Public Office - is a public trust created in the Appeals. The motion was denied.

UP appealed to
interest and for the benefit of the people and the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which
belongs to them. sustained the MSB's decision in Resolution No.
87-428 on November 4, 1987. UP's motion for
Qualification is based on bare minimum reconsideration was denied on April 13, 1988.
qualifications, merit and fitness
Second M.R. and Mandamus Petition
GOCC under original charter (created by law) – UP, through the Office of the Solicitor
under the CSC, considered as public officers General (OSG), filed a second motion for
GOCC created under the Revised Corp. Code reconsideration on June 10, 1988, which was
(SEC) are not public officers / employees denied on August 31, 1988, as only one petition
for reconsideration is allowed under Section 39(b)
Clerical employees – no discretion; only of PD 807. Pamplina filed a motion for execution
ministerial of judgment, which was granted by the CSC on
Supervisor – can only supervise a ministerial act Nov 7, 1988. However, UP refused to reinstate
him, claiming the CSC's resolutions were not yet
Job order ee – does not have salary becoz it’s not final and executory. Pamplina then filed a petition
taken from the personnel budget. It is taken from for a writ of mandamus, which was granted by
the Maintenance… Judge Teodoro P. Regino on April 27, 1989.

Party-list: 2% is the guaranteed seat; top 63 UP's Petition for Certiorari

e.g. 63-5 guaranteed seat = 58 additional seats UP filed a petition for certiorari with the
Supreme Court on June 19, 1989, seeking to annul
1. University of the Philippines vs. Regino; G.R. the trial court's decision and the CSC's orders. UP
No. 88167; May 3, 1993 argued that, under its charter (Act 1870), it has
UP employee dismissed for exam leakage institutional autonomy and the exclusive
appealed to CSC, which ordered reinstatement. authority to discipline its employees.
UP claimed autonomy, but SC upheld CSC's
jurisdiction, affirming finality of its decision. Issue:
Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission
Facts: Whether the Civil Service Commission has
Employment and Dismissal of Angel Pamplina appellate jurisdiction over administrative
Angel Pamplina, a mimeograph operator disciplinary cases involving UP employees, given
at the University of the Philippines (UP) School of UP's claim of institutional autonomy under its
Economics, was dismissed on June 22, 1982, after charter.
being found guilty of dishonesty and grave
misconduct. The charges stemmed from his Finality of the CSC's Resolutions
involvement in causing the leakage of final Whether the CSC's resolutions had
examination questions in Economics 106 under become final and executory, thereby entitling
Prof. Solita Monsod. Pamplina to reinstatement and back wages.

Appeal to the Merit Systems Board (MSB) Applicability of PD 807

Pamplina appealed his dismissal to the UP Whether the provisions of PD 807 (Civil
Board of Regents, but his appeal was denied. He Service Law) apply to UP, particularly in light of
then sought relief from the Merit Systems Board the 1987 Constitution's definition of the Civil
(MSB), which, under Presidential Decree No. Service.
1409, had jurisdiction over administrative cases
involving civil service employees. The MSB Ruling:
exonerated Pamplina on July 5, 1985, and ordered The Supreme Court dismissed UP's
his reinstatement with back wages. petition for certiorari and affirmed the decision of
Judge Teodoro P. Regino and the orders of the
UP's Motion to Dismiss and Subsequent Appeals Civil Service Commission. The Court held that:
UP filed a motion to dismiss the MSB
case, arguing lack of jurisdiction based on the case Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission
of University of the Philippines vs. Court of

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 1 of 19

 The Civil Service Commission has autonomy does not override the CSC's authority
appellate jurisdiction over administrative under PD 807. The petition for certiorari was
disciplinary cases involving UP employees. UP, dismissed, and the orders for Pamplina's
as a government-owned or controlled corporation reinstatement and back wages were affirmed.
with an original charter, is part of the Civil
Service under the 1987 Constitution and is 2. Philippine National Oil Company-Energy
governed by PD 807. Development Corp. vs. Leogardo G.R. No. L-
58494, 256 Phil. 475 – 175 SCRA 26, July 5,
Finality of the CSC's Resolutions 1989; MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:; 2nd Division
The CSC's resolutions had become final
and executory because UP failed to file a petition Doctrine:
for certiorari within the 30-day reglementary The Civil Service embraces all branches,
period. The second motion for reconsideration subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of
filed by UP was not allowed under PD 807, and the Government, including government-owned or
the filing was also beyond the prescribed period. controlled corporations with original charters.
(Article IX-B, Section 2 [1])
Applicability of PD 807 Under this provision, the test in
PD 807 applies to UP, and the CSC has the determining whether a GOCC is subject to the
authority to hear and decide administrative Civil Service Law is the manner of its creation
disciplinary cases involving UP employees. The such that government corporations created by
Court rejected UP's reliance on the case of special charter are subject to its provisions while
University of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, those incorporated under the general Corporation
as it was decided before the enactment of PD 807. Law are not within its coverage.

Ratio: Facts:
Civil Service Commission's Jurisdiction In December 1977, a Christmas party
Under the 1987 Constitution, GOCCs with was held for the employees of Philippine
original charters, such as UP, are part of the National Oil Company – Energy Development
Civil Service. The CSC, under PD 807, has the Corporation (PNOC-EDC). In said event, one
power to hear and decide administrative Vicente Ellelina, employee of PNOC-EDC, tried
disciplinary cases involving civil service to grab an armalite rifle from a constabulary
employees, including those of UP. officer after he was denied to receive a raffle
prize because he lost his winning ticket. For the
Finality of Administrative Decisions commission of said crime, PNOC-EDC sought
Administrative decisions become final and the dismissal of Ellelina.
executory if not appealed within the reglementary The Ministry of Labor and Employment
period. UP's failure to file a timely petition for (MOLE) did not give clearance to Ellelina’s
certiorari rendered the CSC's resolutions final, and dismissal. This was affirmed by then Minister of
Pamplina was entitled to reinstatement and back Labor, Vicente Leogardo.
wages. PNOC-EDC assailed the jurisdiction of
MOLE as it alleged that PNOC-EDC as a
Inapplicability of UP's Institutional Autonomy subsidiary of the Philippine National Oil
Argument Company (PNOC), a government owned or
While UP enjoys institutional autonomy controlled corporation, is likewise a ] GOCC
under its charter, this does not exempt it from the hence it should be the Civil Service Commission
jurisdiction of the CSC in administrative (CSC) that should have jurisdiction.
disciplinary cases. The Civil Service Law (PD
807) explicitly grants the CSC appellate Issue
jurisdiction over such cases. Whether PNOC-EDC is under the
jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission and
Conclusion: not MOLE - No.
The Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction
of the Civil Service Commission over UP Ruling:
employees and affirmed the finality of the CSC's No. It is true that PNOC is a GOCC and
resolutions. The Court ruled that UP's institutional that PNOC-EDC, being a subsidiary of PNOC, is

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 2 of 19

likewise a GOCC. It is also true that under the allowance equivalent to one (1) month’s basic
1973 Constitution, all GOCCs are under the pay. This assurance, however, failed to persuade
jurisdiction of the CSC. However, the 1987 private respondents to abandon their opposition to
Constitution changed all this as it now provides: the transfer orders issued by the BSP Secretary-
The Civil Service embraces all branches, General.
subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of On 13 November 1984, a complaint for
the Government, including government-owned or illegal transfer was filed with the then Ministry of
controlled corporations with original charters. Labor and Employment. The private respondents
(Article IX-B, Section 2 [1]) sought to enjoin the implementation of the said
Hence, the above provision sets the rule orders.
that the mere fact that a corporation is a GOCC Private respondents continued to disobey
does not automatically place it under the CSC. the disputed transfer orders despite warning that
Under this provision, the test in determining their refusal could result in the termination of their
whether a GOCC is subject to the Civil Service employment. Petitioner BSP consequently
Law is the manner of its creation such that imposed a five-day suspension on the five (5)
government corporations created by special private respondents, in the latter part of January
charter (CSC) are subject to its provisions while 1985. Subsequently, by Special Order dated 12
those incorporated under the general Corporation February 1985 issued by the BSP Secretary
Law are not within its coverage. General, private respondents’ services were
In the case at bar, PNOC-EDC, even ordered terminated effective 15 February 1985.
though it is a GOCC, was incorporated under the Private respondents amended their original
general Corporation Law – it does not have its complaint to include charges of illegal dismissal
own charter, hence, it is under the jurisdiction and unfair labor practice against petitioner BSP.
of the MOLE. WHEREFORE, the Petition is Petitioner BSP alleged before the Labor Arbiter
DISMISSED, and the judgment of respondent that petitioner is a "civic service, nonstock and
public official is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs. non-profit organization, relying mostly on
government and public support, existing under
3. Boy Scout of the Philippines, vs. NLRC, 196 and by virtue of Commonwealth Act No. 111, as
SCRA176 amended, by Presidential Decree No. 460.
The Labor Arbiter ordered the dismissal of
FACTS: private respondents’ complaint for lack of merit.
Private respondents Fortunato C. Esquerra, Private respondents stated in their Appeal
Roberto O. Malaborbor, Estanislao M. Misa, Memorandum with the NLRC that petitioner BSP
Vicente N. Evangelista and Marcelino P. Garcia, is "by mandate of law a Public Corporation.
had all been rank-and-file employees of NLRC reversed the ruling of the labor arbiter and
petitioner Boy Scouts of the Philippines (“BSP”). held that private respondents had been illegally
At the time of termination of their services in dismissed by petitioner BSP.
February 1985, private respondents were stationed In a Resolution, the Supreme Court
at the BSP Camp in Makiling, Los Baños, required the parties and the Office of the
Laguna. Government Corporate Counsel to file a comment
On 19 October 1984, the Secretary- on the question of whether or not petitioner BSP is
General of petitioner BSP issued Special Orders in fact a government owned or controlled
Nos. 80, 81, 83, 84 and 85 addressed separately to corporation.
the five (5) private respondents, informing them The central issue is whether or not BSP is
that on 20 November 1984, they were to be embraced within the Civil Service. The answer to
transferred from the BSP Camp in Makiling to the the central issue will determine private respondent
BSP Land Grant in Asuncion, Davao del Norte. NLRC had jurisdiction to render the decision
These Orders were opposed by private
respondents who, on 4 November 1984, appealed ISSUE:
the matter to the BSP National President. 1. Whether or not petitioner BSP is in a GOCC.
On a pre-transfer briefing at its National YES
Headquarters in Manila, private respondents were 2. Whether or not BSP’s employees are subject of
assured that their transfer to Davao del Norte Civil Service Law.
would not involve any diminution in salary, and
that each of them would receive a relocation RULING:

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 3 of 19

 1. Yes. The Court considers that the distinct unit therein. “Government
following need to be considered in arriving instrumentality” is in turn defined in the 1987
at the appropriate legal characterization of Administrative Code in the following manner:
the BSP for purposes of determining “Instrumentality—refers to any agency of the
whether its officials and staff members are National Government, not integrated within the
embraced in the Civil Service. Firstly, department framework, vested with special
BSP’s functions as set out in its statutory functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with
charter do have a public aspect. BSP’s some if not all corporate powers, administering
functions do relate to the fostering of the special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy,
public virtues of citizenship and patriotism usually through a charter. This term includes
and the general improvement of the moral regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and
spirit and fiber of our youth. The social government-owned or controlled corporations.”
value of activities like those to which the (Italics supplied) The same Code describes a
BSP dedicates itself by statutory mandate “chartered institution” in the following terms:
have in fact, been accorded constitutional “Chartered institution—refers to any agency
recognition. Article II of the 1987 organized or operating under a special charter, and
Constitution includes in the “Declaration vested by law with functions relating to specific
of Principles and State Policies,” the constitutional policies or objectives. This term
following: “Sec. 13. The State recognizes includes the state universities and colleges, and
the vital role of the youth in nation the monetary authority of the State.” (Italics
building and shall promote and protect supplied) We believe that the BSP is appropriately
their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, regarded as “a government instrumentality” under
and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the 1987 Administrative Code.
the youth patriotism and nationalism, and 2. Since BSP is held as a government
encourage their involvement in public and instrumentality, it follows that the employees of
civic affairs.” At the same time, BSP’s petitioner BSP are embraced within the Civil
functions do not relate to the governance Service and are accordingly governed by the Civil
of any part of territory of the Philippines; Service Law and Regulations.
BSP is not a public corporation in the It thus appears that the BSP may be
same sense that municipal corporations or regarded as both a "government controlled
local governments are public corporations. corporation with an original charter" and as an
BSP’s functions cannot also be described "instrumentality" of the Government within the
as proprietary functions in the same sense meaning of Article IX (B) (2) (1) of the
that the functions or activities of Constitution. It follows that the employees of
government-owned or controlled petitioner BSP are embraced within the Civil
corporations like the National Service and are accordingly governed by the Civil
Development Company or the National Service Law and Regulations.
Steel Corporation can be described as It remains only to note that even before the
proprietary or “businesslike” in character. effectivity of the 1987 Constitution employees of
Nevertheless, the public character of the BSP already fell within the scope of the Civil
BSP’s functions and activities must be Service. In National Housing Corporation v.
conceded, for they pertain to the Juco,24 decided in 1985, the Court, speaking
educational, civic and social development through Mr. Justice Gutierrez, held:
of the youth which constitutes a very There should no longer be any question at this
substantial and important part of the time that employees of government-owned or controlled
nation. corporations are governed by the civil service law and
civil service rules and regulations.
Section 1, Article XII-B of the [19731
The Administrative Code of 1987 designates Constitution specifically provides:
the BSP as one of the attached agencies of the The Civil Service embraces every branch,
Department of Education, Culture and Sports agency, subdivision and instrumentality of the
(“DECS”). An “agency of the Government” is Government, including every government-owned or
defined as referring to any of the various units of controlled corporation. . . .
the Government including a department, bureau,
The 1935 Constitution had a similar provision in
office, instrumentality, government-owned or- its Section 1, Article XII which stated:
controlled corporation, or local government or

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 4 of 19

 A Civil Service embracing all branches and In the case of National Housing
subdivisions of the Government shall be provided by law. Corporation vs. Juco, the Supreme court held that
The inclusion of "government-owned or employees of government-owned or controlled
controlled corporations" within the embrace of the civil
service shows a deliberate effort of the framers to plug an
corporations with original charters are governed
earlier loophole which allowed government-owned or by the civil service law and civil service rules and
controlled corporations to avoid the full consequences of regulation.
the all encompassing coverage of the civil service system. Here, the character of the MWSS as a
The same explicit intent is shown by the addition of government-owned or controlled corporation is
"agency" and "instrumentality" to branches and not contested. Republic Act No. 6234 created it as
subdivisions of the Government. All offices and firms of a "government corporation to be known as the
the government are covered. The amendments introduced
in 1973 are not idle exercises or meaningless gestures.
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System."
They carry the strong message that civil service coverage As in the case of the National Housing Authority,
is broad and all-embracing insofar as employment in the therefore, employment in the MWSS is
government in any of its governmental or corporate arms governed not by the Labor Code but by the
is concerned civil service law, rules and regulations; and
controversies arising from or connected with that
The Labor Arbiter and public respondent employment are not cognizable by the National
NLRC had no jurisdiction over the complaint filed Labor Relations Commission. Regardless,
by private respondents; neither labor agency had whether the employee is regular or non-regular or
before it any matter which could validly have contractual employees. There is no legal or logical
been passed upon by it in the exercise of original justification for such a distinction.
or appellate jurisdiction.

5. Luego v. Civil Service Commission (G. R. No.

4. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage L-69137)
System, vs, Hernandez, 143 SCRA 602 FACTS:
Petitioner was appointed Administrative
DOCTRINE: Officer II, Office of the City Mayor, Cebu City,
Republic Act No. 6234 created it as a by Mayor Florentino Solon on 18 February 1983.
"government corporation to be known as the The appointment was described as “permanent”
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System", but the Civil Service Commission approved it as
therefore, employment in the MWSS is governed “temporary.” On 22 March 1984, the Civil Service
not by the Labor Code but by the civil service Commission found the private respondent better
law, rules and regulations. qualified than the petitioner for the contested
position and accordingly directed herein private
FACTS: respondent in place of petitioner’s position. The
Complaints were filed before the LA of the private respondent was so appointed on 28 June
NLRC against MWSS on charges of willful 1984, by the new mayor; Mayor Ronald Duterte.
failure to pay wage differentials, allowances and The petitioner is now invoking his earlier
other monetary benefits to its contractual permanent appointment as well as to question the
employees numbering 2,500 or so. MWSS Civil Service Commission’s order and the private
contends that it being a GOCC with original respondent’s title.
charter, NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case.
LA ruled against MWSS. It held that since ISSUE:
the case involves complaints from hired workers Whether or not the Civil Service
or employees for limited period and not from Commission is authorized to disapprove a
regular employees, thus, NLRC validly acquired permanent appointment on the ground that another
jurisdiction. Hence, this petition. person is better qualified than the appointee and,
on the basis of this finding, order his replacement
Issue: by the latter?
Whether employees of the MWSS covered
by laws and regulations governing the civil RULING:
service? – YES The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.
The Civil Service Commission is not empowered
Ruling: to determine the kind or nature of the appointment

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 5 of 19

extended by the appointing officer, its authority Promotions Board. The proposal was approved,
being limited to approving or reviewing the and Borja was issued an appointment as physician
appointment in the light of the requirements of the (SG 16). Later on, Dr. Jordan was also promoted
Civil Service Law. When the appointee is and issued an appointment as Assistant Bank
qualified and the other legal requirements are Physician.
satisfied, the Commission has no choice but to Respondent Borja contested Dr. Jordan's
attest to the appointment in accordance with the appointment claiming that he was the next-in-rank
Civil Service Laws. Hence, the Civil Service employee and that he was more qualified. the
Commission’s resolution is set aside. Bank dismissed the protest on the grounds that the
*CSC has no power to override the power of protest was filed beyond the reglementary period;
the appointing authority that protestant is not the next in-rank employee as
-CSC only confirms the min. qualification regards the contested position and, as such, he has
no legal personality to file the protest; and, that
6. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and the protestee aside from being the next-in-rank
ANGELA P. JORDAN, petitioners, vs. CIVIL employee, met the requirements for promotion.
SERVICE COMMISSION and BASILAO E.
BORJA, respondents. G.R. No. 80455-56 | April Merit Systems Board:
10, 1989 | GANCAYCO, J.: Private respondent appealed to the MSB.
The appeal was sustained, stating that Borja
DOCTRINE: should have been appointed. But the decision was
The authority of the Commission is limited reversed upon appeal by the Bank.
to approving or reviewing the appointment in the
light of the requirements of the law governing the Civil Service Commission:
Civil Service. CSC set aside the decision of MSB,
directing appointment of Borja to the position.
It is well-settled that when the appointee is Central Bank filed a petition for reconsideration
qualified, as in this case, and all the other legal that the department head enjoys wide latitude of
requirements are satisfied, the Commission has no discretion as regards the appointment of
alternative but to attest to the appointment in department personnel and that the question all to
accordance with the Civil Service Laws. The who is more competent is of no consequence since
Commission has no authority to revoke an private respondent was not yet an employee of the
appointment on the ground that another person is Central Bank at the time Dr. Jordan was
more qualified for a particular position. It also has considered for promotion. Petition is denied since
no authority to direct the appointment of a the Resolution became final and executory.
substitute of its choice. To do so would be an
encroachment on the discretion vested upon the ISSUE:
appointing authority. An appointment is May the Civil Service Commission revoke
essentially within the discretionary power of an appointment and require the appointment of
whomsoever it is vested, subject to the only another person whom it believes is more qualified
condition that the appointee should possess the for the position? – NO
qualifications required by law.
RULING:
FACTS: It is well-settled principle that the
On October 3, 1984, the Promotions Board appointing authority is given ample discretion in
of Central Bank with a representative from CSC the selection and appointment of qualified persons
decided on filling up the vacant position of to vacant positions. This is a management
Assistant Bank Physician of the Central Bank prerogative which is generally unhampered by
(Salary Grade 22). Dr. Jordan (Coordinating judicial intervention. Within the parameters of this
Assistant – SG 20) was the only next-in-rank principle, the right to select and appoint
employee, so the Board certified her for employees is the prerogative of the employer
promotion and submitted the proposal to the which may be exercised without being held liable
Office of the Governor. therefore provided that the exercise thereof is in
However, in July 1984, respondent Borja good faith for the advancement of the employer's
filed an application for Medical Director in the interest.
Central Bank and was acted upon by the

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 6 of 19

 There is no question that the Central Bank considered in the promotion of its employees. The
of the Philippines is vested with the power of other factors to be considered are performance
appointment under Section 14 of Republic Act rating, experience and outstanding
No. 265, as amended, otherwise known as the accomplishments, physical characteristics and
Central Bank Act. Under the Civil Service Act of personality traits and potential.
1959, the Commissioner of Civil Service has the After evaluating the qualifications of Dr.
final authority on appointments. But the situation Jordan, the Central Bank arrived at the conclusion
has changed under the new law, Presidential that she outranks the others in point of experience,
Decree No. 807, otherwise known as the Civil rank, salary and service in the Bank. Dr. Jordan
Service Decree, wherein the Commission is not holds the degree of Doctor of Medicine and is a
authorized to curtail the discretion of the graduate of the University of the Philippines. She
appointing official on the nature or kind of had been with the Central Bank since September
appointment to be extended. The authority of the 6, 1976. It appears that during this span of time,
Commission is limited to approving or reviewing she had displayed a high degree of efficiency,
the appointment in the light of the requirements of dedication and initiative in discharging the duties
the law governing the Civil Service. and responsibilities of her position. She also
In the case at bar, the qualifications of Dr. attended various seminars, conferences, symposia
Jordan were never disputed. The fact that she was and other special training courses that enriched
qualified was attested to by the Promotions Board. her knowledge in the field of medicine.
A representative of the Commission was present On the basis of the foregoing, the
in the deliberation of the said board. appointing authority found that Dr. Jordan
It is well-settled that when the appointee is satisfied all the requirements set by the Central
qualified, as in this case, and all the other legal Bank on promotion the wisdom of which cannot
requirements are satisfied, the Commission has no be questioned. It must be stressed that the law
alternative but to attest to the appointment in does not impose a rigid or mechanical standard on
accordance with the Civil Service Laws. The the appointing power. The appointing person
Commission has no authority to revoke an enjoys sufficient discretion to select and appoint
appointment on the ground that another person is employees on the basis of their fitness to perform
more qualified for a particular position. It also has the duties and to assume the responsibilities of the
no authority to direct the appointment of a position to be filled.
substitute of its choice. To do so would be an IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the
encroachment on the discretion vested upon the questioned Resolutions of the Civil Service
appointing authority. An appointment is Commission dated May 26, 1987 and October 16,
essentially within the discretionary power of 1987, respectively, are hereby declared null and
whomever it is vested, subject to the only void and the Commission is directed to attest the
condition that the appointee should possess the appointment of Dr. Angela Jordan as Assistant
qualifications required by law. Bank Physician. No costs. This Decision is
Thus, when as in this case, it is not immediately executory. SO ORDERED.
disputed that the appointee, Dr. Jordan, is
qualified for the contested position, the 7. Juliano v. Subido, G.R. L-30825, Feb 25, 1975
Commission exceeded its power in revoking her City Mayor appointed Nicolas Alino as
appointment on the ground that private respondent City Legal Officer, but Civil Service
is more qualified. The Commission cannot Commissioner disapproved, citing lack of trial
substitute its will for that of the appointing experience. Supreme Court ruled Commissioner
authority. lacked authority to impose additional
It may be true that private respondent has qualifications, upholding local autonomy and
an edge over Dr. Jordan in terms of educational nullifying disapproval.
attainment inasmuch as the former holds a post-
graduate degree in Medicine from a foreign Facts:
educational institution and considering that he has Appointment of Nicolas Alino: On
had experience and training in reputable December 20, 1968, Teodoro V. Juliano, as City
institutions here and abroad. However, under the Mayor of Cotabato, appointed Nicolas Alino as
pertinent rules on promotion obtaining in the City Legal Officer.
Central Bank, educational attainment and training Referral to Civil Service Commission: The
experience are just among the factors to be appointment was referred to the Regional Director

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 7 of 19

of the Civil Service Commission, who forwarded The Court cited previous cases, including
it to the Personnel Inspection Chief in Manila. Villegas vs. Subido and Claudio vs. Subido,
Disapproval by Commissioner: On January 10, which established that the Commissioner cannot
1969, the Commissioner of Civil Service, impose qualifications beyond those set by law.
Abelardo Subido, disapproved the appointment. These cases reinforced the principle that
The disapproval was based on Alino’s failure to administrative officials must act within the bounds
meet the "specialized experience requirement" of of their delegated authority.
at least four years of trial work in Courts of First
Instance or Superior Courts. The Commissioner Invalid Reliance on RA 5185:
cited Section 4 of Republic Act No. 5185 The Commissioner’s reliance on Section 4
(Decentralization Law) and Memorandum of Republic Act No. 5185 was misplaced. The
Circulars 1, 5, and 21 as the basis for the provision only allows the ranking of eligible
requirement. candidates based on factors like seniority and
efficiency, not the imposition of additional
Issue: qualifications.
Authority of the Commissioner: The Court concluded that the Commissioner’s
Whether the Commissioner of Civil disapproval of Alino’s appointment was without
Service had the authority to impose qualifications legal basis and violated the principles of local
(such as the four-year trial work requirement) for autonomy and the rule of law.
the position of City Legal Officer that go beyond *Min. qualifications is controlling.
the statutory requirements.
8. Government Service Insurance System vs.
Validity of the Disapproval: Civil Service Comm, GR 87146, Dec 11, 1991
Whether the disapproval of Nicolas Maria Salazar, a GSIS employee, was
Alino’s appointment was valid, given the absence terminated in 1986; CSC ordered reinstatement,
of a statutory basis for the additional but Supreme Court ruled CSC lacked jurisdiction,
qualifications imposed by the Commissioner. reinstating termination.

Ruling: Facts:
The SC ruled in favor of the petitioners, Employment History of Maria Asuncion
Teodoro V. Juliano and Nicolas Alino. The Court Salazar Maria Asuncion Salazar was employed by
held that the Commissioner of CSC lacked the the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)
authority to impose additional qualifications not as a casual laborer on September 23, 1968.
provided by law. The disapproval of Alino’s She became a permanent employee on
appointment was nullified, and the appointment February 28, 1974, with the designation of
was declared valid and effective. stenographer.
On December 9, 1975, she was promoted
Ratio: to Confidential Technical Assistant Aide under
No Statutory Authority: permanent status.
The Commissioner of Civil Service cannot On the same date, December 9, 1975, she
impose qualifications for a position unless such was appointed to the position of Confidential
authority is expressly granted by law. In this case, Executive Assistant in the office of then GSIS
there was no statutory basis for the requirement of President and General Manager Roman A. Cruz,
four years of trial work experience. Jr., also on a permanent status.
On August 13, 1982, she was promoted to
Local Autonomy: Technical Assistant III, the position she held until
The Court emphasized the constitutional her termination on May 16, 1986.
objective of fostering local autonomy. The Termination of Services
appointment of a City Legal Officer, a position Salazar's services were terminated on May
requiring the utmost confidence of the Mayor, 16, 1986, by the newly appointed President and
falls within the discretion of the local executive. General Manager of GSIS, on the grounds that her
The Commissioner’s interference undermined this position was co-terminous with the term of the
autonomy. appointing authority, Roman A. Cruz, Jr.
Salazar filed a petition for reconsideration
Precedents: with the GSIS Board of Trustees, but it was

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 8 of 19

denied. She then filed a petition for The Merit Systems Protection Board, not the CSC,
reconsideration with the Review Committee had jurisdiction over the appeal from the GSIS's
created under Executive Order No. 17, which decision to terminate Salazar.
referred the matter to both the Merit Systems The CSC's Resolutions Nos. 87-230 and 88-825
Protection Board (Board) and the Civil Service were issued without jurisdiction and are therefore
Commission (CSC). void.
The Order of the Merit Systems Protection Board
Civil Service Commission's Resolution dated March 9, 1988, which affirmed Salazar's
On July 22, 1987, the CSC issued termination, was reinstated, subject to Salazar's
Resolution No. 87-230, directing the reinstatement right to appeal to the CSC.
of Salazar with back salaries and other benefits.
GSIS filed a motion for reconsideration on Sept Ratio:
14, 1987, which was denied by the CSC. Jurisdiction of the Merit Systems Protection
Merit Systems Protection Board's Decision Board: Under Presidential Decree No. 1409, the
On March 9, 1988, the Board issued an order Merit Systems Protection Board has
affirming Salazar's termination, stating that her jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of
position was confidential and co-terminous with appointing authorities involving personnel
the tenure of the appointing authority. actions. The CSC, as the final arbiter, can only
However, on June 30, 1988, the Board set aside its review decisions of the Board, not take original
previous order after being informed of the CSC's cognizance of such cases.
prior resolution in favor of Salazar. Void Resolutions: The CSC's resolutions were
GSIS filed a motion for reconsideration, void because they were issued without
which was denied by the Board on September 2, jurisdiction. The Board had not yet rendered a
1988. decision when the CSC assumed jurisdiction over
Final CSC Resolution the case.
On November 16, 1988, the CSC issued Nature of the Position: The Court did not make a
Resolution No. 88-825, denying GSIS's motion definitive ruling on whether the position of
for reconsideration and reiterating the order for Technical Assistant III was primarily confidential,
Salazar's reinstatement. as the records were insufficient to determine the
On January 17, 1989, the CSC issued Resolution nature of the position. However, the Board's initial
No. 89-031, denying GSIS's appeal and declaring decision, which upheld the termination, was
its previous resolution final and executory. reinstated.
Termination vs. Expiration of Term: The Court
Issue: did not explicitly rule on whether Salazar's
Whether the Civil Service Commission (CSC) termination was a removal or an expiration of her
erred in asserting jurisdiction over the appeal term, but it upheld the Board's decision, which
instead of the Merit Systems Protection Board treated her termination as co-terminous with the
(Board). tenure of the appointing authority.
Whether the CSC's Resolutions Nos. 87-230 and Conclusion:
88-825 were issued without jurisdiction and are The Supreme Court ruled in favor of GSIS,
therefore void. annulling the CSC's resolutions and reinstating the
Whether the position of Technical Assistant III Board's decision to affirm Salazar's termination.
held by Salazar was primarily confidential and co- The case was remanded to allow Salazar to appeal
terminous with the tenure of the appointing to the CSC, if she so chooses.
authority.
Whether Salazar's termination constituted a 9. Gozon vs. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 235;
removal or dismissal, or merely an expiration of Powers of the Civil Service Commission;
her term of office. Execution of its Decision

Ruling: Gozon vs. Court of Appeals

The Supreme Court granted the petition and 212 SCRA 235
annulled the CSC's resolutions. The Court held
that: ISABELITA VITAL-GOZON, PETITIONER
VS.

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 9 of 19

HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND matter; the resolution had to be complied with. It
ALEJANDRO DE LA FUENTE, was ill-advised of principal respondent, and
RESPONDENTS violative of the rule of law, that the resolution has
not been obeyed or implemented.
In early 1987, the Ministry of Health underwent
reorganization under Executive Order No. 119 Upon respondent’s continued refusal without
issued by President Corazon C. Aquino. Dr. justifiable cause to implement the final resolution
Alejandro S. de la Fuente, who had been the Chief of the Civil Service Commission upholding
of Clinics at the National Children's Hospital was petitioner's right to the position he has been
demoted to Medical Specialist II. De la Fuente claiming with back salaries, transportation,
protested this demotion, which he considered a representation and housing allowances and other
significant reduction in rank, first to the DOH benefits withheld from him, petitioner is entitled
Reorganization Board and then to the CSC, where to the damages he claims. Testifying in his own
his case was docketed as CSC Case No. 4. behalf petitioner declared that he was greatly
disturbed, shocked and frustrated during the three
The CSC ruled that de la Fuente's demotion was months preceding the filing of his petition; that he
null and void, ordering his reinstatement to his had sleepless nights and suffered from mental
original position with back salaries and benefits. anxiety, mental anguish, worry, tension and
Despite this ruling becoming final, Dr. Vital- humiliation when respondent ignored and
Gozon, the Medical Center Chief, failed to disregarded the final resolution of the Civil
implement the CSC's decision. De la Fuente sent Service Commission.
multiple letters demanding compliance, which
were ignored. After three months without action, 10. Montecillo vs. Civil Service Commission, 360
he filed a petition for mandamus and damages in SCRA 99;
the Court of Appeals, seeking to compel Vital- ASELA B. MONTECILLO, MARILOU JOAN
Gozon to comply with the CSC ruling. V. ORTEGA and CHARRISHE DOSDOS,
petitioners, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
The Court of Appeals initially ruled in favor of de respondent. G.R. 131954 | June 28, 2001 |
la Fuente ordering compliance with the CSC Quisumbing, J.
decision but denied his claim for damages. De la
Fuente sought reconsideration, arguing that the
Court of Appeals had the authority to award Facts: The employee positions in the Metropolitan
damages in a mandamus action. The Court of Cebu Water District (MCWD) were re-classified
Appeals later modified its decision allowing for during the latter part of 1995 to conform with
the reception of evidence regarding damages. position descriptions and corresponding salary
After a series of hearings, the Court of Appeals grades in the civil service. While the personnel
awarded de la Fuente moral and exemplary structure of the MCWD was being modified, the
damages, as well as attorney's fees, due to Vital- petitioners applied for promotional appointment to
Gozon's failure to comply with the CSC ruling. the position of "Secretary to the Assistant General
Manager" or "Private Secretary C". At the time of
Whether the awards of moral and exemplary their application, petitioners had been occupying
damages and attorney’s fees were proper. (YES) the position of "Department Secretary" and were
The question of whether petitioner may be employed in the MCWD for six to seven years.
divested of his position as Chief of Clinics by the
expedient of having him appointed to another,
lower position is no longer an issue. It ceased to The CSC Field Office refused to approve the
be such when the resolution in CSC Case No. 4 appointment of the petitioners as “permanent” on
became final. The said resolution is explicit in its the ground that the position applied for was
mandate; petitioner was declared the lawful and “primarily confidential” and “co-terminus”
de jure Chief of Clinics (Chief of the Medical position. This was upheld by the CSC RO and
Professional Staff) of the National Children's affirmed on appeal by the respondent.
Hospital, and by this token, respondent Dr. Jose
D. Merencilla, Jr. is not legally entitled to the
office. Respondents, particularly Dr. Isabelita
VitalGozon, had no discretion or choice on the

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 10 of 19

The respondent based its conclusions on CSC respected by this Court as a valid issuance of a
Memorandum Circular No. 22, Series of 1991 constitutionally independent body. Moreover,
which states that: absent any showing by petitioners that respondent
The Civil Service Commission issued acted on their case in an arbitrary or whimsical
Memorandum Circular No. 14, s. 1987 which manner, it could not be successfully contended
identified the personal and confidential positions that the respondent acted with grave abuse of
located in the offices of elective officials, discretion. The cited circular amply provides valid
Department heads and other officials of cabinet reason and justification for the Commission’s
rank whose tenure is at the pleasure of the resolution, which affirmed on appeal the ruling of
President as well as Chairman and Members of the CSC Regional Office that earlier upheld the
Commissions and Boards with fixed terms of action taken by its field office. This three-tiered
offices per approved Position Allocation List process in the CSC ensured that petitioners’ plea
(PAL) as primarily confidential in nature. This had undergone a thorough consideration and
includes the position of Private Secretary. found devoid of substantial merit. Given these
For consistency and uniformity, it is circumstances, we see no sufficient ground to
hereby declared, pursuant to Resolution No. 91- disturb respondent’s resolution.
676, that all Private Secretary positions
irrespective of their locations are primarily Merit and fitness – for career employees
confidential in nature. The term of office of the
appointees to said positions shall be coterminous Non-career (1. Highly confidential, 2. highly
with the official they serve. technical, and 3.) policy determining)
Upon the denial of their motion for *Non-career cannot cross to the career and vice
reconsideration by the CSC, petitioners filed a versa
special civil action.

Issue: 11. Cruz vs. CSC, 370 SCRA 650

Whether the respondent abused its power to
promulgate rules and regulations by issuing the Doctrine
challenged circular. (NO) Petitioners' contention that they were
denied due process of law by the fact that the CSC
acted as investigator, complainant, prosecutor and
Ruling: judge, all at the same time against the petitioners
In the present case, there is no clear and is untenable. The CA correctly explained that the
persuasive showing that respondent grossly CSC is mandated to hear and decide
abused its discretion or exceeded its powers when administrative case instituted by it or instituted
it issued the assailed circular. On the contrary, before it directly or on appeal including actions of
respondent was expressly empowered to declare its officers and the agencies attached to it pursuant
positions in the Civil Service as may properly be to Book V, Title 1, Subtitle A, Chapter 3, Section
classified as primarily confidential under Section 12, paragraph 11 of the Administrative Code of
12, Chapter 3, Book V of the Administrative Code 1987.
of 1987. To our mind, this signifies that the
enumeration found in Section 6, Article IV of the Facts:
Civil Service Decree, which defines the non- The Chairperson of the CSC, received a
career service, is not an exclusive list. Respondent letter from a private individual, Carmelita B.
could supplement the enumeration, as it did when Esteban, claiming that, during the examinations
it issued Memorandum Circular No. 22, s. of for non-professional in the career civil service,
1991, by specifying positions in the civil service, given by the Civil Service Commission, on July
which are considered primarily confidential and 30, 1989, Zenaida C. Paitim, the Municipal
therefore their occupants are co-terminous with Treasurer of Norzagaray, Bulacan, falsely
the official they serve. pretending to be the examinee, Gilda Cruz, a co-
In our view, the assailed memorandum employee in the said office, took the examinations
circular cannot be deemed as an unauthorized for the latter. Carmelita Esteban requested the
amendment of the law. On the contrary, it was CSC to investigate the matter, appending to said
issued pursuant to a power expressly vested by letter, pictures purporting to be those of Gilda
law upon respondent. As such, it must be Cruz and Zenaida Paitim.

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 11 of 19

 Erlinda Rosas thereby wrote a that the CSC can rightfully take cognizance over
Memorandum to CSC Thelma P. Gaminde, any irregularities or anomalies connected to the
declaring that based on the record, she found a examinations, as it reads:
prima facie case against Zenaida Paitim and Gilda
G. Cruz. On the basis of said memorandum, a fact Sec. 28. The Commission shall have original
finding investigation was conducted. A "Formal disciplinary jurisdiction over all its officials and
Charge" for "Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and employees and over all cases involving civil
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the service examination anomalies or irregularities.
Service" was filed against Gilda Cruz and Zenaida "Petitioners' contention that they were
C. Paitim. denied due process of law by the fact that the CSC
The petitioners filed their Answer to the acted as investigator, complainant, prosecutor and
charge entering a general denial of the material judge, all at the same time against the petitioners
averments of the "Formal Charge." They also is untenable. The CA correctly explained that the
declared that they were electing a formal CSC is mandated to hear and decide
investigation on the matter. The petitioners administrative case instituted by it or instituted
subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss averring before it directly or on appeal including actions of
that if the investigation will continue, they will be its officers and the agencies attached to it pursuant
deprived of their right to due process because the to Book V, Title 1, Subtitle A, Chapter 3, Section
Civil Service Commission was the complainant, 12, paragraph 11 of the Administrative Code of
the Prosecutor and the Judge, all at the same time. 1987.
Director Bella A. Amilhasan issued an order The fact that the complaint was filed by
denying the motion. the CSC itself does not mean that it could not be
The Civil Service Commission issued an impartial judge. As an administrative body, its
Resolution No. 981695 finding the petitioners decision was based on substantial findings.
guilty of the charges and ordered their dismissal Factual findings of administrative bodies, being
from the government service. considered experts in their field, are binding on
The Court of Appeals dismissed the the Supreme Court.
petition before it It cannot be denied that the petitioners
were formally charged after a finding that a prima
Issue: facie case for dishonesty lies against them. They
Whether or not petitioners were denied were properly informed of the charges. They
due process of law submitted an Answer and were given the
opportunity to defend themselves. Petitioners can
Ruling: not, therefore, claim that there was a denial of due
NO. Petitioners' invocation of the law is process much less the lack of jurisdiction on the
misplaced. The provision is applicable to part of the CSC to take cognizance of the case.
instances where administrative cases are filed We do not find reversible error with the decision
against erring employees in connection with their of the Court of Appeals in upholding the CSC
duties and functions of the office. This is, Resolution.
however, not the scenario contemplated in the *
case at bar. It must be noted that the acts
complained of arose from a cheating caused by 12. G.R. No. 116418. March 07, 1995 (
the petitioners in the Civil Service **Title: Fernandez and De Lima vs. Sto. Tomas
(Subprofessional) examination. The examinations and Ereneta (312 Phil. 235)**
were under the direct control and supervision of
the Civil Service Commission. The culprits are Facts:
government employees over whom the Civil Petitioners Salvador C. Fernandez and
Service Commission undeniably has jurisdiction. Anicia M. de Lima served as Directors at the Civil
Thus, after the petitioners were duly investigated Service Commission’s (CSC) central office in
and ascertained whether they were indeed guilty Quezon City. Fernandez was Director of the
of dishonesty, the penalty meted was dismissal Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit (OPIA),
from the office. and de Lima was Director of the Office of
Personnel Relations (OPR). On June 7, 1994, CSC
Section 28, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil passed Resolution No. 94-3710, which
Service Rules and Regulations explicitly provides reorganized offices within CSC’s central office,

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 12 of 19

merging OPIA, OPR, and the Office of Career employees, thus not constituting the abolition of
Systems and Standards (OCSS) into the Research public offices which would require legislative
and Development Office (RDO). Other offices authority.
were renamed or had their functions reallocated
among different units. 2. **Right to Security of Tenure:**
During a general assembly on July 28, – The Court held that reassignments mandated
1994, CSC Chairman Patricia A. Sto. Tomas under Resolution No. 94-3710 did not violate the
declared that the resolution would be implemented petitioners’ constitutional right to security of
unless restrained by higher authority. tenure. Appointments within the CSC were to
Subsequently, office orders were issued particular positions or ranks, not specific offices.
reassigning Fernandez to Region V (Legaspi City) Petitioners retained their rank, status, and salary,
and de Lima to Region III (San Fernando, evidencing no diminution of their employment
Pampanga). In response, the petitioners filed a status.
Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus – Reassignment is a management prerogative as
with the Supreme Court, requesting the issuance per Section 26(7) of the Revised Administrative
of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Code, which allows for reassignment within the
the implementation of Resolution No. 94- same agency without reducing rank, status, or
3710.Law firm websites salary.

The procedural journey includes: **Doctrine:**

1. **August 23, 1994:** The Court required – **Organizational Change Authority:**
respondents to comment on the petition. Administrative bodies can reorganize internal
2. **September 21, 1994:** Petitioners filed an structures for efficiency under statutory authority,
Urgent Motion for the issuance of a TRO after provided no laws or constitutional rights are
receiving reassignment orders. violated.
3. **September 27, 1994:** The Supreme Court – **Security of Tenure vs. Reassignment:**
granted the TRO requested by petitioners. Security of tenure protects against removal
4. **September 12, 1994:** The CSC filed its without cause but does not preclude reassignment
comment on the petition, seeking to lift the TRO. within the same rank/status provided no reduction
5. **November 28, 1994:** The Office of the in salary or rank occurs.
Solicitor General filed a separate comment
defending the resolution. **Class Notes:**
6. **Subsequent Filings:** Petitioners filed – **Key Elements of Security of Tenure:**
replies, and the respondents filed rejoinders. – Defined by the constitutional right protecting
public employees from removal/suspension
Issues: without lawful cause.
1. Did the CSC have the legal authority to issue – Does not prohibit reassignment that maintains
Resolution No. 94-3710 merging OCSS, OPIA, rank and salary.
and OPR to form the RDO? – **Delegation of Organizational Authority:**
2. Did Resolution No. 94-3710 violate the – Statutory provisions enabling agencies to alter
petitioners’ constitutional right to security of internal structures as necessary.
tenure? – Example: Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 3
of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987.
**Court’s Decision:** – **Statutory Provisions:**
1. **Legal Authority of CSC to Issue Resolution – Sec. 17, Book V, Revised Administrative Code
No. 94-3710:** (authority for organizational change).
– The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC was – Sec. 26(7), Book V, Revised Administrative
authorized to effect changes in its organization Code (management prerogative of reassignment).
pursuant to Section 17 of Book V of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987. This provision **Historical Background:**
empowered the CSC to reorganize as necessary. This case is set against the backdrop of efforts to
– The resolution was found to streamline decentralize CSC operations, aligning Central
operations and improve public service. It Office functions with the distribution of regional
reorganized the internal structure without and field offices. This organizational restructuring
terminating the employment of any officers or aimed to improve service delivery, reduce

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 13 of 19

bottlenecks at the central office, and foster her with violating Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019
administrative efficiency across the commission’s (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) but
operations. dismissed the charge under R.A. No. 6713 due to
*The position is at large, Directors can be insufficient evidence. Consequently, two criminal
assigned anywhere. cases were filed: Criminal Case No. 25867 for
-If Director for a specific office, cannot be failing to return or liquidate the cash advance, and
assigned to offices … Criminal Case No. 25898 for malversation of
public funds under Article 217 of the Revised
Penal Code.
13. JAVIER VS. SANDIGANBAYAN Javier pleaded not guilty in Criminal Case
G.R. No. 147026-27, September 11, 2009 No. 25867 and filed motions to quash the
Justice Peralta information in both cases, arguing that she was
not a public officer and that the Sandiganbayan
DOCTRINE: lacked jurisdiction over her. The court denied her
A public office is the right, authority and motions, ruling that she was performing public
duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for functions and was therefore subject to its
a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at jurisdiction. She also raised the issue of double
the pleasure of the creating power, an individual jeopardy, claiming that the charges were for the
is invested with some portion of the sovereign same offense. However, the Sandiganbayan
functions of the government, to be exercised by rejected this argument, stating that the cases
him for the benefit of the public. The individual so involved separate offenses under different laws.
invested is a public officer.
ISSUE:
FACTS: Whether petitioner Carolina R. Javier is a
Carolina R. Javier was appointed as a public officer subject to the jurisdiction of the
private sector representative to the Governing Sandiganbayan.
Board of the National Book Development Board
(NBDB) under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8047, RULING:
also known as the "Book Publishing Industry The Supreme Court ruled that Javier is a
Development Act." She served on the board from public officer because she was appointed to the
February 26, 1996, to February 26, 1997, and was Governing Board of the NBDB, a government
reappointed for another term on September 14, agency, and performed public functions in
1998. During her tenure, she was also the furtherance of the government's objectives under
President of the Book Suppliers Association of the R.A. No. 8047.
Philippines (BSAP). The Court held that a public officer is anyone
On September 29, 1997, Javier was issued a travel who, by direct provision of law, popular election,
authority to attend the Madrid International Book or appointment by competent authority, takes part
Fair in Spain from October 8-12, 1997, and in the performance of public functions in the
received a cash advance of P139,199.00 for her government. Javier, as a member of the NBDB
travel expenses. However, she did not attend the Governing Board, performed public functions and
book fair, and the trip was canceled. Despite was therefore a public officer. Javier was
being advised by Resident Auditor Rosario T. appointed by the President to the Governing
Martin on February 16, 1998, to refund the cash Board of the NDBD.
advance, Javier failed to return the funds. A Though her term is only for a year that
Summary of Disallowances issued on July 6, does not make her private person exercising a
1998, reflected a balance of P220,349.00 for public function.
settlement, but she did not comply with demands The fact that she is not receiving a
for repayment. monthly salary is also of no moment. Further,
On September 23, 1999, Dr. Nellie R. Apolonio, Javier performs public functions in pursuance of
Executive Director of the NBDB, filed a the objectives of R.A. No. 8047, verily, she is a
complaint with the Ombudsman against Javier for public officer who takes part in the performance
malversation of public funds and violation of of public functions in the government whether as
R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical an employee, agent, subordinate official, of any
Standards for Public Officials and Employees). rank or classes.
The Ombudsman found probable cause to charge

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 14 of 19

14. Laurel vs. Desierto, G.R.145368, Jul 1, 2002 NCC as a public office or Laurel's role as a
public officer.
Salvador H. Laurel, as NCC Chair, was The principle of estoppel does not apply, as there
deemed a public officer under Ombudsman was no intention by high-ranking officials to
jurisdiction; constitutional prohibitions on mislead Laurel into believing the NCC was not a
multiple offices and estoppel claims were rejected. public office.
The case did not involve a modification or
Facts: reversal of any doctrine or principle of law that
Petitioner's Role: Salvador H. Laurel, former would require referral to the Court En Banc.
Vice-President, was appointed as Chairman of the
National Centennial Commission (NCC) under Ratio:
Executive Order No. 128. Public Officer Status: The NCC, being a
Composition of NCC: The NCC included government body created by Executive Order,
members from the Cabinet, Senate, House of qualifies as a public office, and its Chair is a
Representatives, and the Supreme Court, among public officer.
others. Constitutional Prohibitions: Even if the
Constitutional Prohibitions: The Constitution designation of certain officials to the NCC
prohibits members of the Senate, House of violates constitutional prohibitions, it does not
Representatives, Cabinet, and Supreme Court alter the public nature of the NCC or Laurel's role
from holding any other office during their term or as a public officer.
tenure. Estoppel: Estoppel cannot be invoked against the
Petitioner's Argument: Laurel argued that the government in the exercise of its sovereign
designation of these officials to the NCC had powers. Moreover, there was no evidence of
"serious constitutional repercussions" and that the intentional misrepresentation by high-ranking
NCC was not a public office. He also invoked officials.
estoppel, claiming that the actions of high-ranking Referral to Court En Banc: The designation of
officials led him to believe the NCC was not a Supreme Court members to the NCC did not
public office. constitute a "decision" or establish a legal doctrine
Jurisdiction of Ombudsman: The primary issue requiring en banc review.
was whether Laurel, as NCC Chair, was a public
officer under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. 15. People vs. Morales, 649 SCRA 182

Issue: A case involving allegations of graft

Whether Salvador H. Laurel, as Chair of the NCC, against Luis J. Morales, president of Expocorp, a
is a public officer under the jurisdiction of the private corporation managing Expo '98. The
Ombudsman. Supreme Court ruled Expocorp as private,
Whether the designation of members from the exempting Morales from Sandiganbayan
Senate, House of Representatives, Cabinet, and jurisdiction.
Supreme Court to the NCC violates constitutional
prohibitions. Facts:
Whether the principle of estoppel applies to Background of the Case
prevent the Ombudsman from exercising On June 13, 1991, President Corazon Aquino
jurisdiction over Laurel. issued Administrative Order No. 223, creating the
Whether the case should be referred to the Court Committee for the National Centennial
En Banc for reconsideration. Celebrations in 1998 (Committee).
In 1993, President Fidel V. Ramos issued
Ruling: Executive Order No. 128 (EO 128), renaming the
The Supreme Court denied Salvador H. Committee as the National Centennial
Laurel's motion for reconsideration and referral to Commission (NCC). The NCC was tasked with
the Court En Banc. The Court held that: preparing for the centennial celebrations of
Philippine Independence.
Laurel, as Chair of the NCC, is a public officer On March 10, 1996, the NCC and the
under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Bases Conversion Development Authority
The constitutional prohibitions on holding (BCDA) organized the Philippine Centennial
multiple offices do not affect the status of the Expo '98 Corporation (Expocorp) to manage

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 15 of 19

the Philippine Centennial International
Exposition 1998 (Expo '98). Ruling:
Allegations of Anomalies The Supreme Court denied the petition
The Philippine Centennial project faced and affirmed the Sandiganbayan's resolution,
allegations of anomalies, including the lack of holding that:
public bidding. Expocorp is a private corporation, as it
In 1998, Senator Ana Dominique Coseteng was incorporated under the Corporation Code
delivered a privilege speech in the Senate, and majority-owned by Global, a private entity.
prompting an investigation by the Senate Blue Morales, as president of a private
Ribbon Committee. corporation, is not a public officer and is therefore
In 1999, President Joseph Estrada created the Ad beyond the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Hoc and Independent Citizen's Committee
(AHICC) to investigate the alleged anomalies. Ratio:
Both investigations recommended further inquiry Nature of Expocorp: Expocorp is a private
by the Office of the Ombudsman. corporation because it was not created by a special
Filing of Charges law, was incorporated under the Corporation
In 2001, the Ombudsman filed an Code, and is majority-owned by a private entity
Information against Luis J. Morales, the acting (Global). The fact that BCDA, a government
president of Expocorp, for violating Section 3(e) agency, was a minority stockholder does not make
of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Expocorp a government-owned or controlled
Practices Act). corporation.
The charge alleged that Morales, acting Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan: The
with evident bad faith and manifest partiality, sold Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction only over public
a Mercedes Benz vehicle to Rodolfo M. Lejano officers and employees, including those in
without public bidding or board approval, failing government-owned or controlled corporations.
to deposit the proceeds into Expocorp's account. Since Expocorp is a private corporation, its
Morales' Defense officers, including Morales, are private individuals
Morales moved to dismiss the case, outside the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction.
arguing that Expocorp is a private corporation and Public Officer Definition: Morales is not a public
that he is not a public officer. He claimed that the officer because his position as president of
Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over him and Expocorp did not stem from a government
the offense charged. appointment or involve the performance of
He asserted that Expocorp was not a sovereign functions. His role was limited to
government-owned or controlled corporation, as it managing a private corporation.
was not created by a special law, had no original
charter, and was majority-owned by private Conclusion:
individuals. The Supreme Court upheld the
Sandiganbayan's Ruling Sandiganbayan's dismissal of the case, ruling that
The Sandiganbayan ruled that Expocorp is Morales, as president of a private corporation,
a private corporation, as it was not created by a is not subject to the jurisdiction of the
special law and was majority-owned by Global Sandiganbayan. Expocorp's private nature and
Clark Assets Corporation (Global), a private majority private ownership preclude its
entity. classification as a GOCC.
The court dismissed the case, holding that
Morales, as a private individual, was beyond the 16. Preclaro vs. Sandiganbayan, 247 SCRA 45;
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
FACTS:
Issue: Accused is a project manager/consultant of
Whether Expocorp is a government-owned or the Chemical Mineral Division, Industrial
controlled corporation, making its president a Technology Development Institute, Department of
public officer subject to the jurisdiction of the Science and Technology, a component of the
Sandiganbayan. Industrial Development Institute which is an
Whether Luis J. Morales, as president of agency of the DOST.
Expocorp, is a public officer under the Anti-Graft He is to supervise the construction of the
and Corrupt Practices Act. ITDI-CMD building, while the Jaime Sta. Maria

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 16 of 19

Construction undertook the construction. The law, or which is coterminous with that of the
structure is jointly funded by the Philippine and appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or
Japanese Governments. which is limited to the duration of a particular
While the said construction has not yet project for which purpose employment was made.
been completed, accused either directly requested
and/or demanded for himself the sum of Section 9(4) of the same provides that Non-Career
P200,000.00, claimed as part of the expected Service It shall include Contractual personnel or
profit of the contractor. those employment in the government is in
Petitioner was charged for violation of the accordance with a special contract to undertake a
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for specific work or job, requiring special or technical
committing said offense in relation to the skills not available in the employing agency, to be
performance of his official duties. accomplished within a specific period, which in
Petitioner asserts in a petition for review no case shall exceed one year, and performs or
that he is not a public officer because he was accomplishes the specific work or job, under his
neither elected nor appointed to a public office, own responsibility with a minimum of direction
but merely a private individual hired by the ITDI and supervision from the hiring agency.
on contractual basis for a particular project and for
a specified period. Hence the Sandiganbayan erred 17. NATIONAL LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
in taking cognizance of the case. REGISTRATION ADMINISTRATION
Section 2 (b) of RA 3019 defines a public (NALTDRA) vs. CIVIL SERVICE
officer to “include elective and appointive COMMISSION and VIOLETA L. GARCIA,
officials and employees, permanent or [G.R. No. 84301. April 7, 1993.]
temporary, whether in the classified or
unclassified or exemption service receiving DOCTRINE:
compensation, even nominal, from the There is no dispute over the authority to
government…” carry out a valid reorganization in any branch or
agency of the Government. The power to
ISSUE: reorganize is, however is not absolute.
W/N a private individual hired on a Reorganizations in this jurisdiction have
contractual basis by the government is a public been regarded as valid provided they are
officer. – YES. pursued in good faith. This court has pronounced
that if the newly created office has substantially
RULING: new, different or additional functions, duties or
The word “includes” used in defining a powers, so that it may be said in fact to create an
public officer indicates that the definition is not office different from the one abolished, even
restrictive. The terms “classified, unclassified or though it embraces all or some of the duties of the
exemption service” were the old categories of old office it will be considered as an abolition of
position in the civil service which have been one office and the creation of a new or different
reclassified into Career Service and Non-Career one. The same is true if one office is abolished
Service by PD 807 providing for the organization and its duties, for reasons of economy are given to
of the Civil Service Commission by the an existing officer or office.
Administrative Code of 1987.
FACTS:
A private individual hired on a contractual basis In 1977, petitioner Garcia, a Bachelor of
as Project Manager for a government undertaking Laws graduate and a first-grade civil service
falls under the non-career service category of the eligible was appointed Deputy Register of Deeds
Civil Service and thus is a public officer as VII under permanent status. Said position was
defined by Sec 2(b) of RA 3019. later reclassified to Deputy Register of Deeds III
pursuant to PD 1529, to which position, petitioner
Under Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Sec was also appointed under permanent status up to
6(2) of the Administrative Code of 1987, non- September 1984. She was for two years
career service in particular is characterized by 1) designated as Acting Branch Register of Deeds of
entrance other than those of the usual test of merit Meycauayan, Bulacan.
and fitness utilized for the career service; and 2) By virtue of Executive Order No. 649,
tenure which is limited to a period specified by petitioner Garcia was issued an appointment as

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 17 of 19

Deputy Register of Deeds II on October 1, 1984, and not to those who were already in the service
under temporary status, for not being a member of of the LRC as deputy register of deeds at the time
the Philippine Bar. of the issuance and implementation of the
She appealed to the Secretary of Justice Executive Order. YES. Membership in the BAR
but her request was denied. Garcia – MR, unacted. should be required pursuant to EO 649.
On October 23, 1984, petitioner Garcia was
administratively charged with Conduct RULING:
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Executive Order No. 649 authorized the
While said case was pending decision, her reorganization of the Land Registration
temporary appointment as such was renewed in Commission (LRC) into the National Land Titles
1985. and Deeds Registration Administration
In a Memorandum dated October 30, (NALTDRA). It abolished all the positions in the
1986, the Secretary of Justice notified petitioner now defunct LRC and required new appointments
Garcia of the termination of her services as to be issued to all employees of the NALTDRA.
Deputy Register of Deeds II on the ground that
she was "receiving bribe money". Said Two questions therefore arise: (1) was the
Memorandum of Termination which took effect abolition carried out by a legitimate body?; and
on February 9, 1987, was the subject of an appeal (2) was it done in good faith? There is no dispute
to the Inter-Agency Review Committee which in over the authority to carry out a valid
turn referred the appeal to the Merit Systems reorganization in any branch or agency of the
Protection Board (MSPB). Government. The power to reorganize is, however
The MSPB dropped the appeal of is not absolute. In Dario vs. Mison, it was held
petitioner Garcia on the ground that since the that reorganizations in this jurisdiction have been
termination of her services was due to the regarded as valid provided they are pursued in
expiration of her temporary appointment, her good faith. This court has pronounced that if the
separation is in order. newly created office has substantially new,
However, in its Resolution, the Civil Service different or additional functions, duties or powers,
Commission directed that private respondent so that it may be said in fact to create an office
Garcia be restored to her position as Deputy different from the one abolished, even though it
Register of Deeds II or its equivalent in the embraces all or some of the duties of the old
NALTDRA. It held that "under the vested right office it will be considered as an abolition of one
theory the new requirement of BAR membership office and the creation of a new or different one.
to qualify for permanent appointment as Deputy The same is true if one office is abolished and its
Register of Deeds II or higher as mandated under duties, for reasons of economy are given to an
said Executive Order, would not apply to her but existing officer or office.
only to the filling up of vacant lawyer positions on Executive Order No. 649 was enacted to
or after February 9, 1981, the date said Executive improve the services and better systematize the
Order took effect. operation of the Land Registration Commission. A
Petitioner NALTDRA filed the present petition to reorganization is carried out in good faith if it is
assail the validity of the above Resolution of the for the purpose of economy or to make
Civil Service Commission. It contends that bureaucracy more efficient. To this end, the
Sections 8 and 10 of Executive Order No. 649 requirement of Bar membership to qualify for key
abolished all existing positions in the LRC and positions in the NALTDRA was imposed to meet
transferred their functions to the appropriate new the changing circumstances and new development
offices created by said Executive Order, which of the times.
newly created offices required the issuance of Private respondent Garcia who formerly
new appointments to qualified office holders. held the position of Deputy Register of Deeds II
Verily, Executive Order No. 649 applies to private did not have such qualification. It is thus clear that
respondent Garcia, and not being a member of the she cannot hold any key position in the
Bar, she cannot be reinstated to her former NALTDRA, the additional qualification was not
position as Deputy Register of Deeds II. intended to remove her from office. Rather, it was
a criterion imposed concomitant with a valid
ISSUE: reorganization measure.
Whether or not membership in the bar should be To reiterate, the position which private
required of and/or applied only to new applicants respondent Garcia would like to occupy anew

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 18 of 19

was abolished pursuant to Executive Order No. virtually all ages. As already laid down in the
649, a valid reorganization measure. There is Decision subject of this recourse, the interest of
no vested property right to be re employed in a the government in protecting children who may be
reorganized office. subjected to petitioner's invectives must take
Not being a member of the Bar, the precedence over his desire to air publicly his dirty
minimum requirement to qualify under the laundry. The public soapbox that is television
reorganization law for permanent appointment as must be guarded by the state, which purpose the
Deputy Register of Deeds II, she cannot be MTRCB serves, and has served, in suspending
reinstated to her former position without violating Ang Dating Daan for petitioner's statements. As
the express mandate of the law. emphasized in Gonzalez v. Kalaw Katigbak,the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, We freedom of broadcast media is, in terms of degree
hereby GRANT the petition and SET ASIDE the of protection it deserves, lesser in scope,
questioned Resolution of the Civil Service especially as regards television, which reaches
Commission reinstating private respondent to her every home where there is a set, and where
former position as Deputy Register of Deeds II or children will likely be among the avid viewers of
its equivalent in the National Land Titles and the programs shown. The same case also laid the
Deeds Registration Administration. SO basis for the classification system of the MTRCB
ORDERED. when it stated, "It cannot be denied though that
the State as parens patriae is called upon to
18. Soriano vs. Laguardia, 587 SCRA 79 manifest an attitude of caring for the welfare of
the young.”
FACTS: Yes. We thus reject petitioner's postulate
On August 10, 2004, when Soriano, the that its religious program is per se beyond review
host of the television program "Ang Dating by the respondent [MTRCB]. Its public broadcast
Daan," made derogatory remarks during a live on TV of its religious program brings it out of the
broadcast in response to criticisms from INC bosom of internal belief. Television is a medium
ministers, particularly targeting Michael M. that reaches even the eyes and ears of children.
Sandoval. Following these remarks, which The Court iterates the rule that the exercise of
included vulgar language, a complaint was filed religious freedom can be regulated by the State
against Soriano with the MTRCB. The MTRCB when it will bring about the clear and present
initially imposed a 20-day preventive suspension danger of some substantive evil which the State is
on the program, which Soriano contested in the duty bound to prevent, i.e. serious detriment to the
Supreme Court under G.R. No. 164785. more overriding interest of public health, public
Subsequently, on September 27, 2004, the morals, or public welfare. A laissez faire policy on
MTRCB found Soriano guilty of violating the the exercise of religion can be seductive to the
program's "G" rating and imposed a three-month liberal mind but history counsels the Court against
suspension on "Ang Dating Daan." Soriano filed a its blind adoption as religion is and continues to
second petition under G.R. No. 165636 to be a volatile area of concern in our country today.
challenge this decision. The Supreme Court Across the sea and in our shore, the bloodiest and
consolidated both cases and rendered a decision bitterest wars fought by men were caused by
on April 29, 2009, which upheld the MTRCB's irreconcilable religious differences. Our country is
authority to impose the suspension. still not safe from the recurrence of this stultifying
strife considering our warring religious beliefs and
ISSUE: the fanaticism with which some of us cling and
Should the Court have applied a policy of non- claw to these beliefs. For when religion divides
interference in conflicts between religious groups? and its exercise destroys, the State should not
Is it justifiable to penalize the television program stand still.
for the actions of its host? *Admin bodies like MTRCB has the
right to regulate…(to address the violation to
RULING: religion)
No. The court held that: Petitioner's
position may be accorded some cogency, but for
the fact that it fails to consider that the medium he
used to make his statements was a television
broadcast, which is accessible to children of

LGS Cases – Weeks 1-2 Page 19 of 19