Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Guekeko V Santos

    Uploaded by

    Marvielyn Joy Ello
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a dispute over the mayoral position in Malabon, Rizal. The petitioner, Jose Guekeko, was elected mayor in 1940 but vacated the position in 1945 when all officials were ordered to do so. However, he argued his term was not over. The court held that: 1) The petitioner's term expired in 1943, and was not extended by the Japanese occupation. 2) Local officials are not entitled to holdover after their term expires. 3) The president's policy to reappoint pre-war officials did not legally require the petitioner's appointment. The respondent was properly appointed to the vacant mayoral position.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Guekeko V Santos

    Uploaded by

    Marvielyn Joy Ello
    50 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a dispute over the mayoral position in Malabon, Rizal. The petitioner, Jose Guekeko, was elected mayor in 1940 but vacated the position in 1945 when all officials were ordered to do so. However, he argued his term was not over. The court held that: 1) The petitioner's term expired in 1943, and was not extended by the Japanese occupation. 2) Local officials are not entitled to holdover after their term expires. 3) The president's policy to reappoint pre-war officials did not legally require the petitioner's appointment. The respondent was properly appointed to the vacant mayoral position.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    6.-Guekeko-v-Santos

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a dispute over the mayoral position in Malabon, Rizal. The petitioner, Jose Guekeko, was elected mayor in 1940 but vacated the position in 1945 when all officials were ordered to do so. However, he argued his term was not over. The court held that: 1) The petitioner's term expired in 1943, and was not extended by the Japanese occupation. 2) Local officials are not entitled to holdover after their term expires. 3) The president's policy to reappoint pre-war officials did not legally require the petitioner's appointment. The respondent was properly appointed to the vacant mayoral position.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    50 views2 pages

    Guekeko V Santos

    Uploaded by

    Marvielyn Joy Ello
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a dispute over the mayoral position in Malabon, Rizal. The petitioner, Jose Guekeko, was elected mayor in 1940 but vacated the position in 1945 when all officials were ordered to do so. However, he argued his term was not over. The court held that: 1) The petitioner's term expired in 1943, and was not extended by the Japanese occupation. 2) Local officials are not entitled to holdover after their term expires. 3) The president's policy to reappoint pre-war officials did not legally require the petitioner's appointment. The respondent was properly appointed to the vacant mayoral position.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    6. JOSE GUEKEKO, petitioner, vs. TEOFILO C. SANTOS, respondent.

    G.R. No. L-128. March 2, 1946

    FACTS: Petitioner was elected Mayor of Malabon in the general election held on December 10, 1940,
    and qualified as such in January of 1941. Respondent, however, filed an election protest against petitioner
    in the Court of First Instance of Pasig, Rizal, which was decided against respondent, whereupon he
    appealed to the Court of Appeals. The decision of the Court of Appeals has not been promulgated to date.
    For the purpose of deciding the petition in this case, we may assume that the petitioner was definitely
    elected Mayor of Malabon in the said general election.

    Thus, petitioner held the office of Mayor of Malabon throughout the Japanese occupation and
    after the reoccupation until the official restoration of the Commonwealth Government on February 27,
    1945, when all government officials were directed to vacate their posts, and in compliance with said order
    petitioner vacated his office of Mayor. On November 5, 1945, respondent was appointed Acting Mayor of
    Malabon, Rizal, by the President, and qualified on November 9, 1945.

    Petitioner seeks to oust respondent from the office of Mayor of Malabon, Rizal, on the ground
    that the former, and not the latter, is entitled to hold said office. Petitioner bases his claim on three main
    grounds: First, that his term of office has not yet expired, inasmuch as the period of Japanese occupation
    during which he continued to serve as Mayor should not be taken into account in fixing the term of his
    office. Secondly, that, assuming that his term of office had already expired, the Chief Executive should
    have exercised his appointing power in accordance with section 16 (b) of Commonwealth Act No. 357,
    and appointed the petitioner instead of the respondent, because the latter does not belong officially to the
    Nacionalista political party of which petitioner is a member. And thirdly, that petitioner should have been
    appointed to the office, on democratic principles and in accordance with the announced policy of the
    President to reinstate officials elected in the 1940 election, unless there be strong reasons for not doing so.

    ISSUE: 1. W/N petitioner’s term of office has expired.


    2. W/N petitioner has the right to holdover.
    3. W/N the policy of recall announced by the President confers legal right.

    HELD: 1. Yes. The term of an office must be distinguished from the tenure of the incumbent. The term
    means the time during which the officer may claim to hold the office as of right, and fixes the interval
    after which the several incumbents shall succeed one another. The tenure represents the term during
    which the incumbent actually holds the office. The term of office is not affected by the hold over. The
    tenure may be shorter than the term for reasons within or beyond the power of the incumbent. There is no
    principle, law or doctrine by which the term of an office may be extended by reason of war. This ruling
    holds true a fortiori in the present case, for petitioner continued to discharge the duties of his office during
    the occupation, although not under the legitimate government.

    2. No. Provincial, city and municipal officers are not entitled to hold over. In fact, petitioner
    himself does not claim to have the right to holdover. Therefore, inasmuch as respondent was appointed to
    fill the office left vacant after the term of office of the petitioner had expired on December 31, 1943, the
    provisions of subsection (b), section 16, of Commonwealth Act No. 357 do not apply to the case at bar,
    because this subsection refers to vacancies resulting from the death, resignation, removal or cessation of
    the incumbent during the term of office.

    3. No. The announced policy of the President to re-instate or recall pre-war elected officials
    except for strong reasons, does not confer a legal right on said officials to appointment, since the policy
    does not impose upon the President a legal obligation to make such appointment. It is within the exclusive
    province and discretion of the President to follow strictly or not such policy, and therefore this court
    cannot declare petitioner entitled to the office.

    You might also like