this point. Rule 63 on the proper recourse.
declaratory relief states:
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition,
Section 1. Who may file petition.— and AFFIRM IN TOTO the March 6, 2003
Any person interested under a deed, Decision and June 10, 2003 Resolution in
will, contract or other written CA-G.R. SP No. 68769. Costs against
instrument, or whose rights are petitioner.
affected by a statute, executive
order or regulation, ordinance, or 16. Taxicab Operators vs. The Board of
any other governmental regulation Transportation
may, before breach or violation GR L-59234, 30 September 1982 En Banc,
thereof, bring an action in the Melencio-Herrera (J): 12 concur, 2 concur in
appropriate Regional Trial Court to the result
determine any question of FACTS:
construction or validity arising, and To insure that only safe and comfortable
for a declaration of his rights or units are used as public conveyances and in
duties thereunder. order that the commuting public may be
assured of comfort, convenience, and
safety, the Board of Transportation (BOT) speak of the fact that it can open the door
issued Memorandum Circular phasing out to the adoption of multiple standards,
the old and dilapidated taxis. Pursuant to OT possible collusion, and even graft and
circular, respondent Director of the Bureau corruption. A reasonable standard must be
of Land Transportation (BLT) issued adopted to apply to an vehicles affected
Implementing Circular formulating a uniformly, fairly, and justly. The span of six
schedule of phase-out of vehicles to be years supplies that reasonable standard. The
allowed andaccepted for registration as product of experience shows that by that
public conveyances. The Taxicab Operators time taxis have fully depreciated, their cost
of Metro Manila, Inc., Felicisimo Cabigao recovered, and a fair return on investment
and Ace Transportation filed a petition for obtained. They are also generally dilapidated
"Certiorari, Prohibition and mandamus with and no longer fit for safe and comfortable
Preliminary Injunction and service to the public especially considering
TemporaryRestraining Order", to declare the that they are in continuous operation
nullity of Memorandum Circular of the BOT practically 24 hours every day in three shifts
and Memorandum Circular of the BLT. of eight hours per shift. With that standard
ISSUES: of reasonableness and absence of
Whether or not the implementation and arbitrariness, the requirement of due
enforcement of the assailed memorandum process has been met. On Equal Protection
circulars violate the petitioners' of the Law: The law being enforced in Metro
constitutional rights to (1) Equal protection Manila only and was directed solely towards
of the law; (2) Substantive due process; and the taxi industry does not violate their right
(3) Protection against arbitrary and to equal protection of the law for the traffic
unreasonable classification and standard. conditions are not the same in every city, a
HELD: substantial distinction exists so that
On Procedural and Substantive Due Process: infringement of the equal protection clause
Petitioners cannot justifiably claim that they can hardly be successfully claimed. The
were deprived of procedural due process. State, in the exercise, of its police power,
Neither can they state with certainty that can prescribe regulations to promote the
public respondents had not availed of other health, morals, peace, good order, safety
sources of inquiry prior to issuing the and general welfare of the people. It can
challenged Circulars for the Board gave a prohibit all things hurtful to comfort, safety
wide range of choice in gathering necessary and welfare of society. It may also regulate
information or data in the formulation of property rights. In the language of Chief
any policy, plan or program. It is not Justice Enrique M. Fernando "the necessities
mandatory that it should first call a imposed by public welfare may justify the
conference or require the submission of exercise of governmental authority to
position papers or other documents from regulate even if thereby certain groups may
operators or persons who may be affected, plausibly assert that their interests are
this being only one of the options open to disregarded". In so far as the non-
the Board, which is given wide discretionary application of the assailed Circulars to other
authority. Furthermore, as public contend it transportation services is concerned, it need
is impractical to subject every taxicab to only be recalled that the equal protection
constant and recurring evaluation, not to clause does not imply that the same
treatment be accorded all and sundry. It The facts are as follows:
applies to things or persons identically or
similarly situated. It permits of classification Petitioner Macario U. Catipon, Jr. is the
of the object or subject of the law provided holder of a Bachelor's Degree in Commerce
classification is reasonable or based on from the Baguio Colleges Foundation. When
substantial distinction, which make for real applying for graduation, he was allowed to
differences, and that it must apply equally to join the graduation ceremonies despite a
each member of the class. What is required deficiency of 1.5 units in Military Science,
under the equal protection clause is the pursuant to a school policy allowing
uniform operation by legal means so that all students with deficiencies of not more than
persons under identical or similar 12 units to be included in the list of
circumstance would be accorded the same graduates. However, a restriction came
treatment both in privilege conferred and after, which is, that the deficiency must be
the liabilities imposed. The challenged cured before the student can be considered
Circulars satisfy the foregoing criteria. a graduate.
Evident then is the conclusion that the
questioned Circulars do not suffer from any In 1985, petitioner found employment with
constitutional infirmity. To declare a law the Social Security System (SSS) in Bangued,
unconstitutional, the infringement of Abra. Sometime in September 1993, the
constitutional right must be clear, personnel head of the SSS in Bangued, Abra
categorical and undeniable. Hence, the informed petitioner that the Civil Service
Writs prayed for are denied and was Commission was conducting a Career
dismissed. Service Professional Examination (CSPE) in
October of the same year. Petitioner filed an
application to take the examination,
17. MACARIO CATIPON, JR., Petitioner, believing that the CSC still allowed CSPE
vs. applicants to substitute the length of their
JEROME JAPSON, Respondent. government service for any academic
deficiency which they may have. However,
DECISION the above-mentioned policy of the CSC had
been discontinued since January 1993
DEL CASTILLO, J.: pursuant to Civil Service Commission
Memorandum Circular No. 42, Series of
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks 1991 and Office Memo. No. 63, Series of
to set aside the December 11, 2009 1992.
Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. SP No. 94426 affirming the July 6, 2005 Nevertheless, petitioner took the CSPE tests
Decision3 of the Civil Service Commission- on October 17, 1993 and obtained a rating
Cordillera Administrative Region (CSC-CAR) of 80.52%. Eventually, petitioner was
in CAR-05-034DC, as well as its March 17, promoted to Senior Analyst and Officer-in-
2010 Resolution4 denying petitioner's Charge Branch Head of the SSS at Bangued,
Motion for Reconsideration.5 Abra. In October 1995, he finally eliminated
his deficiency of 1.5 units in Military Science.
Factual Antecedents
On March 10, 2003, respondent Jerome particular offense for which Catipon may be
Japson, a former Senior Member Services held responsible. Respondent Catipon is
Representative of SSS Bangued, filed a charged (with) four offenses: Dishonesty,
letter-complaint with the Civil Service Falsification of Official Documents, Grave
Commission-CAR Regional Director, alleging Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the
that petitioner made deliberate false entries Best Interest of the Service.
in his CSPE application, specifically, that he
obtained his college degree in 1993 when The key document allegedly falsified in this
actually he graduated in 1995 only, after case is the Application Form x x x of
removing his deficiency of 1.5 units in respondent Catipon for the purpose of
Military Education. Also, that petitioner was taking the CS Professional Examination
not qualified to take the CSPE examination scheduled on October 17, 1993. Close and
in 1993 since he was not yet then a careful perusal of the said application form
graduate of a four-year college course, reveals that most of the entries filled up by
contrary to the entry in his application form. respondent are typewritten. The only
entries handwritten by respondent are
After preliminary investigation, petitioner those corresponding to "Year Graduated"
was charged with Dishonesty, Falsification of and "School Where Graduated" which were
Official documents, Grave Misconduct and answered by Macario with "1984" and "BCF"
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of respectively. Another handwritten entry is
the Service by the CSC-CAR.6 with respect to "Degree Finished", the
handwritten "BSC" entry, however, was just
Respondent’s Letter-Complaint7 against superimposed on the typewritten
petitioner was docketed as CSC Disciplinary "Commerce".
Administrative Case No. BB-03-006.
The fact that majority of the entries or data
In his Answer,8 petitioner essentially in the application form is typewritten
pleaded good faith, lack of malice, and suggests that the said application form was
honest mistake. He maintained that at the consciously drafted and meticulously
time of his application to take the CSPE, he prepared before its actual submission to the
was of the honest belief that the policy of CSC for processing. They are relevant and
the CSC – that any deficiency in the material entries or data sought from
applicant’s educational requirement may be respondent. It is worth emphasizing
substituted by his length of service – was however that the pre-drafted application
still subsisting. form, considering the typewritten entries,
shows respondent’s confusion on how to
On July 6, 2005, the CSC-CAR, through make entries thereat. Respondent answered
Director IV Atty. Lorenzo S. Danipog, both the IF YES column and IF NO column
rendered a Decision9 containing the corresponding to the question "Are you a
following pronouncements: college graduate" in Item 8. x x x

Clearly, respondent Catipon is not without xxxx


any fault under the foregoing circumstances.
The only issue now left is with respect to the
The manner that Item 8 was filled up by Provided that when an applica[nt] for
respondent Catipon shows lack of deliberate examination is found to have x x x
intent to defraud the government. He intentionally made any false statement of
manifested in his application his uncertainty any material fact in his application, x x x the
on how to take the fact that he only lacks Commission shall invalidate such
1.5 units Military Science to be conferred a examination x x x.
graduate status, vis-à-vis the CSC policy on
educational requirement. Though the entry With the foregoing, respondent Macario U.
"undergrad" was erased, the CSC employee Catipon, Jr., Senior Analyst and OIC Branch
who processed the application would have Head, Social Security System, Bangued,
doubted the truthfulness and authenticity of Abra, is hereby exonerated of the charges
respondent’s entries in Item 8 of the Dishonesty, Falsification of Official
Application Form, and thus the educational Documents and Grave Misconduct.
status of Macario. x x x However, respondent is found guilty of
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
xxxx the Service.

Catipon had tried to show the real state of Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative
the matter regarding his educational Cases in the Civil Service, the imposable
attainment as can be deduced from the penalty on the first offense of Conduct
manner he answered Item No. 8 in the Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service
application form. This may be taken as good is suspension of six months and one day to
faith, which will serve to mitigate any one year.
liability incurred by respondent Catipon. The
premeditated intent to deceive or willfully Under Section 53 of the same Rules, good
distort the facts in this case is not present. faith is enumerated as one mitigating
The acts of Catipon do not even show circumstance. Thus, respondent Macario
blatant disregard of an established rule or a Catipon, Jr. is hereby meted a penalty of six
clear intent to violate the law if at all, there months and one day suspension, without
was attempt to reveal the truth to the pay, which is the minimum period of the
examination division processing the penalty attached to the offense committed.
application. The Career Service Professional eligibility of
respondent is also ordered revoked, without
xxxx prejudice however to retaking of the said
examination. Thus, Catipon, after serving
With [regard] to the eligibility earned by suspension herein provided should not be
respondent Macario in view of his passing allowed to go back to his current position
the October 17, 1993 Career Service without CS Professional eligibility.
Professional Examination, the same needs to Consequently, in case respondent Catipon
be revoked being the fruit of a poisonous fails to retake or pass CSPE, after serving his
tree, so to speak. Paragraph 2 of Sec. 6, Rule suspension, he may be demoted to any
II, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of available position that fits his
Executive Order No. 292 states: subprofessional eligibility.10
Petitioner moved for reconsideration,11 but In a Petition for Review docketed with the
the CSC-CAR sustained its judgment in a CA as CA-G.R. SP No. 94426, petitioner
March 23, 2006 Decision,12which contained prayed for injunctive relief and the reversal
the following pronouncement: of the above CSC-CAR decision. He argued
that the CSC-CAR incorrectly found him
Catipon also asserted that in view of his guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best
exoneration of Dishonesty, Falsification of interest of the service when he has been
Official Documents and Grave Misconduct, declared innocent of the charges of
there is no longer any basis to hold dishonesty, falsification of official
respondent guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to documents, and grave misconduct; that
the Best Interest of the Service. This while the Supreme Court has held that
contention is without legal basis. In the case making false entries in public documents
of Philippine Retirement Authority vs. Rupa may be considered as conduct prejudicial to
363 SCRA 480, the Honorable Supreme the best interest of the service, such act
Court held as follows: must be accompanied by deliberate intent
or a willful desire to defy or disregard
Under the Civil Service laws and rules, there established rules or norms in the
is no description of what specific acts service;14 and that with the finding that he
constitute the grave offense of Conduct merely committed an innocent mistake in
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the filling up the application form for the CSPE,
Service. he may not be found guilty of conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the
As alluded to previously in Decision No. CAR- service.
05-034DC, Catipon is not without fault
under the circumstances. To completely On December 11, 2009, the CA rendered the
exonerate respondent would be inequitable assailed Decision denying the petition,
and iniquitous considering the totality of decreeing thus:
events surrounding this case. Though there
was no deliberate intent to falsify or to WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
make dishonest entry in the Application instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Form as deduced from the manner that the The Decision [sic] of the Civil Service
said form was accomplished, the fact that Commission-Cordillera Administrative
there was indeed such dishonest or false Region dated July 6, 2005 and March 23,
entry in the CSPE Application Form is 2006 is [sic] AFFIRMED.
undisputedly established. In view of such an
established fact, the integrity of the Civil SO ORDERED.15
Service Examination, particularly the CSPE
has been blemished which is sufficient to The CA held that instead of filing a petition
constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the for review directly with it, petitioner should
Interest of the Service.13 have interposed an appeal with the Civil
Service Commission (CSC), pursuant to
Ruling of the Court of Appeals Sections 5(A)(1),43 and 49 of the CSC
Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases;16 that by filing a petition directly with
it, petitioner violated the doctrine of (C)
exhaustion of administrative remedies; that
petitioner’s case is not exceptional as would THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND
exempt it from the application of the GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT
doctrine; that per the ruling in Bayaca v. FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE PETITIONER
Judge Ramos,17 the absence of deliberate ACTED IN GOOD FAITH AND THIS NEGATES
intent or willful desire to defy or disregard GUILT FOR CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE
established rules or norms in the service BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE.18
does not preclude a finding of guilt for
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of Petitioner’s Arguments
the service; and that petitioner did not act
with prudence and care, but instead was In his Petition and Reply19 seeking a reversal
negligent, in the filling up of his CSPE of the assailed CA dispositions and,
application form and in failing to verify consequently, exoneration from the charge
beforehand the requirements for the of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
examination. the service, petitioner argues that he was
constrained to file the petition for review
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but with the CA as his decreed six-month
the CA stood its ground. Hence, the instant suspension was imminent as a consequence
recourse. Issues of the executory nature of the CSC-CAR
decision; that immediate judicial
Petitioner raises the following issues for intervention was necessary to "prevent
resolution: serious injury and damage" to him, which is
why his CA petition included a prayer for
(A) injunctive relief; that the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND should not have been applied strictly in his
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT case, given the special circumstance that his
FAILED TO REALIZE THAT GIVEN THE suspension would mean loss of his only
IMMEDIATE EFFECT OF THE SUSPENSION source of income;20 that he should be
IMPOSED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE completely exonerated from the charges
COMMISSION-CORDILLERA against him, since conduct prejudicial to the
ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AGAINST THE best interest of the service must be
PETITIONER, HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN SEEKING accompanied by deliberate intent or a willful
JUDICIAL RECOURSE BEFORE (THE COURT desire to defy or disregard established rules
OF APPEALS); or norms in the service – which is absent in
his case; and that his career service
(B) professional eligibility should not be revoked
in the interest of justice and in the spirit of
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND the policy which promotes and preserves
GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT civil service eligibility.
MISAPPLIEDIN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED CASE
THE RULE ON PRIOR EXHAUSTION OF Respondent’s Arguments
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES;
In his Comment21 seeking denial of the Section 2. (1) The civil service embraces all
petition, respondent counters that branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities
completion of all the academic and agencies of the Government, including
requirements – and not merely attendance government-owned or controlled
at graduation rites – confers the necessary corporations with original charters.
degree which qualifies a student to take the
CSPE; that petitioner’s claim that he is a Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as
graduate as of 1984 is belied by his the central personnel agency of the
Transcript of Records22 and other pieces of Government, shall establish a career service
evidence submitted, which reflect the date and adopt measures to promote morale,
of his graduation as October 1995 – or after efficiency, integrity, responsiveness,
completion of his 1.5-unit deficiency in progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil
Military Science; that petitioner cannot service. It shall strengthen the merit and
claim to suffer irreparable injury or damage rewards system, integrate all human
as a result of the CSC-CAR’s Decision, which resources development programs for all
is valid and binding; that the revocation of levels and ranks, and institutionalize a
petitioner’s eligibility is only proper, since he management climate conducive to public
was then not qualified when he took the accountability. It shall submit to the
CSPE; that the CSC-CAR was correct in President and the Congress an annual report
finding that petitioner’s act compromised on its personnel programs.
the image and integrity of the civil service,
which justified the imposition of a Thus, "the CSC, as the central personnel
corresponding penalty; that this Court in the agency of the Government, has jurisdiction
Rupa case made it clear that the act of over disputes involving the removal and
making false entries in public documents separation of all employees of government
constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities
interest of the service, a grave offense and agencies, including government-owned
punishable by suspension for six months and or controlled corporations with original
one day to one year for the first offense, and charters. Simply put, it is the sole arbiter of
dismissal for the second offense; and that controversies relating to the civil service."23
indeed, petitioner violated the doctrines of
primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of In line with the above provisions of the
administrative remedies when he proceeded Constitution and its mandate as the central
directly to the CA, instead of filing an appeal personnel agency of government and sole
with the CSC. arbiter of controversies relating to the civil
service, the CSC adopted Memorandum
Our Ruling Circular No. 19, series of 1999 (MC 19), or
the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative
The Court denies the Petition. Cases in the Civil Service, which the CA cited
as the basis for its pronouncement. Section
Our fundamental law, particularly Sections 2 4 thereof provides:
(1) and 3 of Article IX-B, state that –
Section 4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Service
Commission. — The Civil Service
Commission shall hear and decide Thus, we agree with the CA’s conclusion that
administrative cases instituted by, or in filing his petition for review directly with it
brought before it, directly or on appeal, from the CSC-CAR Regional Director,
including contested appointments, and shall petitioner failed to observe the principle of
review decisions and actions of its offices exhaustion of administrative remedies. As
and of the agencies attached to it. correctly stated by the appellate court, non-
exhaustion of administrative remedies
Except as otherwise provided by the renders petitioner’s CA petition premature
Constitution or by law, the Civil Service and thus dismissible.
Commission shall have the final authority to
pass upon the removal, separation and The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
suspension of all officers and employees in remedies requires that "before a party is
the civil service and upon all matters relating allowed to seek the intervention of the
to the conduct, discipline and efficiency of court, he or she should have availed himself
such officers and employees. or herself of all the means of administrative
processes afforded him or her. Hence, if
As pointed out by the CA, pursuant to resort to a remedy within the administrative
Section 5(A)(1) of MC 19, the Civil Service machinery can still be made by giving the
Commission Proper, or Commission Proper, administrative officer concerned every
shall have jurisdiction over decisions of Civil opportunity to decide on a matter that
Service Regional Offices brought before it on comes within his or her jurisdiction, then
petition for review. And under Section 43, such remedy should be exhausted first
"decisions of heads of departments, before the court's judicial power can be
agencies, provinces, cities, municipalities sought.1âwphi1 The premature invocation
and other instrumentalities imposing a of the intervention of the court is fatal to
penalty exceeding thirty days suspension or one’s cause of action. The doctrine of
fine in an amount exceeding thirty days exhaustion of administrative remedies is
salary, may be appealed to the Commission based on practical and legal reasons. The
Proper within a period of fifteen days from availment of administrative remedy entails
receipt thereof."24 "Commission Proper" lesser expenses and provides for a speedier
refers to the Civil Service Commission- disposition of controversies. Furthermore,
Central Office.25 the courts of justice, for reasons of comity
and convenience, will shy away from a
It is only the decision of the Commission dispute until the system of administrative
Proper that may be brought to the CA on redress has been completed and complied
petition for review, under Section 50 of MC with, so as to give the administrative agency
19, which provides thus: concerned every opportunity to correct its
error and dispose of the case."27 Indeed, the
Section 50. Petition for Review with the administrative agency concerned – in this
Court of Appeals. – A party may elevate a case the Commission Proper – is in the "best
decision of the Commission before the Court position to correct any previous error
of Appeals by way of a petition for review committed in its forum."28
under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of
Court.26
The CA is further justified in refusing to take that the issuance of the warrant was a
cognizance of the petition for review, as mistake, done in good faith and that it has
"[t]he doctrine of primary jurisdiction does been a practice in his office for the Clerk of
not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself Court to study motions and that he would
the authority to resolve a controversy the simply sign the prepared order. The
jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with Supreme Court rejected his defense and
an administrative body of special stated that negligence is the failure to
competence."29 When petitioner’s recourse observe such care as a reasonably prudent
lies in an appeal to the Commission Proper and careful person would use under
in accordance with the procedure ordinary circumstances. An act of the will is
prescribed in MC 19, the CA may not be necessary for deliberate intent to exist; such
faulted for refusing to acknowledge is not necessary in an act of negligence.
petitioner before it.
Here, petitioner failed to verify the
We likewise affirm the CA’s pronouncement requirements before filing his application to
that petitioner was negligent in filling up his take the CSPE exam. He simply relied on his
CSPE application form and in failing to verify prior knowledge of the rules, particularly,
beforehand the specific requirements for that he could substitute his deficiency in
the CSPE examination. Petitioner’s claim of Military Science with the length of his
good faith and absence of deliberate intent government service. He cannot lay blame on
or willful desire to defy or disregard the the personnel head of the SSS-Bangued,
rules relative to the CSPE is not a defense as Abra, who allegedly did not inform him of
to exonerate him from the charge of the pertinent rules contained in Civil Service
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of Memorandum Circular No. 42, Series of
the service; under our legal system, 1991. For, [if] he were truly a reasonably
ignorance of the law excuses no one from prudent and careful person, petitioner
compliance therewith.30 Moreover, himself should have verified from the CSC
petitioner – as mere applicant for the requirements imposed on prospective
acceptance into the professional service examinees. In so doing, he would certainly
through the CSPE – cannot expect to be have been informed of the new CSC policy
served on a silver platter; the obligation to disallowing substitution of one’s length of
know what is required for the examination government service for academic
falls on him, and not the CSC or his deficiencies. Neither should petitioner have
colleagues in office. As aptly ruled by the relied on an unnamed Civil Service
appellate court: employee’s advice since it was not shown
that the latter was authorized to give
In Bacaya31 v. Ramos, the Supreme Court information regarding the examination nor
found respondent judge guilty of both that said employee was competent and
negligence and conduct prejudicial to the capable of giving correct information. His
best interest of the service when he issued failure to verify the actual CSPE
an arrest warrant despite the deletion of the requirements which a reasonably prudent
penalty of imprisonment imposed on an and careful person would have done
accused in a particular criminal case. constitutes negligence. Though his failure
Respondent judge in the said case claimed was not a deliberate act of the will, such is
not necessary in an act of negligence and, as the Code of Ethics for Professional
in Bacaya, negligence is not inconsistent Teachers.35 In petitioner’s case, his act of
with a finding of guilt for conduct prejudicial making false entries in his CSPE application
to the best interest of the service.32 undoubtedly constitutes conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service; the
The corresponding penalty for conduct absence of a willful or deliberate intent to
prejudicial to the best interest of the service falsify or make dishonest entries in his
may be imposed upon an erring public application is immaterial, for conduct grossly
officer as long as the questioned act or prejudicial to the best interest of the service
conduct taints the image and integrity of the "may or may not be characterized by
office; and the act need not be related to or corruption or a willful intent to violate the
connected with the public officer’s official law or to disregard established rules."36
functions. Under our civil service laws, there
is no concrete description of what specific Finally, the Court cannot consider
acts constitute conduct prejudicial to the petitioner's plea that "in the interest of
best interest of the service, but the justice and in the spirit of the policy which
following acts or omissions have been promotes and preserves civil service
treated as such: misappropriation of public eligibility," his career service professional
funds; abandonment of office; failure to eligibility should not be revoked. The act of
report back to work without prior notice; using a fake or spurious civil service
failure to safe keep public records and eligibility for one's benefit not only amounts
property; making false entries in public to violation of the civil service examinations
documents; falsification of court orders; a or CSPE; it also results in prejudice to the
judge’s act of brandishing a gun, and government and the public in general. It is a
threatening the complainants during a transgression of the law which has no place
traffic altercation; a court interpreter’s in the public service.37 "Assumption of public
participation in the execution of a document office is impressed with the paramount
conveying complainant’s property which public interest that requires the highest
resulted in a quarrel in the latter’s family; standards of ethical conduct. A person
selling fake Unified Vehicular Volume aspiring for public office must observe
Program exemption cards to his officemates honesty, candor, and faithful compliance
during office hours; a CA employee’s forging with the law. Nothing less is expected."38
of receipts to avoid her private contractual
obligations; a Government Service Insurance WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The
System (GSIS) employee’s act of repeatedly December 11, 2009 Decision and March 17,
changing his IP address, which caused 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
network problems within his office and CA-G.R. SP No. 94426 are AFFIRMED.
allowed him to gain access to the entire GSIS
network, thus putting the system in a SO ORDERED.
vulnerable state of security;33 a public
prosecutor’s act of signing a motion to
dismiss that was not prepared by him, but
by a judge;34 and a teacher’s act of directly
selling a book to her students in violation of
18. G.R. No. 208566 November 19, 2013 petitions were lodged before the Court
BELGICA vs. HONORABLE EXECUTIVE similarly seeking that the "Pork Barrel
SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR, et al, System" be declared unconstitutional
Respondents
G.R. No. 208566 November 19, 2013 G.R. No. 208493 – SJS filed a Petition for
GRECO ANTONIOUS BEDA B. BELGICA JOSE Prohibition seeking that the "Pork Barrel
M. VILLEGAS JR. JOSE L. GONZALEZ REUBEN System" be declared unconstitutional, and a
M. ABANTE and QUINTIN PAREDES SAN writ of prohibition be issued permanently
DIEGO, Petitioners, G.R. No. 208566 - Belgica, et al filed an
vs. Urgent Petition For Certiorari and
HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Prohibition With Prayer For The Immediate
PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR, et al, Respondents Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction
seeking that the annual "Pork Barrel
NATURE: System," presently embodied in the
These are consolidated petitions taken provisions of the GAA of 2013 which
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, all of provided for the 2013 PDAF, and the
which assail the constitutionality of the Pork Executive‘s lump-sum, discretionary funds,
Barrel System. such as the Malampaya Funds and the
Presidential Social Fund, be declared
FACTS: unconstitutional and null and void for being
The NBI Investigation was spawned by acts constituting grave abuse of
sworn affidavits of six (6) whistle-blowers discretion. Also, they pray that the Court
who declared that JLN Corporation (Janet issue a TRO against respondents
Lim Napoles) had swindled billions of pesos UDK-14951 – A Petition filed seeking that
from the public coffers for "ghost projects" the PDAF be declared unconstitutional, and
using dummy NGOs. Thus, Criminal a cease and desist order be issued
complaints were filed before the Office of restraining President Benigno Simeon S.
the Ombudsman, charging five (5) Aquino III (President Aquino) and Secretary
lawmakers for Plunder, and three (3) other Abad from releasing such funds to Members
lawmakers for Malversation, Direct Bribery, of Congress
and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt ISSUES:
Practices Act. Also recommended to be 1. Whether or not the 2013 PDAF Article and
charged in the complaints are some of the all other Congressional Pork Barrel Laws
lawmakers’ chiefs -of-staff or similar thereto are unconstitutional
representatives, the heads and other considering that they violate the principles
officials of three (3) implementing agencies, of/constitutional provisions on (a)
and the several presidents of the NGOs set separation of powers; (b) non-delegability of
up by Napoles. legislative power; (c) checks and balances;
Whistle-blowers alleged that" at least P900 (d) accountability; (e) political dynasties; and
Million from royalties in the operation of the (f) local autonomy.
Malampaya gas project off Palawan province 2. Whether or not the phrases (under
intended for agrarian reform beneficiaries Section 8 of PD 910,116 relating to the
has gone into a dummy NGO. Several Malampaya Funds, and under Section 12 of
PD 1869, as amended by PD 1993, relating Section 12 of PD 1869, as amended by PD
to the Presidential Social Fund, are 1993- the phrases:
unconstitutional insofar as they constitute
undue delegations of legislative power. (b) "to finance the priority infrastructure
HELD: development projects” was declared
1. Yes, the PDAF article is unconstitutional. constitutional. IT INDICATED PURPOSE
The post-enactment measures which govern ADEQUATELY CURTAILS THE AUTHORITY OF
the areas of project identification, fund THE PRESIDENT TO SPEND THE
release and fund realignment are not PRESIDENTIAL SOCIAL FUND ONLY FOR
related to functions of congressional RESTORATION PURPOSES WHICH ARISE
oversight and, hence, allow legislators to FROM CALAMITIES.
intervene and/or assume duties that
properly belong to the sphere of budget (b)” and to finance the restoration of
execution. This violates the principle of damaged or destroyed facilities due to
separation of powers. Congress‘role must be calamities, as may be directed and
confined to mere oversight that must be authorized by the Office of the President of
confined to: (1) scrutiny and (2) the Philippines” was declared
investigation and monitoring of the unconstitutional.IT GIVES THE PRESIDENT
implementation of laws. Any action or step CARTE BLANCHE AUTHORITY TO USE THE
beyond that will undermine the separation SAME FUND FOR ANY INFRASTRUCTURE
of powers guaranteed by the constitution. PROJECT HE MAY SO DETERMINE AS A
Thus, the court declares the 2013 pdaf ―PRIORITY‖. VERILY, THE LAW DOES NOT
article as well as all other provisions of law SUPPLY A DEFINITION OF ―PRIORITY
which similarly allow legislators to wield any INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
form of post-enactment authority in the PROJECTS‖ AND HENCE, LEAVES THE
implementation or enforcement of the PRESIDENT WITHOUT ANY GUIDELINE TO
budget, unrelated to congressional CONSTRUE THE SAME.
oversight, as violative of the separation of
powers principle and thus unconstitutional. 19. Ynot vs Intermediate Appellate Court
2. Yes. Sec 8 of PD 910- the phrase “and for GR No. L-74457, March 20, 1987
such other purposes as may be hereafter
directed by the President”‖ constitutes an FACTS:
undue delegation of legislative power In 1980 President Marcos amended
insofar as it does not lay down a sufficient Executive Order No. 626-A which orders that
standard to adequately determine the limits no carabao and carabeef shall be transported
of the President‘s authority with respect to from one province to another; such violation
the purpose for which the Malampaya shall be subject to confiscation and forfeiture
Funds may be used. It gives the President by the government, to be distributed to
wide latitude to use the Malampaya Funds charitable institutions and other similar
for any other purpose he may direct and, in institutions as the Chairman of the National
effect, allows him to unilaterally appropriate Meat Inspection Commission may see fit for
public funds beyond the purview of the the carabeef and to deserving farmers
law.” through dispersal as the Director of Animal
Industry may see fit in the case of the
carabaos.
On January 13, 1984, Petitioner’s 6
carabaos were confiscated by the police
station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo
for having been transported from Masbate to
Iloilo in violation of EO 626-A. He issued a writ
for replevin, challenging the constitutionality
of said EO. The trial court sustained the
confiscation of the animals and declined to
rule on the validity of the law on the ground
that it lacked authority to do so. Its decision
was affirmed by the IAC. Hence, this petition
for review filed by Petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not police power is
properly enforced
HELD:
NO. The protection of the
general welfare is the particular function of
the police power which both restraints and is
restrained by due process. The police power
is simply defined as the power inherent in the
State to regulate liberty and property for the
promotion of the general welfare. As long as
the activity or the property has some
relevance to the public welfare, its regulation
under the police power is not only proper but
necessary. In the case at bar, E.O. 626-A has
the same lawful subject as the original
executive order (E.O. 626 as cited in Toribio
case) but NOT the same lawful method. The
reasonable connection between the means
employed and the purpose sought to be
achieved by the questioned measure is
missing. The challenged measure is an invalid
exercise of the police power because the
method employed to conserve the carabaos
is not reasonably necessary to the purpose of
the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive.