06 Law On Public Officers

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
Bustamante | Curamen | Jaramillo | Juguan | Manalili | Montes | Rosario
Public Office
M A G
N U
A L
B E
R T
M A N A L
PUBLIC OFFICE
It is a right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by
law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the
sovereign functions of the state to be exercised by him for the benefit of the body politic.
According to Judge Thomas McIntyre Cooley; The officer is distinguished from the employee in the greater
importance, dignity and independence of his position; in being required to take an official oath, and
perhaps to give an official bond; in the liability to be called to account as a public offender for misfeasance
or non-misfeasance in office, and usually, though not necessarily, in the tenure of his position.
Elements of a public office:
It must be created by law or by authority of law.

It must possess a delegation of a portion of the sovereign powers of government, to be exercised
for the publics benefit.
The powers conferred and the duties to be discharged must be defined, directly or impliedly, by
the legislature or through legislative authority.
The duties must be performed independently and without control of a superior power other than
the law unless they be those of an inferior or subordinate office created or authorized by the
legislature, and by it placed under the general control of a superior office or body.
It must have some permanence and continuity and not be only temporary or occasional.
Selection for Public Office
Appointment- act of designation by the appointing officer, body or board, to whom that power
has been delegated, of the individual who is to exercise the functions of a given office. The
President may appoint:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Heads of the executive departments

Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.
Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain.
Those other officers whose appointments are vested in him by the Constitution
All other officers of the government whose appointments are not provided for by law.
Those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.
Election- a mode of filing a public office, by which the enfranchised citizenry is able to participate
directly in the conduct of the government, through the selection by them of the functionaries who
will represent them therein.
Vacancies- exist when there is no person lawfully authorized to assume and exercise at present the duties
of the office.
Original when an office is created and no one has as yet been chosen to fill it.
Constructive when the incumbent has no legal right to the office such as a de facto officer and
may be legally replaced by another.
Accidental when the incumbent is separated by any mode other than expiration of the term, like
resignation, death, removal or abandonment.
Public Office
M A G
N U
A L
B E
R T
M A N A L
Qualification as an act
The term qualification is interpreted in another sense, to wit, as an act by which the public
functionary formally commences the discharge of his official duties. This is effected by the taking
of an oath or the filing of a bond, or both in the case of certain officers
Failure to Qualify
According to Mechem, Statutes requiring the taking of an oath, like those which require also
the giving of a bond, usually require that it shall be done within a specified time. These
statutes, however, are generally construed to be directory merely and not mandatory, and
mere delay in taking the oath, if it be afterwards taken with the approval of the public
authorities, while it may be ground for a forfeiture while the delay continues, does not amount
ipso facto to a rejection of the office, and when the oath is so taken, the default is waived.
De Facto Officer- refers to an officer holding a colorable right or title to the office accompanied by
possession. The lawful acts of an officer de facto, so far as the rights of thirds persons are concerned, when
done within the scope and by the apparent authority of office, are valid and binding.
Existence of a De Jure office

Color of Title
Physical Possession of the Office
De Jure Officer- one who has lawful title to the office but has not been able to take possession of it or has
been ousted therefrom.
Civil Service Commission
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The independent constitutional commissions are the Civil Service

Commission, the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit.
Safeguards in Insuring the Independence of the Commissions

There are independent offices specifically authorized by the Constitution to
appoint their officials. This does not imply that their appointment will not be
subject to Civil Service Law and Rules. If otherwise, these independent
bodies would arrogate upon themselves a power that properly belongs to the
Civil Service Commission. Had the intention of the framers of the
Constitutional Commissions in the matter of appointments, it would have
been so provided. But that is not the case. And since all matters pertaining to
appointments are within the realm of expertise to the CSC, all laws, rules and
regulations it issues on appointments must be complied with.
Ombudsman v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 159940, February 16,
2005
They are constitutionally created; may not be abolished by statute.

Each is expressly described as independent.
Each is conferred certain powers and functions which cannot be
reduced by statute.
The Chairmen and members cannot be removed except by
impeachment.
The Chairmen and members are given a fairly long term of office of
seven years.
The Chairmen and members may not be reappointed or appointed in
an acting capacity.
Brillantes v. Yorac | 192 SCRA 258
It was held that the designation of Commissioner Yorac as Acting
Chairman of the Commission on Elections was a violation of this
provision.
ARTICLE IX-A, SECTION 1

The Constitutional
Commissions, which
shall be independent,
are the Civil Service
Commission, the
Commission on Elections,
and the Commission on
Audit.
The salary of the
Chairman and the
Commissioners shall be
fixed by law and shall
not be decreased during
their tenure.
The Constitutional
Commissions shall
appoint their officials
and employees in
accordance with law.
The Commission shall
enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Their approved annual
appropriations shall be
automatically and
regularly released.
Each Commission en
banc may promulgate its
own rules concerning
pleadings and practice
before it or before any of
its offices. Such rules,
however, shall not
Matibag v. Benipayo | GR No. 149036, April 2, 2002

The Supreme Court said that when an ad interim appointment (of the Chairman of the Commission
on Elections) is not confirmed (as it was by-passed, or that there was not ample time for the
Commission on Appointments to pass upon the same), another ad interim appointment may be
extended to the appointee without violating the Constitution.
The salaries of the chairman and members are relatively high and may not be decreased during
continuance in office.
The Commission enjoy fiscal autonomy.
The Civil Service Commission, Commission on Audit, and the Commission on Elections perform key
functions in the government. In order to protect their integrity, they have been made constitutional
bodies. Because they perform vital functions of government, it is essential that their independence
be protected against outside influences and political pressures. Hence, they enjoy fiscal autonomy;
the salary of Commissioners may not be diminished during their continuance in office; the
Commissioners have a fixed term; and they are removable only by impeachment.
Civil Service Commission v. Department of Budget and Management | GR No. 158791, July
22, 2005
The petitioner, via the present petition for mandamus seeks to compel the Department of Budget
and Management to release the balance of its budget for fiscal year 2002. CSC claims that the
reason for the withholding was the no report, no release policy. Budget Department, however,
claims that the failure to release the fund in full is because of shortage of funds.
Respecting respondents justification for the withholding of funds from petitioner as due to a
shortfall in revenues, the same does not lie. In the first place, the alleged shortfall is totally
unsubstantiated. In the second place, even assuming that there was indeed such a shortfall, that
does not justify non-compliance with the mandate above-quoted Article IX-A, Section 5. If
respondents theory were adopted, then the constitutional mandate to automatically and regularly
3
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
release approved appropriations would be suspended every year, or even every month that there
is a shortfall of revenues, thereby emasculating to a significant degree, if not rendering
insignificant altogether, such mandate.
The Supreme Court said that the no report, no release policy may not be validly enforced against
offices vested with fiscal autonomy, without violating Article IX-A, Section 5. The automatic
release of approved annual appropriations to petitioner, a constitutional commission vested with
fiscal autonomy should thus be construed to mean that no condition to fund releases to it may be
imposed. However, petitioners claim that its budget may not be reduced by Congress below the
amount appropriated for the previous year, as in the case of the Judiciary, must be rejected.
Article VIII, Section 3, prohibiting the reduction in the appropriation for the Judiciary below the
amount appropriated for the previous year, does not appear in Article IX-A, Section 5. The plain
implication of this omission is that Congress is not prohibited from reducing the appropriations of
Constitutional Commissions below the amount appropriated for them for the previous year.
Commission on Human Rights Employees Association v. Commission on Human Rights |
GR No. 155336, November 25, 2004
The Supreme Court said that the Commission on Human Rights, unlike the three Constitutional
Commissions, does not enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Each Commission may promulgate its own procedural rules, provided they do not diminish,
increase of modify substantive rights though subject to disapproval by the Supreme Court.
The Constitutional Commissions are independent bodies. Hence, the power of the Supreme
Court over rules issued by quasi-judicial bodies found in Article VIII, Section 5(5) does not apply
to them. The Court, however, in appropriate cases, may exercise judicial review over them.
Aruelo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals | October 20, 1993

In case of conflict between a rule of procedure promulgated by a Commission and a Rule of
Court, the rule of the Commission should prevail if the proceeding is before a Commission. But
if the proceeding is before a court, the Rule of Court prevails.
Macalintal v. Commission on Elections | GR No. 157013, July 10, 2003

The Congress may not assume power to review rules
promulgated by the Commission. By vesting itself with the
No member of a
powers to approve, review, amend, and revise the
Constitutional Commission
Implementing Rules for the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of
shall, during his tenure, hold
any other office or
2003, Congress went beyond the scope of its constitutional
employment. Neither shall
authority. Congress trampled upon the constitutional
he engage in the practice of
mandate of independence of the COMELEC.
any profession or in the
The Chairmen and members are subject to certain

disqualifications calculated to strengthen their integrity.
The Commissions may appoint their own officials and employees
in accordance with Civil Service Law.
Inhibitions and Disqualifications

Shall not, during tenure, hold any other office or employment.
Shall not engage in the practice of any profession.
Shall not engage in the active management or control of any
business which in any way may be affected by the functions of
his office.
Shall not be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any
contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the
Government, any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.
Rotational Scheme of Appointments
The first appointees shall serve terms of seven, five and three years,
respectively. After the first commissioners are appointed, the rotational
scheme is intended to prevent the possibility of one President appointing
all the Commissioners.
4
active management or
control of any business
which, in any way, may be
affected by the functions of
his office, nor shall he be
financially interested,
directly or indirectly, in any
contract with, or in any
franchise or privilege

Each Commission shall
decide by a majority vote of
all its Members, any case or
matter brought before it
within sixty days from the
date of its submission for
decision or resolution. A
case or matter is deemed
submitted for decision or
resolution upon the filing of
the last pleading, brief, or
memorandum required by
the rules of the Commission
or by the Commission itself.
Unless otherwise provided
by this Constitution or by
law, any decision, order, or
ruling of each Commission
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
Gamide v. Commission on Audit | GR No. 140335, December 13, 2000

It was held that in order to preserve the periodic succession mandated by the Constitution, the rotational
plan requires two conditions:
1. The terms of the first commissioners should start on a common date.
2. Any vacancy due to death, resignation or disability before the expiration of the term should be
filled only for the unexpired balance of the term.
Decisions
Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its members any case or matter brought before it
within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or resolution.
Orocio v. Commission on Audit | GR No. 75959, August 31, 1992
Bustamante v. Commission on Audit | 216 SCRA 134 (1992)
Since the Commissions are collegial bodies, the decisions are made by the body and not by
individual members of the body. No individual member may make a decision for the Commission.
Much less may cases be decided by subordinates of the Commission. Not even the Commissions
legal counsel may make a decision for the Commission.
Cua v. Commission on Elections | 156 SCRA 582 (1987)
Estrella v. Commission on Elections | GR No. 160465, May 27, 2004
The Court had ruled that the three (3) members who voted to affirm the First Division constituted
a majority of the five members who deliberated and voted thereon en banc and their decision is
also valid under the aforecited constitutional provision. This obviously contradicts Section 7,
which says: Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its members any case or
matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision or
resolution. The provision of the Constitution is clear that it should be the majority vote of all its
members and not only those who participated and took part in the deliberations.
Ambil, Jr. v. COMELEC | GR No. 143398, October 25, 2000
Commissioner Guiani, before his retirement from the COMELEC, might have signed a draft
ponencia in a case. He vacated his office without the final decision or resolution having been
promulgated. The ponencia does not have any value. Before that resolution or decision to
speak of. A final decision or resolution becomes binding only after it is promulgated and not before.
Accordingly, one who is no longer a member of the Commission at the time the final decision or
resolution is promulgated cannot validly take part in that resolution or decision. Much less could he
be the ponente of the resolution or decision.
The provision of the Constitution is clear that what is required is the majority vote of all the
members, not only of those who participated in the deliberations and voted thereon in order that a
valid decision may be made by the Constitutional Commissions. Under rules of statutory
construction, it is to be assumed that the words in which the constitutional provisions are couched
express the objective sought to be attained. This ruling abandons the doctrine laid down in Cua v.
Commission on Elections | 156 SCRA 582
Dumayas, Jr. v. Commission on Elections | GR No. 141952-53, April 20, 2001
Two Commissioners who participated in the consideration of the case retired before the
promulgation of the COMELEC decision but after they cast their vote. Four Commissioners were
left. Their votes should be automatically withdrawn. There is no decision until it is promulgated.
The remaining four Commissioners constituted the total membership and constituted a quorum.
Because two Commissioners who had participated in the deliberations had retired prior to the
promulgation of the decision, the Supreme Court said that the votes of the said Commissioners
should merely be considered withdrawn, as if they had not signed the resolution at all, and only
the votes of the remaining Commissioners considered for the purpose of deciding the controversy.
Unless the withdrawal of the votes would materially affect the result insofar as votes for or against
a party is concerned, there is no reason to declare the decision a nullity. In this case, the
withdrawal of the votes of Commissioners Gorospe and Guiani, the remaining votes among the four
incumbent commissioners, still constituting a quorum at the time of the promulgation of the
resolution, would still be 3 to 1 and thus, be a vote of the majority, in favor of the respondent.
Alvarez v. Commission on Elections | GR No. 142527, March 1, 2001
As to the need to expedite resolution of cases and the 60-day period for decision, the Supreme
Court said that the Commission on Elections has numerous cases before it where attention to
5
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
minutiae is critical. Considering the Commissions manpower and logistical limitations, it is sensible
to treat the procedural requirements on deadlines realistically. Overly strict adherence to deadlines
might induce the Commission to resolve election contests hurriedly by reason of lack of material
time. This is not what the framers had intended.
Any decision, order or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by
the aggrieved party within 30 days from receipt of a copy thereof.
Aratuc v. Commission on Elections | 88 SCRA 251
The Supreme Court held that when it reviews a decision of the Commission on Elections, the Court
exercises extraordinary jurisdiction; thus, the proceeding is limited to issues involving grave abuse
of discretion resulting in lack or excess of jurisdiction, and does not ordinarily empower the Court
to review the factual findings of the Commission.
Loong v. Commission on Elections | GR No. 133676, April 14, 1999
The Court reiterated that certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court is the appropriate remedy to
invalidate disputed Commission on Elections resolutions such as final orders, rulings and decisions
of the Commission on Elections rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
powers.
Reyes v. Commission on Audit | GR No 125129, March 29, 1999
The Court said that under Rule 64, Section 2, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, judgments or
final orders of the Commission on Audit may be brought by an aggrieved party to the Supreme
Court on certiorari under Rule 65. Even before the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, the mode of elevating cases decided by the Commission on Audit to the Supreme
Court was only by petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as provided by the Constitution. The
judgments and final orders of Commission on Audit, are not reviewable by ordinary writ of error or
appeal by certiorari to the Supreme Court. Only when the Commission on Audit acts without or in
excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
may this Court entertain a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
Mahinay v. Court of Appeals | GR No. 152457, April 30, 2008
In the case of decisions of the Civil Service Commission, however, Supreme Court Revised Circular
1-91, as amended by Revised Administrative Circular 1-95, which took effect on June 1, 1995,
provides that final resolutions of the Civil Service Commission shall be appealable by certiorari to
the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof. From the decision of
the Court of Appeals, the party adversely affected thereby shall file a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The Supreme Court held that the proper mode of appeal from the decision of the Civil Service
Commission is a petition for review under Rule 43 filed with the Court of Appeals.
Abella, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 152574, November 17, 2004
Because the petitioner imputed to the Court of Appeals grave abuse of discretion for ruling that
he had no legal standing to contest the disapproval of his appointment, the Supreme Court said
that grave abuse of discretion is a ground for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court resolved to give due course to the petition and to treat
it appropriately as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The
grounds alleged shall be deemed reversible errors, not grave abuse of discretion.
Enforcement of Decision
Vital-Gozon v. Court of Appeals | 212 SCRA 235
It was held that final decisions of the Civil Service Commission are enforceable by a writ of
execution that the Civil Service Commission may itself issue.
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Composition
A Chairman and two Commissioners, who shall be natural-born citizens of the
Philippines and, at the same time of their appointment, at least thirty-five (35)
years of age, with proven capacity for public administration, and must not have
been candidates for any elective position in the election immediately preceding
their appointment. They shall be appointed by the President with the consent of
the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven (7) years without
reappointment. In no case shall any member be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity. Brillantes v. Yorac, supra
Gaminde v. Commission on Audit | GR No. 140335, December 13, 2000
The common starting point for appointees to the Commission was on February 2,
1987, the date the 1987 Constitution take. This true even if Article XVIII,
Section 15 provided for an extension of the tenure of the incumbents when the
Constitution took effect. The extension of the tenure did not affect the term.
Thus, in reckoning the seven year term, the starting point is always a February 2.
Through this rotational system the staggering of the terms is preserved. This rule
also applies to all three Commissions.
Nature of Powers
The Commission is an administrative agency, nothing more. As such, it can only
perform powers proper to an administrative agency. It can perform executive
powers, quasi-judicial powers, and quasi-legislative or rule-making powers.
Mathay, Jr. v. Court of Appeals | GR No. 124374, December 15, 1999
PD 51 created certain offices and they were promptly filled. After martial law,
Mayor Simon of Quezon City also filled them by appointment. In 1990, however,
PD 51 was declared never to have been published and therefore was not law. To
save the workers therein, the sanggunian passed an ordinance declaring the
personnel absorbed in the department of public order and safety. But since
there were not enough position, Simon made them contractual employees. When
Mathay became Mayor, he also renewed the contracts once but refused to renew
them thereafter. The Commission on Civil Service ordered Mathay to take them
saying that their reappointment was automatic pursuant to the ordinance. The
ordinance was invalid. Ordering the absorption of the personnel is an act of
appointment. The city council has no power to appoint.
Constitutional Objectives & Functions

As the central personnel agency of the Government, to establish a career
service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity,
responsiveness, progressiveness and courtesy in the civil service. To
strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human resources
development programs for all levels and ranks, and to institutionalize a
management climate conducive to public accountability.
The general objective of a civil service is to establish and promote

professionalism and efficiency in public service.
Secretary Orbos v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 92561,
September 12, 1990
Chang v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 86791, November 26,
1990
When there are more than one person qualified for a position, the CSC
may not dictate to the appointing authority who among those qualified
should be appointed. The power of the CSC is limited to attesting to the
eligibility or ineligibility of the appointee.
ARTICLE IX-B, SECTION 1

1.
The civil service
shall be
administered by
the Civil Service
Commission
composed of a
Chairman and
two
Commissioners
who shall be
natural-born
citizens of the
Philippines and,
at the time of
their
appointment, at
least thirty-five
years of age,
with proven
capacity for
public
administration,
and must not
have been
candidates for
any elective
position in the
elections
immediately
preceding their
appointment.
2.
The Chairman
and the
Commissioners
shall be
appointed by the
President with
the consent of
the Commission
on Appointments
for a term of
seven years
without
reappointment.
Of those first
appointed, the
Chairman shall
hold office for
seven years, a
Commissioner for
five years, and
another
Commissioner for
three years,
without
reappointment.
Appointment to
any vacancy shall
be only for the
unexpired term
of the
predecessor. In
no case shall any
Member be
appointed or
designated in a
temporary or
acting capacity.
The Civil Service
Commission, as the
central personnel
agency of the
Government, shall
Lazo v. Civil Service Commission | 236 SCRA 469, 472 (1994)

As central personnel agency of the government, the CSC may revoke a certificate of eligibility
motu proprio. The power to issue a certificate of eligibility carries with it the power to revoke one
7
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
that has been given. Whether or not hearing is required for revocation depends on the
circumstances of a case. Thus, where the case simply involves the rechecking of examination
papers and nothing more than a re-evaluation of documents already in the records of the CSC
according to a standard answer key previously set by it, notice and hearing is not required.
Instead, what would apply in such a case is the rule of res ipsa loquitor.
GSIS v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 87146, December 11, 1991
CSC has automatic review jurisdiction, not original, over personnel cases given by statute
to the jurisdiction of the Merit System Board.
Torregoza v. Civil Service Commission | 211 SCRA 230
In the exercise of its powers to implement RA 6850, which is the law granting civil service eligibility
to employees under provisional or temporary status who have rendered seven (7) years of efficient
service, the Civil Service Commission enjoys wide latitude of discretion, and may not be compelled
by mandamus to issue such eligibility.
Eugenio v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 115863, March 31, 1995
The Commission cannot validly abolish the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) because it was
created by law, it can only be abolished by Legislature.
Mathay v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 130214, August 9, 1999

Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the Civil Service Commission has the power to hear and
decide administrative cases instituted before it directly or on appeal, including contested
appointments. The Omnibus Rules implementing the Administrative Code provides, among others,
that notwithstanding the initial approval of an appointment, the same may be recalled for violation
of other existing Civil Service laws, rules and regulations.
Debulgado v. Civil Service Commission | 237 SCRA 184
It was held that the power of the Civil Service Commission includes the authority to recall an
appointment initially approved in disregard of applicable provisions of the Civil Service law and
regulations.
Cruz v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 144464, November 22, 2001

The Commission has original jurisdiction to hear and decide a complaint for cheating in the Civil
Service examinations committed by government employees. The fact that the complaint was filed
by the Civil Service Commission itself does not mean that it cannot be an impartial judge.
Olanda v. Bugayong | GR No. 140917, October 10, 2003 citing Mantala v. Salvador 206 SCRA
264
It is the intent of the Civil Service Law, in requiring the establishment of a grievance procedure,
that decisions of lower level officials in cases involving personnel action be appealed to the agency
head, then to the Civil Service Commission. The Regional Trial Court does not have jurisdiction over
such personnel actions.
Ontiveros v. Court of Appeals | GR No. 145401, May 7,

2001
The Commission does not have an appellate jurisdiction over
a case of separation from government service made pursuant
to Article II, Section 2 of the Provisional Constitution,
which provided: All elective and appointive officials and
employees under the 1973 Constitution shall continue in
office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive
order, or upon the designation or appointment and
qualification of their successors, if such is made within a
period of one year from February 25, 1986.
Scope of the Civil Service

1. The civil service embraces all
branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and
agencies of the Government,
including government-owned
or controlled corporations with
original charters.
2. Appointments in the civil
service shall be made only
according to merit and fitness
to be determined, as far as
practicable, and, except to
positions which are policydetermining, primarily
confidential, or highly
technical, by competitive
examination.
3. No officer or employee of the
civil service shall be removed
or suspended except for cause
provided by law.
4. No officer or employee in the
civil service shall engage,
directly or indirectly, in any
electioneering or partisan
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
Embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, including
government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters.
PNOC Energy Development Corporation v. National Labor Relations Corporation | 201
SCRA 487 (1991)
The Civil Service system under the new Constitution covers only government-owned and controlled
corporations with original charter. Moreover, even if a case arose under the 1973 Constitution
but is to be decided under the 1987 Constitution, the applicable rule is that of the 1987
Constitution. The moment, however, that a corporation ceases to be government controlled, for
instance, if it is privatized, it ceases to fall under the Civil Service.
Philippine National Oil Company Energy Development Corporation v. Leogardo | GR No.
58494, July 5, 1985
The test is the manner of its creation. Corporations created by special charter are subject to the
Civil Service, whereas corporations incorporated under the Corporation Law are not.
Tanay Water District v. Gabaton | GR No. 63742, April 17, 1989
Tanay Water District, created by PD 198, comes under the Civil Service.
Philippine Fisheries Development Authority v. National Labor Relations Commission &
Odin Security Agency | GR No. 94825, September 4, 1992
Entities under the civil service system are not completely beyond the reach of the Department of
Labor or labor laws. When a government entity that is under the Civil Service enters into a
contract such as with a security agency or a janitorial agency, it becomes an indirect employer of
the security guards or the janitors. In such a situation, under the Labor Code, the liabilities for
wages are joint and solidary with the contractor. The law on wages in the Labor Code specifically
provides that employer includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an
employer in relation to employees.
Davao City Water District v. Civil Service Commission | GR Nos. 95237-8, September 13,
1991
Tanjay Water District v. Gabaton | 172 SCRA 253 (1989)
Local Water Districts incorporated are under PD 198 government owned corporations with original,
which means corporations created by special law and not under the Corporation Code of the
Philippines and therefore under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service.
During the 1971 Constitutional Convention debates, when this provision was first introduced,
government-owned corporations came under attack as milking cows of a privileged few enjoying
salaries far higher than their counterparts in the various branches of government. It was pointed
out that the capital of these corporations belongs to the government and that government money
is pumped into them whenever on the brink of disaster and they should therefor come under the
strict surveillance of the civil service system.
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation v. Court of Appeals | GR No. 93396,
September 30, 1991
PAGCOR is under the Civil Service since it was created by PD 1869, July 11, 1983.
Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) v. National Housing
Corporation (1990)
National Service Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission | 168 SCRA 122
It was held that the NHC is not embraced in the civil service, and that employer-employee
relationship therein is governed not by the Civil Service Law but by the Labor Code of the
Philippines.
Juco v. National Labor Relations Commission | GR No. 98107, August 18, 1997
It was held that employment relations in the National Housing Corporation (NHC) are within the
jurisdiction of the NLRC, but the CSC, even if the controversy arose prior to 1987, because, as held
in NASECO v. NLRC, supra, it is the Constitution in place at the time of the decision which
governs. In this case, the Supreme Court declared that the phrase with original charter refers to
corporations chartered by special law as distinguished from corporations organized under the
Corporation Code.
University of the Philippines v. Regino | 221 SCRA 598

9
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
It was held that the University of the Philippines, having been created by a special law and having
an original charter, is clearly part of the Civil Service.
Mateo v. Court of Appeals | 247 SCRA 284
It was held that the Morong Water District, a quasi-public corporation created pursuant to PD 198,
is a government-owned corporation with an original charter. Accordingly, its employees fall within
the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, and the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction to
entertain cases involving dismissal of officers and employees in the said water district.
Prior to June 1, 1995, decisions could be reviewed only by the Supreme Court by certiorari under
Rule 65. Now, however, it is provided (June 1, 1995) in Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95,
pursuant to RA No. 7902, that judgments or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies may be
appealed to the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof. The change is
pursuant to Section 7 which says, unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law.
Mathay, Jr. v. Commission on Civil Service, supra
Reyes v. Regional Trial Court | GR No. 108886, May 5, 1995
Rule 65, Section 1 says that certiorari may be resorted to when there is no other plain, speedy
and adequate remedy. But reconsideration is a speedy and adequate remedy. Hence, a case may
be brought to the Supreme Court only after reconsideration. As a consequence, in the case of
decisions of the COMELEC, only decisions en banc may be brought to the Court by certiorari since
Article IX-C-3 says that motions for reconsideration of decisions shall be decided by the
Commission en banc.
The kind of decisions of Constitutional Commissions may be elevated to the Supreme Court
through Rule 65 are only grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction.
Moreover, the case or matter referred to by the Constitution may be brought to the Supreme
Court on certiorari under Section 7, Article IX-C are those that relate to the exercise of
adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. In the case of COMELEC, these must be cases involving
elective, regional, provincial, and city officials.
ABS-CBN v. COMELEC | 323 SCRA 611
The Supreme Court dispensed with the need for reconsideration since elections were already very
close and there was no more time for another speedy remedy. The case was about exit polls.
EIIB v. Court of Appeals | GR No. 129133, November 25, 1998

The Economic Intelligence and Information Bureau is a government agency within the scope of the
coverage of the Civil Service.
Department of Health v. National Labor Relations Commission | 251 SCRA 700
The Jose M. Rodriguez Memorial Hospital is a government hospital exercising governmental
functions, it falls within the scope of the coverage of the Civil Service.
Camporedondo v. National Labor Relations Commission & Philippine National Red Cross
| GR No. 129049, August 6, 1999
The Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) is a government-owned and controlled corporation with
an original charter under RA No. 95, as amended. Paid staff of the PNRC are government
employees who are members of the GSIS and covered by the Civil Service Law.
Classes of Service
Characterized by entrance based on merit and fitness to be determined, as far as practicable by
competitive examinations, or based on highly technical qualifications; opportunity for advancement to
higher career positions; and security of tenure.
The positions included in the career service are:
1. Open career positions, where prior qualification in an appropriate examination is required.
2. Closed career positions, such as scientific or highly technical in nature.
3. Career Executive Service, such as undersecretaries, bureau directors, etc.
4. Career officers other than those belonging to the Career Executive Service who are appointed by
the President, such as those in the foreign office.
5. Positions in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, although governed by a separate merit system.
6. Personnel of government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.
7. Permanent laborers, whether skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled.
10
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
Career Executive Service (CES)

On May 31, 1994, the Civil Service Commission issued Memorandum Circular No. 21 series of 1994,
identifying the positions covered by the Career Executive Service, as well as all other third level positions
of equivalent category in all branches and instrumentalities of the national government, including
government owned and controlled corporations with original charters provided that the position is a
career position, is above division chief level, and the duties and responsibilities of the position require the
performance of executive managerial functions.
Incumbents of positions which are declared to be Career Executive Service positions for the first time
pursuant to this Resolution who hold permanent appointments thereto shall remain under permanent
status in their respective positions. However, upon promotion or transfer to other CES positions, these
incumbents shall be under temporary status in said other CES positions until they qualify.
The petitioner, who was already holding the position of Department Manager of the Legal Services
Department of EPZA (with appropriate ELM eligibility required at that time) had the right to remain
in his position even after the same had been declared a CES position in 1994. However, when he
retired as such Department Manager in 1996, his government service
ended, and his right to remain in the CES position, notwithstanding his lack
CLASSIFICATION OF
POSITIONS IN THE
of CES eligibility, also ceased. Upon his reemployment in January 1999 at
CIVIL SERVICE
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority as Department Manager III, it was
UNDER CIVIL
necessary for him to comply with the CES eligibility prescribed at the time
SERVICE CODE PD
807
for that position. Not being a CES eligible, he could not validly challenge
the disapproval of his appointment by the Civil Service Commission.
De Leon v. Court of Appeals | GR No. 127182, January 22, 2001
The mere fact that a position belongs to the Career Executive Service does
not automatically confer security of tenure on the applicant. Such right will
have to depend on the nature of his appointment which, in turn, depends
on his eligibility of lack of it. A person who does not have the requisite
qualifications for the position cannot be appointed to it in the first place or,
only as an exception to the rule, may be appointed to it only in an acting
capacity in the absence of appropriate eligibles. The appointment
extended to him cannot be regarded as permanent even if it may be so
designated. Such being the case, he could be transferred or reassigned
without violating the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.
Security of Tenure in the Career Executive Service
The two requisites that must concur in order that an employee in the career
executive service may attain security of tenure are:
1. Career executive service eligibility
2. Appointment to the appropriate career executive service rank.
It must be stressed that the security of tenure of employees in the career
executive service except first and second level employees in the civil service
pertains only to rank and not to the office or to the position to which they may be
appointed.
The importance of security of tenure in the system is for the efficiency of a civil
service system, which depends largely on the morale of the officers and employees
in the service. Morale, in turn, can be fatally undermined when the security of
officers in the possession of their office is unprotected against the arbitrary action
of superior officers. Hence, the basic in any civil service is a guarantee of security
of tenure, a guarantee against arbitrary impairment, whether total or partial, of the
right to continue in the position held.
General v. Roco | GR Nos. 143366 & 143524, January 29, 2001
A career executive service officer may be transferred or reassigned from
one position to another without losing his rank which follows him wherever
he is transferred or reassigned. In fact, a career executive service officer
suffers no diminution in salary even if assigned to a CES position with
11
CAREER SERVICE
1.
Entrance
based on merit
and fitness to
be determined
as far as
practicable by
competitive
examinations,
or based on
highly
technical
qualifications.
2.
Security of
tenure.
3.
Opportunity
for
advancement
to higher
career
positions.
NON-CAREER
SERVICE
1.
Entrance on
bases other
than those of
the usual tests
of merit and
fitness utilized
for the career
service.
2.
Tenure which
is limited to a
period
specified by
law, or which
is coterminous with
that of the
appointing
authority or
subject to his
pleasure, or
which is
limited to the
duration of a
particular
project for
which purpose
employment
was made.
This classification
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
lower salary grade, as he is compensated according to his CES rank and not on the basis of the
position or office which he occupies.
Cuevas v. Bacal | GR No. 139382, December 6, 2000

Respondent Josefina Bacal, who held CES Rank Level III, Salary Grade 28, could not claim that she
had a valid and vested right to the position of Chief Public Attorney (CES Rank Level IV, Salary
Grade 30). Inasmuch as respondent does not have the rank appropriate for the position of Chief
Public Attorney, her appointment to that position cannot be considered permanent, and she can
claim no security of tenure in respect to that position.
Non-Career Service
Characterized by entrance on bases other than those of the usual tests utilized for the career service;
tenure limited to a period specified by law, or which is co-terminus with that of the appointing authority or
subject to his pleasure, or which is limited to the duration of a particular project for which purpose the
employment was made. The officers and employees embraced in the non-career service are:
1. Elective officials, and their personal and confidential staff.
2. Department heads and officials of Cabinet rank who hold office at the pleasure of the President, and
their personal and confidential staff.
3. Chairmen and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms of office, and their personal and
confidential staff.
4. Contractual personnel or those whose employment in government is in accordance with a special
contract to undertake a specific work or job requiring special or technical skills not available in the
employing agency, to be accomplished within a specific period not exceeding one year, under their
own responsibility, with the minimum direction and supervision.
5. Emergency and seasonal personnel.
Montecillo v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 131954, June 28, 2001
The Supreme Court said that under the Administrative Code of 1987, the Civil Service Commission is
expressly empowered to declare positions in the Civil Service as primarily confidential. This signifies
that the enumeration in the Civil Service decree, which defines the non-career service, is not an
exclusive list. The Commission can supplement this enumeration, as it did when it issued
Memorandum Circular No. 22 s. 1991, specifying positions in the Civil Service which are considered
primarily confidential and, therefore, their occupants hold tenure co-terminus with the officials they
serve.
Office of the President v. Buenaobra | GR No. 170021, September 8,

2006
Under RA 7104, the respondent Chairman of the Komisyon ng Wikang
Pilipino (KWP) has a fixed tenure of seven (7) years. Respondent is a noncareer service personnel whose tenure is fixed by law, and thus, her
tenure in office is not at the pleasure of the appointing authority. She
enjoys security of tenure and may not be removed without just cause and
without observing due process.
Appointments in the Civil Service

This is made only according to merit and fitness to be determined, as far as
practicable, and except to positions which are policy determining, primarily
confidential or highly technical, by competitive examination.
Appointment to a competitive position must be made according to merit and
fitness as determined, as far as practicable, by competitive examination. Merit
and fitness in appointments to non-competitive positions are not determined
by competitive examinations. But merit and fitness are required.
Santiago, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 81467, October
27, 1989
The appointing authority is not bound by the restrictions of a statutory
next-in-rank rule. One who is next in rank is entitled to preferential
consideration for promotion to the higher vacancy but it does not
necessarily follow that he and no one else can be appointed. The rule
neither guarantees a vested right to the holder nor imposes a
12
CLASSES OF NONCOMPETITIVE
POSITIONS
The non-competitive
positions are those which
by their nature are policydetermining, primarily
confidential, or highly
technical.
Early jurisprudence on
this subject established
that it is the nature and
not just the label of the
position which makes it
con-competitive. Thus
much more than
ordinary confidence is
reposed in the occupant
of a position that is
primarily confidential. The
latter phrase denotes not
only confidence in the
aptitude of the appointee
for the duties of the office
but primarily close
intimacy which insures
freedom of intercourse
without embarrassment
or freedom from
misgivings or betrayals of
personal trust on
confidential matters of
state.
DE LOS SANTOS
V.MALLARE | 87 PHIL
289, 298 (1950)
A policy-determining
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
ministerial duty on the appointing authority to promote such person to the next higher position.
The power to appoint is a matter of discretion
PAGCOR v. Rilloraza | GR No. 141141, June 25, 2001
Three important points were underscored:
1. The classification of a particular position as policy-determining, primarily confidential
or highly technical amounts to no more than an executive or legislative declaration
that is no conclusive upon the courts the true test being the nature of the position.
2. The exemption provided in this section pertains only to exemption from competitive
examination to determine merit and fitness to enter the civil service.
3. Section 16, PD 1869, insofar as it declares all positions within PAGCOR as primarily
confidential, is not absolutely binding on the courts.
Darangina v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 167472, January 31, 2007
A permanent appointment can issue only to a person who possesses all the requirements for the
position to which he is appointed. An exception to this rule is where, in the absence of appropriate
eligibles, he or she may be appointed to the position merely in a temporary capacity for a period of
twelve (12) months, unless sooner terminated by the appointing authority. Such a temporary
appointment is made not for the benefit of the appointee; rather it seeks to prevent a hiatus in the
discharge of official functions by authorizing a person to discharge the same pending the selection
of a permanent appointee.
Thus, the temporary appointee accepts the position with the condition that he shall surrender the
office when called upon to do so by the appointing authority. Such termination of a temporary
appointment may be with or without cause as the appointee serves merely at the pleasure of the
appointing power. Accordingly, the Court held that where a non-eligible holds a temporary
appointment, his replacement by another non-eligible is not prohibited.
Exempt from the competitive examination requirement to determine merit and fitness
are positions which are:
1.
Policy determining: where the officer lays down principal or fundamental guidelines
or rules; or formulate a method of action for government or any of its subdivision, such
as department head.
2.
Delos Santos v. Mallare | 87 Phil 289 (1950)

Salazar v. Mathay | 73 SCRA 285
Primarily confidential: denoting not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee
for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which ensures freedom of
intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings or betrayals on
confidential matters of state; or one declared to be so by the President of the
Philippines upon recommendation of the Civil Service Commission.
Civil Service Commission and PAGCOR v. Salas | GR No. 123708, June 19, 1997
The Supreme Court clarified this, as follows: Prior to the passage of the Civil Service
Act of 1959, there were two recognized instances when a position may be considered
primarily confidential, namely:
1. When the President, upon recommendation of the Civil Service Commission,
has declared the position to be primarily confidential.
2. In the absence of such a declaration, when from the nature of the functions of
the office, there exists close intimacy between the appointee and the
appointing authority which insures freedom of intercourse without
embarrassment or freedom from misgivings or betrayals on confidential
matters of State.
When RA 2260 was enacted on June 19, 1959, Section 5 thereof provided that the
non-competitive or unclassified service shall be composed of positions declared by law
to be in the non-competitive or unclassified service or those which are policydetermining, primarily confidential or highly technical in nature. Thus, at least since
the enactment of the Civil Service Act of 1959, it is the nature of the position which
determines whether a position is primarily confidential, policy-determining or highly
technical.
13
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
Both the 1935 and 1973 Constitution textually support the Pinero v. Hechanova | 18
SCRA 417 (1966) doctrine that it is the nature of the position which finally determines
whether a position is primarily confidential, policy-determining or highly technical. The
1987 Constitution deleted the phrase in nature. This doctrine is still controlling.
The primary purpose of the 1986 Constitutional Commission in providing for the
declaration of a position as policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly
technical is to exempt these categories from competitive examination as a means for
determining merit and fitness. This is not mean to exclude them from security of
tenure.
The PROXIMITY RULE states that, every appointment implies confidence, but much
more than ordinary confidence is reposed in the occupant of a position that is primarily
confidential. The latter phrase denotes not only confidence in aptitude of the appointee
for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which insures freedom of
intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of
personal trust or confidential matters of state.
The meaning of for cause provided by law is a guarantee both procedural and
substantive due process. Hence, not only must removal or suspension be in
accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, but also they can only be made on
the basis of a valid cause provided by law. The phrase for cause has acquired a
well-defined meaning in Philippine jurisprudence. It means for reasons which the law
and sound public policy recognize as sufficient for removal, that is, legal cause, and
not merely causes which the appointing power in the exercise of discretion may deem
sufficient. It is implied that officers may not be removed at the mere will of those
vested with the power of removal, or without cause. Moreover, the cause must relate
to and effect the administration of the office, and must be restricted to something of a
substantial nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the public.
Hernandez v. Villegas | 14 SCRA 544, 548 (1965)
Persons permanently occupying non-competitive positions are covered by the
guarantee of security of tenure. The distinction between competitive and noncompetitive positions is significant only for purposes of appointment. However,
officials and employees holding primarily confidential positions continue only for so
long as confidence in them endures. The termination of their official relation can be
justified on the ground of loss of confidence because in that case their cessation from
office involves no removal but the expiration of the term of office two different
causes for the termination of official relations recognized in the Law of Public
Officers.
Larin v. Executive Secretary | 280 SCRA 713
The extent of the Presidents disciplinary authority over presidential appointees who
belong to the career service is limited. Specifically, Section 36, PD 807, as
amended, otherwise known as Civil Service Decree of the Philippines, is emphatic
that career service officers and employees who enjoy security of tenure may be
removed only for any of the causes enumerated in said law.
In other words, the fact that petitioner is a presidential appointee does not give the
appointing authority the license to remove him at will or at his pleasure for it is an
admitted fact that he is likewise a career service officer who under the law is the
recipient of tenurial protection, thus, may only be removed for cause and in
accordance with procedural due process.
Gloria v. Court of Appeals | GR No. 119903, August 15, 2000
The transfer of a permanent employee to another permanent position without the
consent of the employee violate security of tenure.
While a temporary transfer or assignment of personnel is permissible even without the
employees prior consent, it cannot be done when the transfer is a preliminary step
toward his removal, or is a scheme to lure him away from his permanent position, or
designed to indirectly terminate his service, or force his resignation. Such a transfer
14
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
would in effect circumvent the provision which safeguards the tenure of office of those
who are in the Civil Service.
Astraquillo v. Manglapus | October 3, 1990
Appointees to the foreign service who do not belong to the Career Corps do not
enjoy security of tenure like the Career Corp. those who are non-career enter
bases other than those of the usual test of merit and fitness utilized for the career
service and possess tenure which is limited to a period specified by law, or which
is coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or
which is limited to the duration of a particular project for which purposes
employment was made. Political appointees in the foreign services possess
tenure coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject to his
pleasure.
Binamira v. Garrucho | GR No. 92008, July 23, 1990
Binamira was designated by the Secretary of Tourism as Manager of the Tourism
Authority. The law, however, requires that the Manager be appointed by the
President. Binamira did not acquire security of tenure because he did not receive a
valid appointment.
Octot v. Ybanez | GR No. 48643, January 18, 1982
Petitioner was dismissed as notoriously undesirable, pursuant to the summary
procedure found in PD 6 because he had been convicted of libel by the CFI. Later
acquitted by the Court of Appeals, he asked for reinstatement and back wages. He
was instead offered reappointment but with no back wages. The Court held that he
is not entitled to back wages. Dismissal was done in good faith in compliance with
PD 6.
GSIS v. Court of Appeals | GR No. 86083, September 24, 1991
Section 40, PD 807 on Summary Proceedings states that, No formal
investigation is necessary and the respondent may be immediately removed or
dismissed if any of the following circumstances is present: a) when the charge is
serious and the evidence of guilt is strong.
The provision can be saved from invalidation only if it is read to require that:
1. The employee is informed of the charges against him by furnishing him
with a copy of the charges against him.
2. The employee must have a reasonable opportunity to present his side of
the matter.
Dimayuga v. Benedicto II | GR No. 144153, January 16, 2002
One who does not have qualifications for a position cannot acquire security of
tenure. Security of tenure in an office is acquired only by one who has the
qualifications for that office.
Pinero v. Hechanova | 18 SCRA 417
It was declared that executive pronouncements, such as PD 1869, can be no more
than initial determinations that are not conclusive in case of conflict; otherwise, it
would lie within the discretion of the Chief Executive to deny to any officer, by
executive fiat, the constitutional protection of security of tenure. This rule prevails
even with the advent of the 1987 Constitution and the Administrative Code of
1987, despite the fact that the phrase in nature was deleted.
The proximity rule enunciated in De los Santos v. Mallare, supra, is still
authoritative, such that the occupant of a particular position could be considered a
confidential employee if the predominant reason why he was chosen by the appointing
authority was the latters belief that he can share a close intimate relationship with the
occupant which ensures freedom of discussion without fear of embarrassment or
misgivings of possible betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of State.
Where the position occupied is remote from that of the appointing authority, the
element of trust between them is no longer predominant, and therefore, cannot be
classified as primarily confidential.
Laurel v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 71562, October 28, 1991
15
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
A determination by the President that a position is not policy determining, primarily

confidential, or highly technical conclusive. Whether a position is policy determining,
primarily confidential, or highly technical is determined by the nature of the functions
attached to it.
Grino v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 91602, February 26, 1991
The position of a provincial attorney and those of his legal subordinates or assistants is
primarily confidential in nature so that their services can be terminated upon loss of
confidence. However, the positions of the legal staff are not.
Hilario v. Civil Service Commission | 243 SCRA 206
This case reiterates previous rulings of City Legal Officer is primarily confidential, and
the appointee thereto holds office at the pleasure of, and coterminous with, the
appointing authority.
PAGCOR v. Rillaraza | GR No. 141141, June 25, 2001
It was held that the respondents position of Casino Operations Manager (COM) is not
primarily confidential. In this case, the duties and responsibilities of respondent, as
COM, show that he is a tier above the ordinary rank-and-file
ARTICLE IX-B,
employees, and that faith and confidence in his competence to
SECTION 6
perform his assigned tasks are reposed upon him. However, the
No candidate
who has lost in
degree of confidence of the appointing power, which is that
any election,
intimacy that insures freedom of intercourse without
shall within one
embarrassment, or freedom from misgivings of betrayal of
year after such
election, be
personal trust or confidential matters of state, is not present. In
appointed to
fact, respondent does not report directly to the appointing
any office in the
authority, but to a Branch Manager.
Government or
Highly technical: which requires possession of technical skill or
training in a supreme or superior degree.
Besa v. Philippine National Bank | 33 SCRA 330
The position of legal counsel of the PNB was declared to be both
primarily confidential and highly technical, with the former
aspect predominating.
Cadiente v. Santos | 142 SCRA 280
The position of City Legal Officer is primarily confidential,
requiring the utmost degree of confidence on the part of the
Mayor.
Borres v. Court of Appeals | 153 SCRA 120
It was held that the positions of Security Officer and Security
Guards of the City Vice Mayor are primarily confidential positions.
In every case, the ultimate test is the nature of the
responsibilities of the position, not the administrative or
legislative description that is given to the position; that is, the
nature of the office must be such as to require close intimacy
between the appointee and appointing authority which insures
freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from
misgiving of betrayal of personal trust on confidential matters of
state. Executive pronouncements as to the nature of the office
can be no more than initial determination of the nature of the
office.
Discretion of the Appointing Authority

Luego v. Civil Service Commission | 143 SCRA 327
Even in the career service of the Civil Service, where the appointee
possesses the minimum qualification requirements prescribed by law
for the position, the appointing authority has discretion who to
appoint.
16
any
Governmentowned or
controlled
corporations or
in any of their
subsidiaries.
The purpose of
the prohibition of
appointment of
lame ducks in
Section 6 is the
extirpation of the
spoils system.
ARTICLE IX-B,
SECTION 7
No elective
official shall be
eligible for
appointment or
designation in
any capacity to
any public office
or position
during his
tenure.
Unless
otherwise
allowed by law
or by the
primary
functions of his
position, no
appointive
official shall
hold any other
office or
employment in
the Government
or any
subdivision,
agency or
instrumentality
thereof,
including
Governmentowned or
controlled
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
Civil Service Commission v. De la Cruz | GR No. 158737, August 31, 2004

The appointing authority has the right of choice which he may exercise freely according to
his best judgment, deciding for himself who is best qualified among those who have the
necessary qualifications and eligibilities. Not only is the appointing authority the officer
primarily responsible for the administration of his office, he is also in the best position to
determine who among the prospective appointees can effectively discharge the functions
of the position. Thus, the final choice of the appointing authority should be respected and
left undisturbed.
Central Bank v. Civil Service Commission | 171 SCRA 744

Uy v. Court of Appeals | 286 SCRA 343
Even if officers and employees in the career service of the Civil Service enjoy the right to
preference in promotion, it is not mandatory that the vacancy be filled by promotion. The
appointing authority should be allowed the choice of men of his confidence, provided they
are qualified and eligible. The CSC cannot direct the appointment of its own choice, even
on the ground that the latter is more qualified than the appointing authoritys choice.
For disregarding this doctrine, the CSC drew a stern rebuke from the Court in Lapinid v.
Civil Service Commission | 197 SCRA 106; warned in Guieb v. Civil Service
Commission | 229 SCRA 779; and, again duly warned; henceforth, it disobeys at its
peril, in Mauna v. Civil Service Commission | 232 SCRA 388
The Civil Service may not disapprove an appointment and require the appointment of
another person whom it believes is more qualified for the position. The appointing
authority is given ample discretion in the selection and appointment of qualified persons to
vacant positions among those who are qualified.
Aquino v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 92403, April 22, 1992
It is well-established that the Commission may not substitute its judgment for an
executives appointment of a qualified appointee. It is a different matter, however, when,
after having extended an appointment that is immediately accepted, the appointing
authority withdraws the same and extends it to someone else. In such a situation, the Civil
Service is within its authority when it orders the reinstatement of the first appointee. The
withdrawal of an appointment already accepted would be tantamount to removal and
would violate security of tenure.
Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals | 246 SCRA 281

The discretion of the appointing authority is not only in the choice of the person who is to
be appointed, but also in the nature and character of the appointment issued, such that
whether the appointment is permanent or temporary.
In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated the rule that Civil Service Commission cannot
convert a temporary appointment into a permanent one, as it would constitute an
arrogation of a power properly belonging to the appointing authority. The Civil Service
Commission may, however, approve as merely temporary an appointment intended to be
permanent where the appointee does not possess the requisite eligibility and the exigency
of the service demands that the position be filled up, even in a temporary capacity.
Role of the Civil Service Commission

Lopez v. Civil Service Commission | 194 SCRA 269
The Supreme Court held that, All that the Commission is authorized to do is to check if the
appointee possesses the qualifications and appropriate eligibility. If he does, his
appointment is approved; if not, it is disapproved.
Section 6 of RA 6656 on government reorganization merely provides that the
selection of placement should be done through the creation of a Placement
Committee the members of which are the representatives of the head of the
agency as well as representatives of the employees. The committees work is
17
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
recommendatory and does not fix a stringent formula regarding the mode of
choosing among the candidates.
University of the Philippines and Alfredo Torres v. Civil Service Commission | GR
No. 132860, April 3, 2001
The Supreme Court said that the Civil Service Commission is not a co-manager or
surrogate administrator of government offices and agencies, its functions and authority are
limited to approving or reviewing appointments to determine their compliance with
requirements of the Civil Service Law. On its own, the Commission does not have the
power to terminate employment or to drop members from the rolls.
Oriental Mindoro National College v. Macaraig | GR No. 152017, January 15, 2004
Inasmuch as alleged appointment of the respondent was submitted to the Civil Service
Commission only after two years and twelve days after its issuance, there was no valid
appointment.
A substantive requirement under Section 11 of the Omnibus Civil Service
Rules and Regulations is that an appointment should be submitted to the Civil
Service Commission within thirty (30) days from issuance; otherwise, it shall be
ineffective.
Despite the CSC Memorandum Circular 40, s. 1998, which provides that only the
appointing authority has the right to challenge the CSCs disapproval of an appointment,
the Supreme Court said that both the appointing authority and the appointee are the real
parties in interest, and both have legal standing, in a suit assailing a CSC order
disapproving an appointment. The CSCs disapproval of an appointment is a challenge to
the appointing authoritys discretion: thus, the appointing authority has the right to contest
the disapproval, as he stands to be adversely affected when the CSC disapproves an
appointment. Although the appointee has no vested right to the position, it was his
eligibility that was being questioned. He should ,therefore, be granted the opportunity to
prove his eligibility. He has a personal stake in the outcome of the case, which justifies his
challenge to the CSC act which denied his permanent appointment.
Disqualifications
No candidate who has lost in any election, shall within one year after such
election, be appointed to any office in the Government or any governmentowned or controlled corporation or in any of their subsidiaries.
No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any
capacity to any public office or position during his tenure.
Flores v. Drilon, supra
For violating this constitutional prohibition, the Supreme Court declared
that the provision in the law creating the Subic Bay Metropolitan
Authority, which mandated the appointment of the City Mayor of
Olongapo City as the first Administrator of the SBMA, unconstitutional.
ARTICLE IX-B, SECTION

7(2) is related to
ARTICLE VII, SECTION
13 and see Civil
Liberties Union v.
Executive
Secretary, supra,
which declared
Executive Order No.
284 unconstitutional.
The above rule on
appointive on
appointive officials is
not applicable to
members of the
Flores v. Drilon & Gordon | GR No. 104732, June 22, 1993

The Congress, may not, by law, authorize the appointment of elective officials. Section 7, par. 1
governs elective officials. Unlike the provision for members of Congress in Article VI, Section 13,
which does not prohibit acceptance of an appointment but merely causes the forfeiture of the
congressional seat if the holder accepts an appointment, the present provision prohibits elective
officials other than members of Congress from accepting appointment during their tenure. If the
elective official accepts an appointment without first resigning his elective position, the
appointment is invalid. Neither, however, does he thereby forfeit his elective seat.
Moreover, unlike in the case of appointive officers in the following paragraph, Congress may not
create an exception to this rule.
Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold
any other office or employment in the Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including Government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
18
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
Public Interest Center v. Elma | 494 SCRA 53 (2006)

The Supreme Court held that an incompatibility exists between the positions of the PCGG
Chairman and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel (CPLC). The duties of the CPLC include giving
independent and impartial legal advice on the actions of the heads of various executive
departments and agencies and to review investigations involving heads of executive departments
and agencies, as well as other Presidential appointees. The PCGG is, without question, an agency
under the Executive Department. Thus, the actions of the PCGG Chairman are subject to review of
the CPLC. Thus, the concurrent appointments of respondent Elma as PCGG Chairman and CPLC
violate Section 7, Article IX-B of the Constitution.
National Amnesty Commission v. Commission on Audit | GR No. 156982, September 8, 2004

Where the other posts are held by a public officer in an ex-officio capacity as provided by law or as
required by the primary functions of his position, there is no violation, because the other posts do
not comprise any other office but are properly an imposition of additional duties and functions on
the said public officer. However, he is prohibited from receiving any additional compensation for
his services in the said position, because these services are deemed already paid for and covered
by the compensation attached to his principal office.
Bitonio v. Commission on Audit | GR No. 147392,March 12, 2004
It follows that a representative designated by the Secretary of Labor, who is ex officio member of
the Board of Directors of PEZA, to attend the meetings of the PEZA Board, may not claim any
additional compensation for such attendance. Otherwise, the representative would have a better
right than his principal.
Security of Tenure
The grounds and the procedure for investigation of charges and the discipline of career service officers and
employees are provided in the Civil Service Law. Non-compliance therewith constitutes a denial of the right
to security of tenure.
No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by
law.
ARTICLE IX-B, SECTION 2(3)
Villaluz v. Zaldivar | 15 SCRA 710
A Presidential appointee is under the direct disciplinary authority of the President.
Palma-Fernandez v. de la Paz | 160 SCRA 751
Unconsented transfer of the officer, resulting in demotion in rank or salary, is a violation of the
security of tenure clause in the Constitution.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. Court of Appeals | 183 SCRA 555
Where the appointment of a principal does not refer to any particular school, reassignment does
not offend the constitutional guarantee.
Quisumbing v. Judge Gumban | 193 SCRA 520
It was held that since the appointment of private respondent Yap was that of District Supervisor at
large, she could be assigned to any station as she is not entitled to stay permanently at any
specific station.
Del Castillo v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 112513, August 21, 1997
When an employee is illegally dismissed, and his reinstatement is later ordered by the Court, for all
legal intents and purposes he is considered as not having left his office, and notwithstanding the
silence of the decision, he is entitled to payment of back salaries.
Balitaosan v. Secretary, DECS | GR No. 138238, September 2, 2003
Where the reinstatement is ordered by the Court not as the result of exoneration but merely as an
act of liberality of the Court of Appeals, the claim for back wages for the period during which the
employee was not allowed to work must be denied. The general rule is that a public official is not
entitled to compensation is he has not rendered any service.
Brugada v. Secretary of Education | GR Nos. 142332-43, January 31, 2005
19
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
Where the petitioners were no longer pleadings for exoneration from the administrative charges
filed against them, but were merely asking for the payment of back wages computed from the time
they could not teach pursuant to Secretary Carinos dismissal order minus the six months
suspension until their actual reinstatement, the Supreme Court said that the petitioners have no
right to back wages because they were neither exonerated nor unjustifiably suspended. In a host
of cases, the Supreme Court had categorically declared that the payment of back wages during the
period of suspension of a civil servant who is subsequently reinstated is proper only if he is found
innocent of the charges and the suspension is unjustified.
General v. Roco, supra
Security of tenure in the Career Executive Service pertains only to rank, not to the position to
which the employee may be appointed.
De la Llana v. Alba, supra
Valid abolition of office does not violate the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.
Ginson v. Municipality of Murcia | 158 SCRA 1
Rama v. Court of Appeals | 148 SCRA 496
Pretended abolition of office is a flimsy excuse to justify dismissal.
Dario v. Mison, supra
Mendoza v. Quisumbing | 186 SCRA 108
Gabriel v. Domingo | 189 SCRA 172
Reorganization of office does not necessarily result in abolition of the office, and does not justify
the replacement of permanent officers and employees.
Cabagnot v. Civil Service Commission | 223 SCRA 59
Where, as a result of the reorganization, employees were effectively demoted by their assignment
to positions lower than those they previously held, there is violation of security of tenure, and the
Civil Service Commission may order their reinstatement.
Under the Rules of Court, a career service officer or employee who has been unlawfully ousted from his
office has one year within which to file an action in court to recover his office, otherwise the right to
recover the same prescribes.
Cristobal v. Melchor | 78 SCRA 175
Where the Supreme Court, on grounds of equity, allowed a suit filed nine years from date of
unlawful dismissal.
Section 40 of the Civil Service Law provides for summary dismissal when the charge is serious and
evidence of guilt is strong; when respondent is a recidivist or has been repeatedly charged, and there is
reasonable ground to believe that he is guilty of the present charge; and when respondent is notoriously
undesirable and is reproduced verbatim in the Revised Administrative Code of 1987, which took
effect in 1989.
Abalos v. Civil Service Commission | 196 SCRA 81
This provision is deemed repealed by Republic Act 6654, approved May 20, 1988, and published
in the Official Gazette on May 30, 1988.
Section 37(a), PD 807, as amended, provides for appellate jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission
only over the Merit System Protection Boards decisions in administrative disciplinary cases involving the
imposition of the penalty of suspension, fine, demotion in rank or salary, transfer, removal or dismissal
from office.
Mendez v. Civil Service Commission | 204 SCRA 965
Navarro v. Civil Service Commission | 226 SCRA 522
This provision is not over MSBP decisions exonerating the respondent.
University of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission | 228 SCRA 207
Del Castillo v. Civil Service Commission | 241 SCRA 317
Appeal to the Civil Service Commission may be made only by the party adversely affected by the
MSBP decision; and the employer is not a party adversely affected.
20
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy | GR No. 135805, April 29, 1999

However, the principle laid down in these decisions in Mendez, Magpale, Navarro and Del
Castillo, that the Civil Service Law does not contemplate a review of decisions exonerating
officers or employees from administrative charges was abandoned in this case. The Supreme Court
considered the factual situation in the case at bench: The CSC found Dacoycoy guilty of nepotism
and imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service. Dacoycoy, at the party adversely affected
by the CSC decision, could go to the Court of Appeals for the review of the CSC decision,
impleading the CSC as public respondent, being the government agency tasked with the duty to
enforce the constitutional and statutory provisions on the civil service. Subsequently, the Court of
Appeals reversed the decision of the CSC, and held Dacoycoy not guilty of nepotism.
At that point, the CSC had become the party adversely affected by such a CA ruling which
seriously prejudices the civil service system. Accordingly, as an aggrieved party, the CSC may
appeal the decision of the CA to the Supreme Court.
Philippine National Bank v. Garcia | GR No. 141246, September 9, 2002
Where the employer PNB was allowed to elevate on appeal the decision of the CSC
exonerating the employee.
It is a well-settled rule that he who, while occupying one office, accepts another incompatible with the
first, ipso facto vacates the first office and his title thereto is thereby terminated without any other act of
proceeding.
Canonizado v. Aguirre | GR No. 133132, February 15, 2001
This rule on incompatibility was not applied. Supreme Court declared Section 8, RA 8551,
unconstitutional, for violating the security of tenure clause in the Constitution. It appears that
petitioners were removed as National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) Commissioners by virtue of
the law. Thus, petitioners acceptance of the position of Inspector General during the pendency of
this case precisely t assail the constitutionality of his removal as Commissioner cannot be
deemed to be abandonment f his claim for reinstatement to the position of Commissioner. The
removal of the petitioners from their positions by virtue of a constitutionally infirm act necessarily
negates a finding of voluntary relinquishment.
Canonizado v. Aguirre | GR No. 133132, January 25, 2000
Petitioners were members of the National Police Commission. They were separated from office by
virtue of RA 8551 Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998.
They challenged the law as a violation of their security of tenure. Public respondents, however,
insist that the express declaration in Section 8, RA 8551 that the terms of petitioners offices are
deemed expired discloses the legislative intent to impliedly abolish the NAPOLCOM created under
RA 6975 in order to replace it with a new NAPOLCOM which is more civilian in nature, in
compliance with the constitutional mandate.
It is exceedingly apparent to the Court that RA 8551 effected a reorganization of the PNP, not of
the NAPOLCOM. They are two separate and distinct bodies, with one having supervision and
control over the other. In fact, it is the NAPOLCOM that is given the duty of submitting a proposed
reorganization plan of the PNP to Congress. The basic structure of the NAPOLCOM has been
preserved by the amendatory law. There has been no revision in its lines of control, authority and
responsibility, neither has there been a reduction in its membership, nor a consolidation or
abolition of the offices constituting the same. Adding the Chief of the PNP as an ex-officio member
of the Commission does not result in a reorganization. No bona fide reorganization of the
NAPOLCOM having been mandated by Congress, RA 8551, insofar as it declares the terms of
office of the incumbent as expired must be struck down for being constitutionally infirm.
Abrogar v. Garrucho | GR No. 95773, August 6, 1991
Blaquera v. Civil Service Commission | September 10, 1993
Eugenio v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 115863, March 31, 1995
Abolition of office, even if arising from reorganization mandated by law, must be justified
by good faith and public need. Moreover, abolition of an office created by law can only be
done also by law.
Mayor v. Hon. Catalino Macaraig | GR No. 87211, March 5, 1991
Section 35, RA 6715 declared all positions of the Commissioners, Executive Labor
Arbiters of the present National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) vacant. Petitioners
question its constitutionality. The Supreme Court held that the said provision is
unconstitutional. While abolition by law as a result of reorganization is a recognized cause
21
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
for termination of a Government employee, it is not the same as a declaration that the
office is vacant. RA 6715 has effected no express abolition of the positions, neither an
implied abolition (i.e. an irreconcilable inconsistency between the nature, duties and
functions of the petitioners offices under the old rules and those the new law, RA 6715).
Mama, Jr. v. Court of Appeals | GR No. 86517, April 30, 1991
Where a city general hospital is closed for valid reasons but is, few months later, opened
as a maternity and childrens hospital in order not to violate the condition of the donation
of the land that it be used for the hospital, was there an unlawful abolition of office.
Good faith is presumed. In the absence of proof of bad faith and considering that the new
hospital is not exactly the same as the first and considering likewise the desire to preserve
the donated property, there is no unlawful abolition of office.
UP Board of Regents v. Rasul | GR No. 91551, August 16, 1991
The Board of Regents of UP effected a reorganization of the Philippine General Hospital
(PGH) transforming it into UP PGH Medical Center. As part of the reorganization, the
position of Director of PGH was transformed into Medical Director of UP PGH Medical
Center. The incumbent Director of PGH was replaced by a Medical Director of UP PGH
Medical Center. The functions of the two offices, however, are found to be substantially the
same. The replacement was not valid because it was tantamount to removal without due
cause.
Buklod ng Kawaning EIIB v. Executive Secretary | GR Nos. 142801-802, July 10, 2001
The President has the authority to reorganize the executive department. And this can
include deactivation of offices. As far as bureaus, agencies or offices in the executive
department are concerned, the Presidents power of control may justify him to inactivate
the functions of a particular office, or certain laws may grant him the broad authority to
carry out reorganization measures.
Tobias v. Veloso | 100 SCRA 177, 184 | L-40224, September
23, 1980
An officer who is simply given a reprimand is not exonerated.
A reprimand is a public and formal censure or severe reproof,
administered to a person in fault by his superior officer of a
body to which he belongs. Unlike a warning (putting on
guard) or an admonition (a friendly reproof), a reprimand is an
administrative penalty.
Mendiola v. Tancinco | 52 SCRA 66 (1973)
Temporary appointees are not protected by the guarantee of
security of tenure. They may be removed anytime without cause.
The new Constitution

now says: Temporary
employees of the
Government shall be
given such protection
as may be provided by
law. Obviously the
provision is not selfexecutory. Moreover,
it was approved in lieu
of a proposal to make
temporary appointees
permanent after the
Achacoso v. Macaraig | GR No. 93023, March 13, 1991

Tomas Achacoso, Administrator of POEA, tendered his courtesy resignation in compliance
with the request of the President of the government officials. His resignation was accepted
and his replacement appointed. Achacoso refuses to vacate his office, invoking security of
tenure as his position is one in the Career Executive Service. Petitioner is not correct
because he failed to take the Career Service Examination. The mere fact that a position
belongs to the Career Service does not automatically confer security of tenure on its
occupant even if he does not possess the required qualifications.
Luego v. Civil Service Commission | 143 SCRA 327, August 5, 1986
A permanent appointment is extended. The CSC cannot approve it as temporary in the
belief that somebody else is better qualified. The sole function of the CSC is to attest to the
qualification of the appointee.
Briones v. Osmena | 104 Phil 588, 592 (1958)
While abolition of office does not imply removal of the incumbent officer, this is true only where the
abolition of office is done in good faith and not merely as a cover for a removal otherwise not allowed by
the Constitution.
Roque v. Ericta | 53 SCRA 156, 162-163 (1973)
22
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
Thus, abolition of office to escape the taint of unconstitutionality, it must be made under the following
conditions:
1. In good faith;
2. Not for personal or political reasons; and
3. Not in violation of the law.
Partisan Political Activity

The Civil Service Law prohibits engaging directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity or taking part
in any election except to vote, or to use official authority or influence to coerce the political activity of any
person or body. But this does not prevent expression of views on current political problems or issues, or
mention of the names of candidates for public office whom the public officer supports.
No officer or employee of the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or
partisan political campaign
DEFINITION & SCOPE | Partisan Political Campaign
Partisan political activity, which is the phrase used in previous Constitutions, includes
every form of solicitation of the electors vote in favor of a specific candidate. People v.
De Venecia | 14 SCRA 864, 867 (1965)
It includes contribution of money for election purposes and distribution of handbills.
However, this provision does not prevent any officer or employee from expressing his
views on current political problems or issues, or from mentioning the names of candidates
for public office whom he supports. Section 29, RA 2260
The prohibition does not apply to department secretaries.
A proposal in the 1935 Constitutional Convention to include department secretaries was

disapproved. Santos v. Yatco | 106 Phil (1959)
Cailles v. Bonifacio | 65 Phil 328
The military establishment is covered by this provision. Section 5(3), Article XVI, provides that
no member of the military shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity except
to vote. But this prohibition applies only to those in the active military service, not to reservists.
Santos v. Yatco | 106 Phil 745
Exempt from this provision are members of the Cabinet and public officers and employees holding
political offices who are allowed to take part in political and electoral activities, except to solicit
contributions from their subordinates or commit acts prohibited under the Election Code Section
45, Civil Service Law
Right to Self-Organization
The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees.
ARTICLE IX-B, SECTION 2(5), ARTICLE III, SECTION 8
Three provisions which serve as bases for the right of Civil Service to unionize
Article III, Section 8: guarantees the right of all, including those employed in the public
and private sectors, to form unions.
Article XII, Section 3: guarantees the right of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike
in accordance with law.
Article IX-B, Section 2(5)

Alliance of Concerned Teachers v. Carino | 200 SCRA 323
Manila Public School Teachers Association (MPSTA) v. Laguio | GR No. 95445, December 18,
1990
SSS Employees Association v. Court of Appeals | 175 SCRA 686
Alliance of Government Workers v. MOLE | 124 SCRA 1
But while the right to organize and join unions, associations or societies cannot be curtailed,
government employees may not engage in strikes to demand changes in the terms and conditions
of employment because the terms and conditions of employment are provided by law.
23
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
Resort to the intent of the framers points to the

understanding that the right to organize does not include
the right to strike. The Constitution, however, does not
say that government employees may not be given the
statutory right to strike. On this point, the SSS Case is
vague.
Manila Public School Teachers Association (MPSTA)
v. Secretary of Education | GR No. 95445, August 6,
1991
The dissenting opinions, however, would anchor their
defense of the public school teachers on their right to
petition the government for redress of grievances.

The Congress shall provide
for the standardization of
compensation of
government officials and
employees, including those
in government-owned or
controlled corporations
with original charters,
taking into account the
nature of the
responsibilities pertaining
to, and the qualifications
required for, their
positions.
This provision is in relation to
Bangasilan v. Court of Appeals | GR No. 124678, July 23, 1997

Jacinto v. Court of Appeals | GR No.. 124540, November 17, 1997
The ability to strike is not essential to the right of association. The right of sovereign to prohibit
strikes, either by statute or judicial decision, simply incorporate or reassert the common law rules.
Protection to Temporary Employees

Temporary employees f the Government shall be given such protection as may be provided by law.
Standardization of Compensation
The Congress shall provide for the standardization of compensation of government officials and
employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, taking
into account the nature of the responsibilities pertaining to, and the qualifications required for, their
positions.
Intia v. Commission on Audit | GR No. 131529, April 30, 1999
It was held that the discretion of the Philippine Postal Corporation Board of Directors on matters of
personal compensation is not absolute; the salary structure of its personnel must still strictly conform with
RA 6758, in relation to the General Appropriations Act.
Central Bank Employees Association v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas | GR No. 148208, December
15, 2005
It was challenged as a violation of the equal protection clause is the provision in RA 7693 The Central
Bank Act, which creates two classes of employees in the BSP:
1. The BSP officers or those exempted from the coverage of the Salary Standardization Law
(SSL), which is the exempt class.
2. The rank-and-file (Salary Grade 19 and below, which is the non-exempt class.
The Supreme Court said that while the policy determination argument may support the inequality of
treatment between the BSP rank-and-file employees and those of other Government Financing Institutions
(GFIs) who in their respective charters, are exempt from the provisions of SSL. These rank-and-file
employees of BSP and GFIs are similarly situated. Thus, the classification made in
ARTICLE IX-B,
the Central Bank Act is not based on any substantial distinction vis--vis the
SECTION 8
particular circumstances of each GFI.
No elective or
Double Compensation
No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional,
double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept
without the consent of the Congress, any present, emolument, office, or title of
any kind from any foreign government. Pensions or gratuities shall not be
considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation.
PURPOSE | Peralta v. Mathay | 38 SCRA 256, 258 (1967)

This is to manifest a commitment to the fundamental principle that a
public office is a public trust. It is expected of a government official or
employee that he keeps uppermost in mind the demands of public
welfare. He is there to render public service. He is of course entitled to be
24
appointive public
officer or
employee shall
receive additional,
double, or indirect
compensation,
unless specifically
authorized by law,
nor accept
without the
consent of the
Congress, any
present,
emolument, office,
or title of any kind
from any foreign
government.
Pensions or
gratuities shall
not be considered
as additional,
double, or indirect
compensation.
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
rewarded for the performance of the function entrusted to him, but that should not be the
overriding consideration.
DEFINITION | Peralta v. Mathay | 38 SCRA 256, 258 (1967)

While the terms additional and double compensation are used interchangeably, it is, perhaps,
best to draw a distinction between the two.
Additional Compensation exists when for one and the same office for which a
compensation has been fixed there is added to such fixed compensation an extra reward in
the form, for instance, of a bonus. This is not allowed in the absence of a law specifically
authorizing such extra reward. Thus, where an officers pay provided by law was a fixed per
diem, the Supreme Court disallowed additional compensation in the form of cost of living
allowances as well as incentive and Christmas bonuses. The Court, however, was careful to
point out that when a per diem or an allowance is given as reimbursement for expenses
incident to the discharge of an officers duties, it is not an additional compensation
prohibited by the Constitution.
Double Compensation more properly refers to two sets of compensation for two different
offices held concurrently by one officer. In the instances when holding a second office is
allowed, when an officer accepts a second office, he can draw the salary attached to such
second only when he is specifically authorized by law to receive double compensation.
DEFINITION: specifically authorized by law | Sadueste v. Municipality of Surigao | 72 Phil

485 (1941)
The authority required by the Constitution to receive double or additional compensation is a
specific authority given to a particular employee or officer of the Government because of peculiar
or exceptional reasons warranting the payment of extra or additional compensation.
Quimson v. Ozaeta | 98 Phil 705 (1956)
The above interpretation of the constitutional provision seems to be too strict. It seems in effect to
require a special law for every instance of additional or double compensation. An obiter dictum in
this later case approves of a more liberal and perhaps administratively more rational approach.
The Court said, According to law, under certain circumstances, the President may authorize
double compensation in some cases, such as government officials acting as members with
compensation in government examining boards like the bar examinations, or department
secretaries acting as members of Board of Directors of government corporations, and in such cases
the prohibition against double compensation is not observed. If the President approves the double
compensation, well and good. The appointee whose appointment may then be regarded as valid
from the beginning could receive extra compensation. If it is disapproved, then the appointment
will have to be withdrawn or cancelled, unless of course, the appointee was willing to serve without
compensation, in which case there could be no valid objection.
Santos v. Court of Appeals | GR No. 139792, November 22, 2000

The Supreme Court declared that the second sentence simply means that the retiree can continue to
receive such pension or gratuity even after he accepts another government position to which another
compensation is attached. But he cannot credit his years of service in the Judiciary for which he now
receives his pension under RA 7924 in the computation of the separation pay to which he may be
entitled under RA 7924 for the termination of his last employment. To allow this would be countenance
double compensation for exactly the same service.
Upon optional retirement from the judiciary on April 1, 1992, Santos was fully paid of his retirement
gratuity under RA 910, as amended. For five years thereafter he has been receiving a monthly pension.
Thereafter he was appointed Director III of the defunct MMA as Director III thereof.
He can continue to receive his pension while receiving salary as Director. Section 8, par. 2 means that a
retiree receiving pension or gratuity can continue to receive such pension or gratuity even if he accepts
another government position to which another compensation is attached.
Upon separation from the MMA, his separation pay under RA 7294 cannot include his years of service in
the judiciary. That would be double compensation for the same service in the judiciary for which he has
already been paid. Section 11, RA 7924 does not specifically authorize payment of additional
compensation for years of government service outside of the MMA.
25
M A R
R A N C
M O N T
Oath of Allegiance
All public officers and employees shall take an oath or affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution.
This is in relation to ARTICLE XI, SECTION 18, which provides that public officers and employees
owe the State ad this Constitution allegiance at all times.
26
Authority of Public Officers
R A C
W E
N D Y
J A R A M I
L O
AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Authority is derived from
Where exercised
General Rule: A public officer may exercise his powers only within the territorial limits of his
authority and that any act performed outside that area will be null and void.
Illustration:
A judge cannot act outside his judicial district; if he is stationed in Manila, he cannot issue
a habeas corpus to respondent in Pampanga unless it is a warrant of arrest which can be
issued by judges and may be served anywhere in the Philippines.
A mayor does not have jurisdiction outside his municipality as his powers are purely local.
Exception:
Members of the Cabinet such as secretaries may assert their authority anywhere in the
Philippines because they are national officers.
The President of the Philippines retains his status as such even if he is outside the country
and may exercise his powers anywhere.
Diplomats
Delegates to International conferences
When exercised
People the Philippines is a republican state. Sovereign resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them. [Constitution, Article II, Section 1]
Constitution the powers of the President of the Philippines are provided mainly in Article VII,
Legislature is in Article VI, Supreme Court in Article VIII, & Constitutional Commission in Article XI.
Statues the powers of local officials are prescribed by the Local Government Code of 1991
[Republic Act 7160], Bureau Directors are in Administrative Code of 1987 [Executive Order No.
292] which is the laws creating their respective offices, or by special charters such as the
Commissioner of Customs by the Tariff and Customs Code of 1982.
The public officer may exercise his authority only during his term of office hence any act performed
by him after such term will be considered invalid.
An appointment extended by the President after his term will therefore be void for lack of authority.
Even if the appointment was made by the President during his term to fill an anticipated vacancy
occurring after his term will still be invalid.
The term may not be fixed, as where it is made dependent upon the completion of a particular task
or attainment of a specified age.
How exercised
General Rule:
Express grants of power to public officers are usually subjected to a strict interpretation and
will be construed as conferring those powers only which are expressly imposed or necessarily
implied.
The authority of the public officer should be strictly construed, consistent with the principle
that representative government is a government of limited powers.
Any doubt on this matter shall be resolved in favor of the public and against the exercise if the
authority claimed.
27
Authority of Public Officers
W E
N D Y
J A R A M I
L O
Exception: However, the fact that a particular power has not been expressly conferred does not
necessarily mean it is not possessed by the officer claiming it.
Angara v. Electoral Commission the power of the Electoral Commission to hear and decide
certain election cases carries with it the implied power to adopt rules of procedure to be observed
in the conduct of these cases.
Malayan Integrated Industries Corp. vs. Court of Appeals where the approval of the
reclamation contract was signed by the Executive Secretary, by authority of the President, and not
by the Presidents own hand, the Executive Secretarys action is presumed to be valid and to have
been regularly performed in behalf of the President.
Effect of Exercise
General Rule: As long as the public officer is authorized, his acts will be regarded as valid. Such
acts will produce legal effects and be considered binding upon the government itself as the
principal of the public officer.
Doctrine of qualified political agency under this doctrine, department secretaries may exercise
powers delegated to them by the President subject to the latters power of control. Each head of a
department is, and must be, the Presidents alter ego in the matters of that department where the
President is required by law to exercise authority.
Doctrine of necessary implication all powers necessary to the exercise of the power expressly
granted are deemed impliedly granted as well.
R A C
Exception: Acts not authorized or valid an unauthorized action may still be considered valid
if it is subsequently ratified by the government. The government then assumes whatever liabilities
arise from the act of the previously un-authorized public officer. However only voidable acts may
be ratified, an absolute invalid act cannot be validated by ratification.
Kinds of Duties
Ministerial performed by a person in a given state of facts in a prescribed manner in obedience

to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of judgment as to the propriety
of the act being done.
Discretionary may be performed or a question may be decided in one of two or more ways,
either of which would still be lawful or right and where it is left to the will or judgment of the
performer to determine in which way it will be performed.
28
Inhibitions
B U
T A M A N T
A N N E
M U R
P H
INHIBITIONS
Inhibition - restraint upon the public officer against the doing of certain acts which may be
legally be done by others. Crime is therefore excluded.
Inhibition v. Disqualification
Disqualification denotes the lack of a needed eligibility for certain office. Thus, a Senator or
member of the House of Representative is, subject to certain exceptions, inhibited from
holding another office or employment in the government concurrently with his seat in the
legislature, although he may do so if he forfeits such seat. By contrast, he is disqualified
from appointment during his term to any office created or improved while he was a
member of the legislature, and this is so even if he should be willing to give up his position
as legislator.
Inhibitions are prescribed either by the Constitution or by statute and may general or
specific in their application.
Constitutional Inhibitions
The President and Vice-President shall not receive during their tenure any other
emolument from the Government or any other source.
The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet and their deputies or assistants
shall not, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution, hold any other office or
employment during their tenure. They shall not, during their tenure, directly or indirectly
practice any other profession participate in any business, or be financially interested in any
contract with, or on any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including GOCCs or their subsidiaries. They
shall avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any office or employment
in the Government.
No Senator or Member of the House Representatives may personally appear as counsel
before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial bodies. Neither
shall be, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or in any
franchise or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including any GOCCs, or its subsidiaries, during his term of office.
He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary
benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office.
No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or
employment. Neither shall be, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any
contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any GOCCs, or its subsidiaries.
No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any
electioneering or partisan political campaign.
No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any
public office or position during his tenure. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the
primary functions of his position no appointive official shall hold any other officer or
employment in the Government.
No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional or indirect
compensation, unless specially authorized by law nor accept without the consent of
Congress any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind from any foreign government.
Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect
compensation.
29
Inhibitions
B U
T A M A N T
M U R
P H
No loan, guaranty, or other form of financial accommodation for any business purpose may
be granted, directly or indirectly, by any government-owned or controlled bank or financial
institution to the President, Vice-President, the Members of the House of Cabinet, the
Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Commissions, the Ombudsman, or to
any firm or entity in which they have controlling interest, during their tenure.
Constitutional Disqualification
A N N E
E
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within fourth civil degree of the
President shall not during his tenure be appointed as the member of Constitutional
Commission, the office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries,
chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including GOCCs and their subsidiaries.
No Senator or Member of the House of Representative shall be appointed to any office
which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for
which he was elected.
The members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be
designated to any agency preforming quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
Appointees to the Constitutional Commissions must not have been candidates for any
elective position in the elections immediately preceding their appointment. No
candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one year after such election, be
appointed to any office in the government.
Other Inhibitions
No officer or employee of the government shall purchase directly or indirectly any

property sold by the government for non-payment of any tax, fee or any other public
charge. Any such purchase shall be void.
Even allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, a member of the
Cabinet, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries or other appointive official of the
Executive Department may hold not more than two positions in the government and
receive the corresponding compensation therefor: Provided, that this limitation shall
not apply to ad hoc bodies or committees, or to boards, council or bodies of which the
President is the Chairman.
No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case which he or his wife or child, is
pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor, or otherwise or in which he is related
to either the party within sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity or to counsel within
fourth degree or in which he has been executor, administrator guardian, trustee or
counsel in which he presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the
subject of review without the written consent of all parties in interest signed by them
and entered upon the record.
No judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or of the Office of the
Solicitor General shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give
professional advice to clients.
No chairman or commissioner of the COMELEC shall sit in any case in which he has
manifested bias or prejudice or antagonism against any party thereto and in
connection therewith or in any case in which he would be disqualified under the Rules
of Court.
The chairman and the members of the CHR shall not during their tenure hold any other
office or employment. Neither shall engage in the practice of any profession or in the
active management or control of any business which in any way will be affected by the
functions of their office nor shall they be financially interested, directly or indirectly in
any contract with or any franchise or privilege granted by the government.
30
Inhibitions
B U
T A M A N T
A N N E
M U R
P H
It shall be unlawful for any local government official or employee directly or indirectly,
to:
Engage in any business transaction with local government unit in which he is

an official or employee or over which he has the power of supervision or with
any of its authorized boards, officials, agents attorneys, whereby money is to
be paid, or property or any other thing of value is to be transferred, directly or
indirectly, out of the resources of the local government unit to such person or
firm;
Hold such interests in any cockpit or other games licensed by a local

government unit;
Purchase any real estate or other property forfeited in favor of the local
government unit for unpaid taxes or assessment, or by virtue if a legal process
at he instance of the said LGU;
Be a surety for any person contracting or doing business with the LGU for
which a surety is required and possess or use any public property for private
purposes.
All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their profession
or engaging in any occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief
executives. Sangguniang members may practice their professsions, engge in any
occupation, or teach in schools except during session hours provided that Sangguniang
members who are also member of the bar shall not:
Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a LGU or any
office, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the

government is accused of an offence committed in relation to his office;
Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving

the LGU of which he is an official; and
Use property and personnel of the government except when the Sangguniang
member concerned is defending the interest of the government.
Civil servants shall not strike against the Government as a means for securing changes
in the terms and conditions of employment.
Prohibited acts and transactions for public official under R.A. No, 6713, otherwise
known as Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
Other Disqualifications
All appointments in the national, provincial, city and municipal governments or in any
branch or instrumentality thereof, made in favor of a relative, within the third degree of
consanguinity or affinity, of the appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief
of the bureau or office, or of the person exercising immediate supervision over him, are
prohibited. This restriction shall however not apply to persons employed in a
confidential capacity; teachers; physicians; members of the AFP; and to those who
after their appointment to a position in a bureau or office, contracts marriage with
someone in the same bureau or office, in which event the employment or retention
therein of both husband and wife may be allowed.
Those disqualified from running for any elective local position.
31
Salary and Perquisites

A L
M A Y
U G
L O I
S E
A N
SALARY AND PERQUISITES
Purpose of Compensation
To attract competent men to the government service

Lessen the graft
Necessity to pay and Reward the public officer for the loyal and dedicated service
rendered
Salary is not an essential element of public office. There is such thing as an honorary office to
which no compensation is attached and where the incumbent is prepared and willing to serve
gratis.
Sources of Salary
Constitution - Sec 17 of the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution: unless the

congress provides otherwise, the President shall receive an annual salary of three
hundred thousand pesos; the Vice-President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker
of the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, two
hundred forty thousand pesos each; the Senators, the Members of the House of the
Representatives, the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and the Chairmen of the
Constitutional Commissions, two hundred four thousand pesos each and the members
of the Constitutional Commissions, one hundred eighty thousand pesos each.
Statute- Presidential Decree 1606 provides for the salaries of justices of the
Sandiganbayan
The Constitution may sometimes provide for the initial salary of public officer and allow
the legislature to change it later, subject to certain limitations. Thus, it is also provided
in the Constitution that the salaries of the foregoing constitutional officers shall be
fixed by law and shall not be decreased during their nature or continuance in office.
Where the salary is granted by the statute, it may be withdrawn by the statute. The
rule is that one does not have a vested right to a salary which unless protected by the
constitution, may be subjected to any change deemed fit by the legislature which
granted it in the first place. Thus, even if the salaries may be increased, it may also be
reduced and, in fact, altogether be abolished in the discretion of the law-making body.
Limitations
The Salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be

determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the
expiration of the full term of all the members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.
The Salaries of the President and the Vice President shall be determined by law and
shall not be decreased during their tenure. No increase in said compensation shall take
effect until, after the expiration of the term of the incumbent during which such
increase was approved
The salary of Chief of Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and of
judges of the lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in office, their
salary shall not be decreased.
The salary of the Chairman and the Commissioners of the Constitutional Commissions
shall be fixed by law and shall not be decreased during their tenure.
Salary and Perquisites

A L
M A Y
L O I
S E
U G
A N
The Salaries of the Ombudsman and his deputies, which shall be the same as those
provided for the Chairmen and Members, respectively of the Constitutional
Commissions shall not be decreased during their term of office.
Right to Salary
Based on the right to the office itself and accrues from the date of actual commencement
of the discharge of official duties.
Department of Budget and Management is vested with the authority to review the salaries
of government personnel
Notes: Where a public officer under investigation or prosecution is preventively suspended

but subsequently exonerated, he is entitled to payment of the salaries corresponding to
the period of his preventive suspension.
Back Salaries are also payable to an officer illegally dismissed or otherwise unjustly
deprived of his office, the right to recover accruing from the date of deprivation.
A claim for back salaries cannot stand by itself. It must be coupled with a claim for
reinstatement and it is subject to the prescriptive period of one year.
Prohibited Disposition of Salary
A public officer is not legally bound by a pledge made by him while still a candidate that, if
elected, he will not collect his salary or will donate it back to the government or give it to
some other beneficiary. Such pledge can be no more than a campaign ploy and is therefore
not enforceable of law. However, having collected the salary, he nay thereafter comply
with his election pledge without any legal inhibition because such salary has become his
private property which he may dispose of freely.
Benefits
Insurance
Retirement
Philhealth
Leaves
Liability of Public Officers

R
H E
R A M E
LIABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
The Constitution provides that public officers and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and lead modest lives.
Kinds of Duties
Duty owing to the public in general

Duty owing to particular individuals
Liability in General- The rules governing the liability of public officers in general are laid
down in :
Book 1, Chapter 9 of the Administrative Code of 1987

Sec. 38. Liability of Superior Officers
A public officer shall not be civilly liable for acts done in the performance of his
official duties, unless there is a clear showing of bad faith, malice or gross
negligence.
Any public officer who, without just cause, neglects to perform a duty within a
period fixed by law or regulation, or within a reasonable period if none is fixed,
shall be liable for damages to the private party concerned without prejudice to
such other liability as may be prescribed by law.
A head of a department or a superior officer shall not be civilly liable for the
wrongful acts, omissions of duty, negligence, or misfeasance of his
subordinates, unless he has actually authorized by written order the specific
act or misconduct complained of.
Sec. 39. Liability of Subordinate Officers No subordinate officer or employee
shall be civilly liable for acts done by him in good faith in the performance of his duties.
However, he shall be liable for willful or negligent acts done by him which are contrary
to law, morals, public policy and good customs even if he acted under orders or
instructions of his superiors.
Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan- If the order is illegal, if it is patently legal and the
subordinate is not aware of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable, for then there
would only be a mistake of fact committed in good faith.
President- immune from suit
Incumbent presidents are immune from suit or from being brought to court during the
period of their incumbency and tenure but not beyond.
Furthermore, as the Supreme Court put it, a suit against the President would not only
engender disrespect and disregard for the authority that he represents but would also
result in delay or inaction on important matters of government because of the time
and effort that the President would devote to his defense.
Estrada v. Desierto- crimes against him are criminal in character. The rule is that
unlawful acts of public officials are not acts of the state and the official who acts
illegally is not acting as such but stands in the same footing as any other trespasser.
Legislators
Members of the legislature, both national and local, act as a body and discharge duties
owing to the public in general.
As a rule they cannot be held liable individually or collectively, for the performance or
non-performance of their duties.
Santiago v. Sandiganbayan- SC affirmed the authority of the Sandiganbayan to
issue orders of preventive suspension even against members of the Legislature,
independently of the power of congress to discipline its members

R
H E
R A M E
Rama v. CA- The governor, vice governor, members of Sangguniang Panlalawigan ,

provincial auditor, provincial treasurer, and engineer were ordered to pay jointly and
severally in their individual and personal capacity damages to some 200 employees of
the province of Cebu who were eased out of their positions because of their political or
party affiliations.
Judges
Shall not be liable for their acts except only when they act without jurisdiction as the
law will not protect them from exercising powers do not belong to them
Fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith
Haw Tay v. Singayao- twin evils of corruption and ignorance of the law; dismissal of
judges, the administrative cases must be deliberated upon and decided by the
Supreme Court en banc.
If the penalty imposed does not exceed suspension of more than one year or a fine of P
10,000.00, or both, that the administrative matter maybe decided by Division (SC
Reso. Feb 23, 1993, as amended Bar Matter No. 209)
Judge to be administratively liable:
Preponderance of evidence
Article IX [2], Constitution Impeachment
Conviction of certain offenses listed in Art. XI [8] in rel. to Art. XI [2]
COMELEC (Art. IX [C] [1] [1] rel. to Art. XI [2]
COA who are not CPA Art. [D] [1] [1]
Quasi- Judicial Officers
Bad faith, malice and corruption
Philippine Racing Club v. Bonifacio
Acted in their official capacity in the honest belief that they had such power
Acts in line of Duty or under Color of Authority
Error or Mistake in Exercise of Authority malice or corruption (43 A.M Jur.,

pp85-86)
Local Officials- Local Government Code of 1991
Ministerial Act- an act performed in a prescribed manner, in obedience to law or

mandate to legal authority, w/o regard to, or exercise of, the judgment of the individual
upon the propriety of the act being done.
Ministerial Officers- acts without authority, or in disregard of the occasion, time and manner
prescribed by law for the performance of the duty, or w/o necessary care and diligence can be
held liable for nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance.
Nonfeasance is the neglect or refusal, without sufficient excuse, to perform an act

which it was the officers legal duty to the individual to perform
Misfeasance or negligence is the failure to use, in the performance of a duty
owing to the individual, that degree of care, skill and diligence which the
circumstances of the case reasonably demand
Malfeasance is the doing, either through ignorance, inattention or malice, of that
which the officer had no legal right to do at all, as where he acts without any authority
whatever, or exceeds, ignores or abuses his power.
Liability of Superiors for Acts of Subordinates
General Rule: Superior officers cannot be held liable for the acts of their subordinates
as otherwise competent persons may not be willing to join the public service for fear of

R
H E
R A M E
imputation to them of the shortcomings of others. Reason dictates that the faults of
subordinates should be considered their own responsibility and not visited upon the
innocent superior.
Superior officer maybe held liable:
Where, being charged with the duty of employing or retaining his subordinates,
he negligently or willfully employs or retains unfit or improper persons; or
Where, being charged with the duty to see that they are appointed and
qualified in a proper manner, he negligently or willfully fails to require of them
the due conformity to the prescribed regulations; or
Where he so carelessly or negligently oversees, or conducts or carries on the

business of his office as to furnish the opportunity for the default;
And a fortiori where he has directed, authorized or cooperated in the wrong.
Personal Liability
Where the wrong, whether contractual or tortious, is committed by the public officer
without authority or with malice or in bad faith.
Bad faith not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest
purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn
duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.
Tabuena v. Court of Appeals- A public officer, by virtue of his office alone, is not
immune from damages in his personal capacity arising from illegal acts done in bad
faith (Art. 27 NCC; 43 AM., Jur. 86, 89-90)
Salcedo v. Court of Appeals- If the public officers act in ultra vires and tainted with
bad faith, he may himself be held answerable in his individual capacity.
Remedies Against Public Officers- civil, criminal and administrative cases can be pursued
separately, alternately, simultaneously or successively.
OSG is not authorized to represent a public official at any stage of a criminal case or in
a civil suit for damages arising from felony. This applies to all public officials and
employees in the executive, legislative and judicial branch of the Government.
General Rule: Dismissal of an administrative case does not necessarily follow the
dismissal of a criminal case, the former requiring as it does, only preponderance of
evidence while the latter requires proof beyond reasonable doubt
Civil and Administrative cases preponderance of evidence
Criminal cases proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed
Termination of Official Relations

K A Y
O S
A R
P A T
TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL RELATIONS
In a Republican Government, the public office is not supposed to be held in

perpetuity.
Expiration of term
Acceptance of an incompatible office
One can claim the term of office only when he has a right to the office (Paredes v.
Abad).
Term- definite period of time prescribed by law by which an officer may hold an office
A term may not be a fixed number of years (happening of a certain event, loss of
confidence, accomplishment of purpose, etc.).
In case of ambiguity regarding the exact duration of the term, the shortest period shall
be preferred.
Tenure- represents the actual period of incumbency of the public officer.
Where two offices are incompatible, they cannot be held simultaneously by the same
person.
Incompatibility is based on the nature and relation of the two offices (prosecutor and
judge; treasurer and auditor; Senator/Congressman and any Government position)
The acceptance of the incompatible office automatically vacates the first.
Removal- forcible and permanent separation of the incumbent from office before the
expiration of his term.
General rule: all officers appointed by the President are removable by him.
Except: Members of SC, Constitutional Commissions, Ombudsman (Impeachment);
Judges of inferior courts (SC)
Resignation- formal method of renunciation coupled with the physical act of relinquishment
of office, and subject to the approval by the superior authorities (Estrada v Desierto).
Abandonment- total surrender, relinquishment, disclaimer or cession of the public office.

Includes the intention, as well as the external act or omission by which it is carried out. It is not
attended with the formalities observed in resignation.
Forfeiture- divests the incumbents title to his office as a result of a positive act, either
culpable or innocent.
Any person holding a public appointive office shall be considered resigned upon the
filing of his certificate of candidacy.
Recall- method of removal employed directly by the people themselves through the exercise
of their suffrages.
Abolition of Office
The power to create includes the power to destroy; hence, except where the office was
created by the Constitution itself, it may be abolished by the same legislature that
brought it into existence.
Death
Where the office is occupied by a single incumbent, the office will cease to function
until a successor is able to take over.

K A Y
O S
A R
P A T
The death of only one member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod will not prevent the
body from functioning.
Impeachment- A national inquest into the conduct of public men. It is a necessary safeguard
to ensure that public officers have the moral fitness and integrity to fulfill their mandate. The
provisions on impeachment are enshrined in Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
Under the Constitution only the following public officers may be impeached: The
President, Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman. This list of officers is exclusive.
The grounds for impeachment are: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason,
bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. These
grounds are exclusive and offenses not falling within these parameters shall not be
sufficient for impeachment purposes.
No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than
once within a period of one year.
Process at the House:
Trial at the Senate
The process begins at the House of Representatives, which has the exclusive
power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
A verified complaint must be filed by either a Member of the House of
Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any
Member thereof.
The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall
submit
its
report
to
the
House
within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding
resolution.
The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten
session days from receipt thereof.
In the committee hearings, a vote of at least one-third of all the Members of
the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the
Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution.
The vote of each Member shall be recorded.
If however, the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at
least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the
Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
The Senate has the sole power of sole power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment.
When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation.
When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote.
No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the
Members of the Senate.
Consequences of Conviction- The person impeached shall be removed from

office and shall be disqualified to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines,
but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial,
and punishment according to law. It is clear that the liability does not end at the
Senate, the person impeached shall also be held for appropriate action as a result of
his illegal and improper acts.

K A Y
O S
A R
P A T
-END-

06 Law On Public Officers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

06 Law On Public Officers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

06 Law On Public Officers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

Bustamante | Curamen | Jaramillo | Juguan | Manalili | Montes | Rosario

Elements of a public office:

It must be created by law or by authority of law.

Selection for Public Office

Heads of the executive departments

Existence of a De Jure office

Civil Service Commission

The independent constitutional commissions are the Civil Service

Safeguards in Insuring the Independence of the Commissions

They are constitutionally created; may not be abolished by statute.

ARTICLE IX-A, SECTION 1

Matibag v. Benipayo | GR No. 149036, April 2, 2002

Civil Service Commission

Aruelo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals | October 20, 1993

Macalintal v. Commission on Elections | GR No. 157013, July 10, 2003

The Chairmen and members are subject to certain

Inhibitions and Disqualifications

ARTICLE IX-A, SECTION 7

Civil Service Commission

Gamide v. Commission on Audit | GR No. 140335, December 13, 2000

Civil Service Commission

Civil Service Commission

THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

Constitutional Objectives & Functions

The general objective of a civil service is to establish and promote

ARTICLE IX-B, SECTION 1

Lazo v. Civil Service Commission | 236 SCRA 469, 472 (1994)

Civil Service Commission

Mathay v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 130214, August 9, 1999

Cruz v. Civil Service Commission | GR No. 144464, November 22, 2001

Ontiveros v. Court of Appeals | GR No. 145401, May 7,

Scope of the Civil Service

ARTICLE IX-B, SECTION 2

Civil Service Commission

University of the Philippines v. Regino | 221 SCRA 598

Civil Service Commission

EIIB v. Court of Appeals | GR No. 129133, November 25, 1998

Civil Service Commission

Career Executive Service (CES)

Civil Service Commission

Cuevas v. Bacal | GR No. 139382, December 6, 2000

Office of the President v. Buenaobra | GR No. 170021, September 8,

Appointments in the Civil Service

Civil Service Commission

Delos Santos v. Mallare | 87 Phil 289 (1950)

Civil Service Commission

Civil Service Commission

Civil Service Commission

A determination by the President that a position is not policy determining, primarily

Discretion of the Appointing Authority

Civil Service Commission

Civil Service Commission v. De la Cruz | GR No. 158737, August 31, 2004

Central Bank v. Civil Service Commission | 171 SCRA 744

Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals | 246 SCRA 281

Role of the Civil Service Commission

Civil Service Commission

ARTICLE IX-B, SECTION

Flores v. Drilon & Gordon | GR No. 104732, June 22, 1993