(For Public) DOCTRINES - POLITICAL LAW
(For Public) DOCTRINES - POLITICAL LAW
Uploaded by
Aejy DuczCopyright:
Available Formats
(For Public) DOCTRINES - POLITICAL LAW
(For Public) DOCTRINES - POLITICAL LAW
Uploaded by
Aejy DuczOriginal Title
Copyright
Available Formats
Share this document
Did you find this document useful?
Is this content inappropriate?
Copyright:
Available Formats
(For Public) DOCTRINES - POLITICAL LAW
(For Public) DOCTRINES - POLITICAL LAW
Uploaded by
Aejy DuczCopyright:
Available Formats
DR. ULPIANO P.
SARMIENTO III
Dean
ATTY. CARLO D. BUSMENTE
Vice Dean
ATTY. MARIA ELIZA CAMILLE B. YAMAMOTO-SANTOS
Prefect of Student Affairs
ATTY. ROBEN B. CADUGO JR.
Administrative Officer
TTY. ROBEN B. CADUGO JR.
A
ATTY. PAULINO Q. UNGOS III
Advisers
SAMUEL JOSHUA CRUZ
Overall Chairperson
REX ROLAND REGIO MARIA LOURDES MENDOZA
Chairperson, Academics Chairperson, Finance
MAEIA MIKHAELA MAYUGA DIAZMEAN KYLA SOTELO
hairperson, Assessment, Learning &
C Chairperson, Recruitment & Membership
Development
BRYAN AREVALO
PIA MONICA DIMAGUILA hairperson, Partnership & External
C
Chairperson, Bar Matters Relations
ANDREA JOSES TAN THERESE JEANNE BELARMINO
Chairperson, Communications Chairperson, Operations & Logistics
MIGERN COLE ESTABILLO ROSANNA NAIG
Chairperson, Secretariat Chairperson, EDP
MA. LOLITA KIM PALENCIA
Chairperson, Bar Mentoring Program
YRREL DAVE NAVELA
Z USTINE VINCENT PASCUAL
J
MARK COLOCADO JOEL REMENTILLA
eputy Chairpersons, Operations &
D Deputy Chairpersons, Academics
Logistics
GISELLE MARIE DIAZ
Deputy Chairperson, Communications
NTONINA CONCEPCION
A
MIER DELA CRUZ ILL QUIMSON
J
Deputy Chairperson, Membership
MARIEL ARAGON
Deputy Chairpersons, ALD
RAMAINE BALON
A
MICHAEL DOMINIQUE ISIDRO JASMINE JAGUNAP
Deputy Chairpersons, Finance
Deputy Chairperson, Bar Matters
NGEL ROSE CINCO
A ARON FRANCISCO
A
MA. REGINA SANTIAGO RHIANA NAVARRO
AUBREY ANGELI TAN eputy Chairpersons, Bar Mentoring
D
ZAMANTHA JOSH ALCAZAR Program
DOMSKI CANDOLITA
Deputy Chairpersons, EDP AARMIE GOCE
L
ERIKA PACA
KATHERINE ANNE LABAYO Deputy Chairpersons, Secretariat
Deputy Chairperson, Ex Parte
HANZ CHRISTIAN MIRAFLOR KIMBERLY JOY NAPARAN
Commercial Law Political Law
ISABELA SOFIA ELEAZAR ANTHONY JOHN RODRIGUEZ
Legal Ethics Taxation Law
LANCE LIZOR PUNZALAN LOUISE ATHENA MONSERRAT
Remedial Law Civil Law
FELICE LEONAJOY HERNANDEZ ERYL AMRHEIN AGUSTIN
Criminal Law Labor Law
QUENNIE SERENO ENRIC ALCAIDE
Commercial Law Political Law
SOFIA REGINA YASAY ROSCH MANUEL
Legal Ethics Taxation Law
NALA ANOVER HILLARY SANTILLAN
Remedial Law Civil Law
JANNAH ODTUHAN BIANCA VELASCO
Criminal Law Labor Law
RAMON BAUTISTA
KC FABIAN
ARVIN GUANIO
JOHN MATA
MARCO MERCADO
STEFANIE PICAR
SHARA SAPLALA
his work is the intellectual property of the SAN BEDA COLLEGE
T
ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW and SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2024. It is intended solely for the use of
the individuals to which it is addressed – the Bedan community.
Publication, reproduction, dissemination, and distribution, or copying of
the document without the prior consent of the SAN BEDA COLLEGE
ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS ACADEMICS
COMMITTEE 2024 is strictly prohibited.
Material includes cases penned by Justice Lopez and recent landmark
cases decided by the Supreme Court.
OPYRIGHT © 2024
C
SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW
AN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG SCHOOL OF LAW CENTRALIZED BAR
S
OPERATIONS 2024
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHORS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONSTITUTIONALLAW..............................................................................................................7
1987PHILIPPINECONSTITUTION........................................................................................7
StateImmunity(1987CONST.,Art.XVI,Sec.3;P.D.No.1445).......................................7
PHILIPPINENAVYGOLFCLUB,INC.V.ABAYA........................................................7
DelegationofPowers.........................................................................................................8
ABRENICAV.COMMISSIONONAUDIT....................................................................8
LEGISLATIVEDEPARTMENT.................................................................................................9
Appropriation(1987CONST.,Art.VI,Secs.24-25and29)...............................................9
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION V.
COMMISSIONONAUDIT...........................................................................................9
JUDICIALDEPARTMENT.....................................................................................................10
DefinitionofJudicialPower(1987CONST.,Art.VIII,Sec.1)..........................................10
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES.............................................................................................................10
JudicialReview:Requisites..............................................................................................11
AESWATCHV.COMMISSIONONELECTIONS......................................................11
Exceptions(JudicialPower).............................................................................................12
MRMASSETHOLDINGS2,INC.V.STANDARDCHARTEREDBANKS................12
CONSTITUTIONALCOMMISSIONS(1987CONST.,Art.IX)...............................................13
Powers,Functions,andJurisdiction(1987CONST.,Art.IX-A,Sec.8;...........................13
Art.IX-B,Sec.3;Art.IX-C,Secs.2-5,9and11;Art.IX-D,Secs.2-4)............................13
RICALDEV.COMMISSIONONAUDIT.....................................................................13
PNOC-EXPLORATIONCORP.v.COMMISSIONONAUDIT...................................14
NATIONALTRANSMISSIONCORP.v.COMMISSIONONAUDIT...........................15
HAGONOYWATERDISTRICTV.COMMISSIONONAUDIT...................................16
ARCENAV.COMMISSIONONAUDIT.....................................................................17
CENTRAL BAY RECLAMATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT........................................................................................................................18
ReviewofFinalOrders,ResolutionsandDecisions........................................................19
NGALOBV.COMMISSIONONAUDIT.....................................................................19
RenderedintheExerciseofAdministrativeFunctions....................................................20
(1987CONST,Art.IX-A,Secs.4and6)..........................................................................20
ANGELESV.COMMISSIONONAUDIT...................................................................20
TRINIDAD,JR.V.OFFICEOFTHEOMBUDSMAN.................................................21
BILLOFRIGHTS...................................................................................................................22
RightsoftheAccused(1987CONST.,Art.III,Secs.13-17,21and22).........................22
ISMAELANDAJIJONV.PEOPLE............................................................................22
PHILIPPINEDEPOSITINSURANCECORP.V.COMMISSIONONAUDIT.............23
FIGUEROAV.SANDIGANBAYAN,SPECIALTHIRDDIVISION...............................24
PEOPLEV.CAMPOS................................................................................................26
JCLVREALTY&DEVELOPMENTCORP.V.MANGALI...........................................27
CITIZENSHIP........................................................................................................................28
Naturalization(C.A.No.473,Secs.2-4;C.A.No.63,asamended;...............................28
A.M.No.2107-22)...........................................................................................................28
MOHAMEDV.REPUBLIC.........................................................................................28
LAWONPUBLICOFFICERS.....................................................................................................29
Accountability of Public Officers; Ombudsman (1987 CONST., Art. XI, Secs. 5-13; R.A.
No.6770,asamended;R.A.No.6713)...........................................................................29
AMPATUANV.COMMISSIONONAUDIT.................................................................29
5
AdministrativeProceedings.............................................................................................30
NATIONALBUREAUOFINVESTIGATIONV.NAJERA...........................................30
ADMINISTRATIVELAW.............................................................................................................31
GENERALPRINCIPLES.......................................................................................................31
NATIONALPOWERCORP.BOARDOFDIRECTORSV.COMMISSIONONAUDIT..
31
POWERSOFADMINISTRATIVEAGENCIES......................................................................32
ABRENICAV.COMMISSIONONAUDIT..................................................................32
METROLAUNDRYSERVICESV.THECOMMISSIONPROPER............................33
SOBREJUANITE-FLORESV.PILANDO,JR.............................................................34
ESTRELLAV.COMMISSIONONAUDIT..................................................................35
PRIMARYADMINISTRATIVEJURISDICTION.....................................................................36
CivilServiceCommission................................................................................................36
REPUBLICv.MANEJA..............................................................................................36
ELECTIONLAW..........................................................................................................................37
CANDIDACY..........................................................................................................................37
PetitiontoDeclareaNuisanceCandidate.......................................................................37
DEALBANV.COMMISSIONONELECTIONS.........................................................37
UY,JR.V.COMMISSIONONELECTIONS...............................................................38
CAMPAIGN............................................................................................................................39
StatementofContributionsandExpenses–R.A.No.7166,Sec.14..............................39
PARTIDODEMOKRATIKOPILIPINO-LAKASNGBAYANV.....................................39
COMMISSIONONELECTIONS................................................................................39
REMEDIES............................................................................................................................40
Post Proclamation; Election Contest; Jurisdiction; House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal–(1987CONST.,Art.VI,Sec.17).....................................................................40
UY,JR.V.COMMISSIONONELECTIONS...............................................................40
LOCALGOVERNMENTS...........................................................................................................41
LOCALGOVERNMENTUNITS............................................................................................41
PowersofLocalGovernmentUnits.................................................................................41
MUNICIPALITY OF BAKUN, BENGUET V. MUNICIPALITY OF SUGPON, ILOCOS
SUR...........................................................................................................................41
PowersofLocalGovernmentUnits;PrinciplesofLocalAutonomy.................................42
ABELLAV.COMMISSIONONAUDITPROPER......................................................42
6
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
State Immunity (1987 CONST., Art. XVI, Sec. 3; P.D. No. 1445)
PHILIPPINE NAVY GOLF CLUB, INC. V. ABAYA
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 235619 | July 13, 2020
FACTS
baya, et al., filed an Accion Reivindicatoria against the Philippine Navy and
A
the Golf Club before the RTC. The former claimed that the lots which were
awarded to them by the DENR are being occupied by thelatter.TheGolfClub
and the Philippine Navy sought to apply the doctrine of state immunityinthe
civil case.
DOCTRINE
heStatemaynotbesuedwithoutitsconsent.Thisfundamentaldoctrinestems
T
from the principle that there can be no legal right againsttheauthoritywhich
makesthelawonwhichtherightdepends.Yet,thedoctrineofstateimmunityis
notabsolute.TheStatemaywaiveitscloakofimmunityandthewaivermaybe
made expressly or by implication. Also, the doctrine may be shelved when its
stubborn observance will lead to the subversion of the ends of justice.
7
Delegation of Powers
ABRENICA V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 218185 | September 14, 2021
FACTS
he Department of Health (DOH) issued Administrative Order (AO) No.
T
2006-0011,whichfixedthepaymentofhazardpaytopublichealthworkerswith
SG 20 and above at P4,989.75.
DOCTRINE
dministrative issuances or ordersareproductsofdelegatedlegislation,which
A
are within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrines of
non-delegability, and separation of powers. The principle of separation of
powers ordains that each of the three great branches of government has
exclusive cognizance of and is supreme in matters falling within its own
constitutionally-allocated sphere. Our Constitution has given the country a
well-laidoutandbalanceddivisionofpowers,distributedamongthelegislative,
executive and judicial branches with specially-established offices geared to
accomplish specific objectives to strengthenthewholeconstitutionalstructure.
Thus, the legislative branch is vested with the power to make and enact laws;
the executive branch is tasked with the enforcement of the laws; while the
judicial branch is mandated to interpret and apply laws.
8
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Appropriation (1987 CONST., Art. VI, Secs. 24-25 and 29)
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 217285 | November 10, 2020
FACTS
he COA disallowed the disbursements made by the Department of Agrarian
T
Reform(DAR)RegionalOfficeNo.02(DAR-R02)asincentivesforaccomplishing
targetsfrom2008to2009.Thedisbursementswerefoundtobeillegallycharged
against the CARP Fund, which is a special fund createdforthepurposeofthe
CARP.
DOCTRINE
ARP Fund is a special fund, similar to a trust fund, whichissegregatedfora
C
specific purpose. As such, it should be used solely for the purpose forwhichit
was created. Any unused balance from the fund cannot be used for another
purpose by the agency because it is required to be transmittedtothegeneral
funds of the government.
9
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Definition of Judicial Power (1987 CONST., Art. VIII, Sec. 1)
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LAND
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES
LOPEZ, M., J.
GR Nos. 229274 and 229289 | June 16, 2021
FACTS
he case involves a dispute overtheamountofjustcompensationforaparcel
T
of land placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
DOCTRINE
he determination of just compensation in cases involving the Comprehensive
T
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is a judicial function vested in the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) acting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC). The court, in
exercisingthisfunction,mustconsiderthefactorsenumeratedunderSection17
of Republic ActNo.6657(CARPLaw)andtheguidelinesandformulassetforth
intheDepartmentofAgrarianReformAdministrativeOrderNo.5,seriesof1998
(DAR AO No. 5-98), but it is not strictly bound by the determinations of the
administrative agencies. Likewise, just compensation must be valued at the
time of taking or at thetimewhenthelandownerwasdeprivedoftheuseand
benefitofitspropertyaswellasitstimelypaymentinfullasfinallydetermined
by the court.
10
Judicial Review: Requisites
AES WATCH V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 246332 (Resolution) | December 9, 2020
FACTS
he case involves a petition for mandamus to compel the Commission on
T
Elections (COMELEC) to review thevoter-verifiablepaperaudittrail,toemploy
another method of digitally signing the election results, and to remove the
supposed prohibition on capturing devices while inside the polling place.
DOCTRINE
OMELEC is vested with the constitutionalpowerandfunctionto"enforceand
C
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election."
Among its powers is the promulgation of rules and regulations of election laws.
11
Exceptions ( Judicial Power)
MRM ASSET HOLDINGS 2, INC. V. STANDARD
CHARTERED BANKS
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 202761 (Resolution) | February 10, 2021
FACTS
he issue in this case lies on SCB'srepresentationintheManCom.Particularly,
T
whetheritwasmootedbythedissolutionoftheManCom,theremovalofSCBas
creditor in the Rehabilitation Plan, and the eventual termination of the
rehabilitation proceedings.
DOCTRINE
questionismootwhenitceasestopresentajusticiablecontroversybyvirtue
A
of supervening events, so that an adjudication of thecaseoradeclarationon
the issuewouldbeofnopracticalvalueoruse.Insuchaninstance,thereisno
actualsubstantialreliefwhichapetitionerwouldbeentitledto,andwhichwould
benegatedbythedismissalofthepetition.Courtsgenerallydeclinejurisdiction
over such casesordismissitonthegroundofmootness.Noteworthy,however,
is that moot question is subject to exceptions which are: when there is grave
violation of the Constitution; when the exceptional character of the situation
and paramount public interest is involved; when theconstitutionalissueraised
requiresformulationofcontrollingprinciplestoguidethebench,thebarandthe
public;orwhenthecaseiscapableofrepetitionyetevadingreview.Wedonot
find such circumstances in this case.
12
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS (1987
CONST., Art. IX)
Powers, Functions, and Jurisdiction (1987 CONST., Art. IX-A, Sec. 8;
Art. IX-B, Sec. 3; Art. IX-C, Secs. 2-5, 9 and 11; Art. IX-D, Secs. 2-4)
RICALDE V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 253724 (Resolution) | February 15, 2022
FACTS
his Petition for Certiorari, filed under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the
T
Revised Rules ofCourt,seeksjudicialreviewoftheCommissiononAudit(COA)
Proper Decision, which affirmed the disallowance of the salaries paid to the
three (3) lawyers. Petitioners argue that the hiring of the said lawyers was
justified due to the Bureau of Investments’ (BOI) dire need for additional
technical staff to justify the engagement of the lawyers’ services.
DOCTRINE
overnment agencies and instrumentalities are restricted in hiring private
G
lawyers to render legal services for them and handle their cases. Public funds
cannot be used to pay private lawyers unless exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances exist and the hiring is accompanied by the written conformity
and acquiescence of the OSG and the written concurrence of the COA. The
prohibition covers the hiring of private lawyers for any form of legal service,
regardless of whether it involves an actual legal controversy or court litigation.
13
PNOC- EXPLORATION CORP. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
LOPEZ, M., J.
GR No. 244461 | September 28, 2021
FACTS
his petition filed under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65,oftheRevisedRulesof
T
Court seeks to annul, reverse,andsetasidetheDecisionandResolutionofthe
Commission on Audit (COA) Proper, which affirmed the denial of petitioner’s
request for the COA’s written concurrence in the engagement of a privatelaw
firm. Petitioner begs for liberality in the application of the rules on the
engagement of aprivatecounsel.TheCOAmaintainsthatcompliancewiththe
requirement of first securing the COA’s written concurrent cannot be
disregarded.
DOCTRINE
he general rule is thatgovernment-ownedorcontrolledcorporations(GOCCs)
T
are prohibited to hire private counsels as the law has designated the
Government Corporate Counsel (GCC) to be the principal law officer of all
GOCCs. However, the government has recognized exceptional situations.
Pursuant to its constitutional mandate to be the guardian of public funds, the
COAissuedseveralCircularstoregulatethehiringofprivatecounsels.Thusfar,
thefollowingindispensableconditionsmustthenbefulfilledbeforeaGOCCcan
hire a private lawyer: 1) hiring is only in exceptional cases; 2) the written
conformity and acquiescence of the Office of Government Corporate Counsel
(OGCC) must first be secured; and 3) the prior writtenconcurrenceoftheCOA
must also be secured.
14
NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORP. v. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT
LOPEZ, M., J.
GR No. 246173 | June 22, 2021
FACTS
GOCCexpandedtheprovisionsofRANo.91363inrounding-offthefractional
A
length of service equivalent to six months or more to one whole year in the
calculation of separation benefits when the law was clear on the prescribed
amount.
DOCTRINE
o money shall be paid out of any public treasury or depository except in
N
pursuance of an appropriation law or other specific statutory authority. Any
disbursementofgovernmentfundsthatiscontrarytolawshallbedisallowedfor
being an illegal expenditure.
15
HAGONOY WATER DISTRICT V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 247228 | March 2, 2021
FACTS
he2012ricesubsidywhichgrantsbenefitstoemployeesafterJuly1,1989and
T
DBM CCC No. 10 which only allows the availment of benefits for those
incumbentsasofJuly1,1989,andnotsubsequenttothatdate,wasdisallowed
by COA and held the officers responsible for its disbursement liable, but
exonerated the liability of those who merely accept.
DOCTRINE
he COA has the power to disallow the granting of benefitsifitisfoundtobe
T
contrary to law. Further, whileitcanholdliablethosewhowereresponsiblefor
an unwarranted disbursement of funds, it cannot exonerate a person who,
under the law, should suffer liability. But the COA acted with grave abuse of
discretionwhenitexoneratedthepassiverecipientfromreturningthesamefor
this runs afoul to theprincipleofsolutioindebitiortheobligationtoreturnthe
payment received by mistake.
16
ARCENA V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 227227 | February 9, 2021
FACTS
I t was argued that COA can no longer audit theMBTprojecttransactionforit
was already settled based on two reports, this was in relation to section52of
PD 1442.
DOCTRINE
OA is the duly authorized agency to adjudicate matters relating to the
C
examination, audit, and settlement of all accounts of the government and its
expenditures, the COA has acquired special knowledge and expertise in
handlingmattersfallingunderitsspecializedjurisdiction.Hence,intheabsence
of grave abuse of discretion, the factual findings of the COA, which are duly
supported by theevidenceonrecord,mustbeaccordednotonlygreatrespect
but finality.
17
CENTRAL BAY RECLAMATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP.
V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. Nos. 252940 | April 5, 2022
FACTS
hilippineReclamationAuthority(PRA)enteredintoanAmendedJointVenture
P
Agreement (JVA) with Central Bay Reclamation and Development Corporation
(Central Bay) to develop the “Freedom Islands.” The Supreme Court (SC)
nullified the Amended JVA for violating the 1987 Constitution, which prohibits
the alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public
domainandtheacquisitionofprivatecorporationsofanykindofalienableland
of the public domain. The Commission on Audit (COA) disapproved the
Compromise Agreement entered by the parties and ratiocinated that the
stipulation to transfer the reclaimed land from PRA to Central Bay’s qualified
assignee is a circumvention of the SC’s Decision.
DOCTRINE
he1987ConstitutionhasmadetheCOAtheguardianofpublicfunds,vestingit
T
with broad powers over all accounts pertaining to government revenue and
expendituresandtheusesofpublicfundsandproperty,includingtheexclusive
authority to define the scope of its audit and examination, establish the
techniques and methods for such review, and promulgate accounting and
auditing rules and regulations.
18
Review of Final Orders, Resolutions and Decisions
NGALOB V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 238882 | January 5, 2021
FACTS
he Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) - Regional Development Council
T
(ROC) Executive Committee (ExCom), headed byitsChairman,JuanB.Ngalob
(Ngalob), issued RDC ExCom Resolution No. 73, authorizing the grant of
incentives disbursing PHP 1,095,000 covering January to June 2008, and
quarterly releases for the third and fourth quarters of 2009 to compensate
RDC-CAR officials and secretariat's"extrawork"inimplementingtheRDC-CAR
Work Program on Development and Autonomy.
imilarly,onDecember10,2010,theRDCExComissuedResolutionNo.CAR-103,
S
providing for a year-end incentive to its officers and secretariat, in lieu of
honoraria from the ROC Regional Development and Autonomy Fund, to
recognize the considerable responsibilities and tasks related to regional
autonomy that they undertook over and above their regular functions
disbursing PHP 1,080,000.
pon audit, both of these incentives amounting to P1,095,000.00 and
U
P1,080,000.00 were discontinued for lack of legal basis.
DOCTRINE
heburdenofprovingthevalidityorlegalityofthegrantofallowance,benefits,
T
or compensation is with the government agency or entity granting, or the
employee claiming them.
19
Rendered in the Exercise of Administrative Functions
(1987 CONST, Art. IX-A, Secs. 4 and 6)
ANGELES V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 228795 | December 1, 2020
FACTS
municipal treasurer seeks relief from accountability for lost payroll money
A
after a robbery incident, arguing that the absence of a security escort and
positive identification of the culprits justifies her request. The Supreme Court
reversedthedecisionoftheCommissiononAudit,rulingthatthetreasurerand
cashier exercised reasonable care and caution, and the absence of a security
escort does not indicate negligence.
DOCTRINE
hecaseaddressestheaccountabilityofpublicofficersinhandlinggovernment
T
funds. It emphasizes that the standard for negligence is relative and depends
on the circumstances. The court ruled that the officers in question exercised
reasonable care and caution under the circumstances, and the loss resulting
from a robbery was beyond their control. The court rejects the stringent
condition imposed by the COA regarding the need for a security escort,
emphasizing that only the diligence of a good father of afamilyisrequiredin
handling government properties and funds. The court criticizes the COA for
denying the request for relief from accountability, asserting that it should not
compromise the well-being of government employees who are not guilty of
negligence and who risk their lives in the performance of their duties.
20
TRINIDAD, JR. V. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 227440 (Resolution) | December 2, 2020
FACTS
hecaseassailstheconstitutionalityofaCourtofAppealsDecisionwhichfound
T
Ricardo O. Trinidad, Jr. guilty of gross negligence for signing his employees’
Daily Time Records without checking for accuracy..
DOCTRINE
OCTRINE: The unjustified reliance on one’s subordinate constitutes
D
inexcusable negligence.
21
BILL OF RIGHTS
Rights of the Accused (1987 CONST., Art. III, Secs. 13-17, 21 and 22)
ISMAEL AND AJIJON V. PEOPLE
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 234435-36 | February 6, 2023
FACTS
his case involves the conviction of then Lantawan, Basilan Municipal Mayor
T
TahiraIsmaelandMunicipalTreasurerAidaAjijonunderSection3(e)ofRepublic
Act(RA)No.3019,asamended,andSection3.3.1,inrelationtoSection17.2.3of
the Implementing Rules and RegulationsofRANo.8291,fornon-remittanceof
contributions to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Petitioners
filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court which seeks the
dismissalofthecriminalcases.Theyarguethattheirrighttospeedydisposition
ofthecaseswasviolatedsincetheInformationswerefiledonJune5,2005,but
resolved only on August 2, 2017.
DOCTRINE
findingofdelayintheproceedingsdoesnotnecessarilyevinceaviolationof
A
therighttospeedydispositionofacaseorspeedytrialtowarranttheoutright
dismissalofthecase.Essentially,theserightsarerelativeandflexibleconcepts,
whichrequireparticularregardofthefactsandcircumstancespeculiartoeach
case. Invocation of these rights must be consistent with reasonable delay as
they are deemed violated only when there is inordinate delay, such as in
proceedings attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; those
unjustifiably postponed; or when, without cause or justifiable motive, a long
period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having their case tried.
22
PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP. V.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 218068 | March 15, 2022
FACTS
his Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule65,oftheRevised
T
Rules of Court assails the Decision and Resolution oftheCommissiononAudit
(COA) Proper, which denied the condonation and write-off of portions of the
financial assistance given by Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC)
to Westmont Bank and Keppel Monte Savings Bank (KMSB); and ordered the
issuance of notices of disallowance (NDs) therefor. Petitioner argues that the
unreasonabledelayonthepartoftheCOAinresolvingtheissuesonthegrants
of financial assistance is an evasion of a positive duty, amounting to grave
abuseofdiscretion.TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)fortheCOAProper
countersthatasaconstitutionalbody,theCOAisnotsubjecttoaspecifictime
frame within which to render a decision.
DOCTRINE
he “balancing test” is adopted to determine whether adefendant’srighttoa
T
speedytrialandaspeedydispositionofcaseshasbeenviolated.Theconductof
boththeprosecutionanddefendantareweighedaproposthefour-foldfactors,
to wit: (1) length of delay; (2)reasonforthedelay;(3)defendant'sassertionor
non-assertion of his right; and (4) prejudice to defendant resulting from delay.
23
FIGUEROA V. SANDIGANBAYAN, SPECIAL THIRD
DIVISION
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. Nos. 235965-66 | February 15, 2022
FACTS
corruption complaint was filed against Rene Figueroa and other officers by
A
the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). Petitioner
maintains that it took more than six (6) years for the Ombudsman and the
Office of the Special Prosecutor to decide theappropriateInformationstofile
againsthim.ThePeopleofthePhilippinesarguesthattheSandiganbayanacted
wellwithintheboundsoflawandjurisprudencewhenitdeniedRene’smotionto
quash. There was no inordinate delay amounting to a violation of the right to
speedy disposition of cases.
DOCTRINE
hemodeofanalysisinsituationswheretherighttospeedydispositionofcases
T
or the right to speedy trial is invoked are the following:
irst, the right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to
F
speedy trial. The right to speedy trial may only be invoked in criminal
prosecutions against courts of law. The right to speedy disposition of cases,
however,maybeinvokedbeforeanytribunal,whetherjudicialorquasi-judicial.
What is important is that the accused may already be prejudiced by the
proceeding for the right to speedy disposition of cases to be invoked.
econd,acaseisdeemedinitiateduponthefilingofaformalcomplaintpriorto
S
aconductofapreliminaryinvestigation.TheCourtacknowledges,however,that
the Ombudsman should set reasonable periods for preliminary investigation,
with due regard to the complexities and nuances ofeachcase.Delaysbeyond
this period will be taken against the prosecution. The period taken for
fact-finding investigations prior to the Filing of the formal complaint shall not
be included in the determination of whether there has been inordinate delay.
hird,courtsmustfirstdeterminewhichpartycarriestheburdenofproof.Ifthe
T
right is invoked within the given time periods contained in current Supreme
Court resolutions and circulars, and the time periods that will be promulgated
by the Office of the Ombudsman, the defense has the burden of proving that
the right was justifiably invoked. If the delay occurs beyond the given time
periodandtherightisinvoked,theprosecutionhastheburdenofjustifyingthe
delay.
24
I f the defense has the burden of proof, itmustprovefirst,whetherthecaseis
motivated by malice or clearly only politically motivated and is attended by
utter lack of evidence, and second, that the defense did not contribute to the
delay. Oncetheburdenofproofshiftstotheprosecution,theprosecutionmust
prove first, that it followed the prescribed procedure in the conduct of
preliminary investigation and in the prosecution of the case; second, that the
complexityoftheissuesandthevolumeofevidencemadethedelayinevitable;
and third, that no prejudice was suffered by the accused as a result of the delay.
ourth, determination of the length of delay is never mechanical. Courts must
F
consider the entire context of the case, from the amount of evidence to be
weighedtothesimplicityorcomplexityoftheissuesraised.Anexceptiontothis
rule is if there is an allegation that the prosecution of the case was solely
motivated by malice, such as when the case is politically motivated or when
there is continued prosecution despite utter lack of evidence.
nother exception would be the waiver of the accused to the right to speedy
A
disposition of cases or the right to speedy trial. If it can be proven that the
accused acquiesced to the delay, the constitutional right can no longer be
invoked. In all cases of dismissals due to inordinate delay, the causes of the
delays must be properly laid out and discussed by the relevant court.
ifth,therighttospeedydispositionofcasesortherighttospeedytrialmustbe
F
timely raised. The respondent or the accused must filetheappropriatemotion
upon the lapse of the statutory or procedural periods. Otherwise, they are
deemed to have waived their right to speedy disposition of cases.
25
PEOPLE V. CAMPOS
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 252212 | July 14, 2021
FACTS
meliza, Marilou and Eric were at Emeliza’ house when a man entered the
E
premises and shot Marilou with agun.Immediately,EricandEmelizareported
the events to the police officers and describedthatthesuspecthas“malaking
katawan”. The police officers received a tip that the suspect was at Magahan
street in Pasay City. When they arrived at the target area, they immediately
apprehended Mr. Campos, as he matched Emiliza and Marilou’s description.
Subsequently, Emeliza and Eric confirmed that it was Mr. Campos whodidthe
crime in a police line-up.
DOCTRINE
I n determining the admissibility and reliability of their out-of-court
identification, the Court must look at the totality of the circumstances and
consider the following factors, namely: (1) the witness' opportunitytoviewthe
criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that
time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the
lengthoftimebetweenthecrimeandtheidentification;(5)thelevelofcertainty
demonstratedbythewitnessattheidentification;and(6)thesuggestivenessof
the identification procedure. These rules assure fairness as wellascompliance
with the constitutional requirements of due process in regard to out-of-court
identification, and prevent the contamination of the integrity of in-court
identification. Here, the eyewitnesses' out-of-court identification of Roberto,
satisfied the totality of the circumstances test."
26
JCLV REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. MANGALI
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 236618 | August 27, 2020
FACTS
angali and Alba were charged with robbery committed against JCLV Realty
M
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)ontheallegationsthatMangaliandAlba
removed JCLV Realty's electric facilities with intent to gain and intimidation
againstpersons.Aftertheprosecutionresteditscase,Mangalifiledademurrer
to evidence claiming that theprosecutionfailedtoestablishintenttogainand
that the metering instruments belonged to JCLV Realty. The RTC granted the
demurrer and dismissed the criminal case for lack of evidence that Mangali
perpetrated the robbery.
DOCTRINE
Double jeopardy attaches when the following elements concur:
( a) the accused is charged under a complaintorinformationsufficientinform
and substance to sustain their conviction;
(b) the court has jurisdiction;
(c) the accused has been arraigned and has pleaded; and
( d) the accused is convicted or acquitted, or the case is dismissed without
his/her consent.
I n this case, valid Information for the crime of robbery was filed against
MangalibeforetheRTC.Also,Mangalihadpleadednotguiltytothecharge,and
after the prosecution rested, thecriminalcasewasdismisseduponademurrer
to evidence.
27
CITIZENSHIP
Naturalization (C.A. No. 473, Secs. 2-4; C.A. No. 63, as amended;
A.M. No. 21 07-22)
MOHAMED V. REPUBLIC
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 220674 | December 2, 2021
FACTS
his PetitionforReviewonCertiorariassailstheDecisionandResolutionofthe
T
Court of Appeals, which dismissed petitioner’s application for naturalization.
Petitioner insists that the one-year period to file the application for
naturalization must be reckoned from the filing of the original Declaration of
Intentionin2006,andnotafterthesubmissionoftheSupplementalDeclaration
of Intention in 2007. He also claims good faith and explains that he took his
oath of allegiance without knowledge that the Government’s period to appeal
has not yet expired.
DOCTRINE
aturalization proceedings are imbued with the highest public interest.
N
Naturalization is notaright,butoneofprivilegeofthemostdiscriminating,as
wellasdelicateandexactingnature,affecting,asitdoes,publicinterestofthe
highest order, and which may be enjoyed only under the precise conditions
prescribed by law.
28
LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
Accountability of Public Officers; Ombudsman (1987 CONST., Art. XI,
Secs. 5-13; R.A. No. 6770, as amended; R.A. No. 6713)
AMPATUAN V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 252007 | December 7, 2021
FACTS
his Petition for Certiorari filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court
T
assails theResolutionoftheCommissiononAudit’s(COA),whichdeniedARMM
RegionalDirectorZaldyUyAmpatuan’sOmnibusMotionforReconsiderationof
Decision, denying his Petition for Relief from Judgment. The subject
disbursementswerefoundillegalandirregular.Petitionerwasamongthoseheld
liable to settle the disallowed amounts. Petitioner claims that his right to due
process was violated and that he had no knowledge or participation in the
disallowed transactions.
DOCTRINE
hesolepropositionthatanofficialistheheadoftheauditedagencydoesnot
T
suffice to hold him personally liable for disallowances on accountofhisorher
subordinate’s actions. Liability depends upon the wrong committed and not
solely by reason of being the head of an agency.
29
Administrative Proceedings
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION V. NAJERA
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 237522 (Resolution) | June 30, 2020
FACTS
he NBI charged Conrado Najera and his team with grave misconduct before
T
the Ombudsman arising from an improper raid operation of an establishment
allegedly engaged in human trafficking. On appeal, the CA held that the
supposed robbery and extortion were unsubstantiated and that Conrado’s
supervisor, Chief Peneza, did not participate in the investigationwhichisfatal
to the NBI's case.
DOCTRINE
he quantum of proof in administrativeproceedingsnecessaryforafindingof
T
guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The burden to establish the
charges rests upon the complainant. The case should be dismissed for lack of
merit if the complainant fails to show in a satisfactory manner the factsupon
which his accusations are based. The respondent is not even obliged to prove
his exception or defense.
30
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
NATIONAL POWER CORP. BOARD OF DIRECTORS V.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 218052 | January 26, 2021
FACTS
heNPC-BODconfirmedandratifiedaboardresolutiongrantedCalendarYear
T
2009 Performance Incentive Benefits (PIB), equivalent to five and one-half
monthly basic salary, to NPC Non-Operation and Maintenance Agreement
(NMA)-Small Power Utility Group (SPUG)/Watershed and Operation and
Maintenance (OMA) Head Office and Engineering officials and employees
amounting to PHP 327,272,424.91.
ubsequently,theNPCAuditTeamissuedaNoticeofSuspension,requiringNPC
S
toexplainwhythePIBshouldnotbedisallowedinauditonthegroundsthatthe
grant of PIB lacked prior approval of the President and that the grant was
extravagantconsideringthatitwasgivendespitetheNPC-SPUG'sincurrenceof
a net loss.
DOCTRINE
ection 43, Chapter 5, Book VI of the Administrative Code of 1987 states that
S
"everyofficialoremployeeauthorizingormakingsuchpayment,ortakingpart
therein, and everypersonreceivingsuchpaymentshallbejointlyandseverally
liable to the Government for the full amount so paid or received." Section 38,
Chapter9,BookIoftheAdministrativeCodeexplainsthatsuchcivilliabilityof
the officers is grounded upon the showing of bad faith, malice, or gross
negligence in the performance of their official duties.
he palpable disregard of laws, prevailing jurisprudence, and other applicable
T
directivesamountstogrossnegligence,whichbetraysthepresumptionofgood
faith and regularity in the performance of official functions enjoyed by public
officers.
31
POWERS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
ABRENICA V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 218185 | September 14, 2021
FACTS
he Department of Health (DOH) issued Administrative Order (AO) No.
T
2006-0011,whichfixedthepaymentofhazardpaytopublichealthworkerswith
SG 20 and above at P4,989.75.
DOCTRINE
ust as the power of the DOH to issue rules and regulationsisconfinedtothe
J
clear letter of the law, the Court's hands are likewise tied to interpreting and
applying the law. In other words, the Court cannot infuse vitality, let alone a
semblance of validity, to an issuance which on its faceisinconsistentwiththe
law and therefore void, by adopting its terms and in effect implementing the
samelestweotherwisevalidateanundueexercisebytheDOHofitsdelegated
and limited power of implementation.
32
METRO LAUNDRY SERVICES V. THE COMMISSION
PROPER
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 252411 (Resolution) | February 15, 2022
FACTS
his Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule65,oftheRevised
T
Rules of Court assails the decision of the Commission on Audit (COA) Proper,
which denied Metro Laundry Services’ (Metro Laundry) money claim for the
unpaid services it rendered at the Ospital ng Maynila MedicalCenter(OMMC).
Petitionerinsistsonbeingpaidonthebasisofquantummeruitfortheservices
it had actually rendered for the City of Manila. The COA Proper ruled that the
patent disregards the mandatory requirements for procurement of services
underSection10ofRepublicActNo.9184andSections85(1)and86ofP.D.No.
1445 nullified the claim of petitioner’s for payment.
DOCTRINE
ayment for services done on account of the government cannot be avoided
P
despite the irregularity or nullity of the contract. The Court has consistently
sustained the grant of compensation to contractors, who have entirely or
substantially accomplished their obligation under the contract on the basis of
quantum meruit, regardless of any invalidity or irregularity in itsprocurement.
When payment isbasedonquantummeruit,theamountofrecoveryshouldbe
the reasonable value of the thing or services rendered regardless of any
agreement as to value.
33
SOBREJUANITE-FLORES V. PILANDO, JR.
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 251816 | November 23, 2021
FACTS
he Philippine Psychology Act of 2009 (Republic ActNo.10029)mandatesthat
T
all applicants for registration to practice psychology must pass a licensure
examination. However, Sec. 16 thereof exempted psychologists from the
examination if they possess the educational attainment and work experience
provided therein. Petitioner applied for registration as a psychologist without
examination but was denied by the Board of Psychology (BOP) on theground
thatshehasinsufficientworkexperienceandhasnotupdatedherprofessional
education as required by the said law.
DOCTRINE
validdelegationoflegislativepowersmustcomplywiththecompletenesstest
A
and the sufficient standard test. The law is completewhenitsetsthepolicyto
be executed leaving nothing to the delegate except to implement it. On the
other hand, the lawlaysdownasufficientstandardwhenitprovidesadequate
guidelinesorlimitationstodeterminetheboundariesofthedelegate’sauthority
and prevent the delegation from running riot.
34
ESTRELLA V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 252079 | September 14, 2021
FACTS
he Department of Public Works and Highways - National Capital Region
T
(DPWH-NCR)begananinfrastructureprojecttorestoretheFloodControlofthe
Meycauayan River during two successive typhoons. The Commission on Audit
(COA) found irregularities in the procurement process with construction
companies, including the presence of the same members of the Board of
Directors in all the companies to whom the contracts wereawarded,failureto
meet therequirementsundertheImplementingRulesandRegulations(IRR)of
Republic Act (RA) No. 9184, and violation of the provision on splitting of
government contracts.
DOCTRINE
ell-settled is therulethatfactualfindingsofadministrativeagencies,likethe
W
COA, are generally respected and even afforded finality, when supported by
substantial evidence, because of their special knowledge and expertise in
matters falling under their jurisdiction. This Court is not a trier of facts and,
generally, it shall not re-evaluate and substitute the administrative agency's
judgment as to the sufficiency of evidence. In any case, the schedule of the
procurement activities as reflected in the records supports the COA Proper's
findings that the pre-procurement requirementswerenotcompliedwith,anda
public bidding was not conducted.
35
PRIMARY ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTION
Civil Service Commission
REPUBLIC v. MANEJA
LOPEZ, M., J.
GR No. 209052 | June 23, 2021
FACTS
secondary public school teacher was claiming for backwages due to the
A
execution of her dismissal by the CSC regional body, when her appeal is still
pending in the CSC Proper.
DOCTRINE
ismissal from the service imposed by the Civil Service Commission Regional
D
Office (CSCRO) cannot be executed pending appeal with the Civil Service
Commission Proper (CSC). Premature execution of the decision ordering the
employee's dismissal from the service entitlestheemployeetothepaymentof
backwageseventhoughtheemployeeisnotfullyexoneratedonappeal.Inthe
absence of any Resolution from the Commission declaring the finality of the
Regional Office's decision or action, the same is not final and executory.
36
ELECTION LAW
CANDIDACY
Petition to Declare a Nuisance Candidate
DE ALBAN V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 243968 | March 22, 2022
FACTS
hefocusofthisPetitionforCertiorariistheconstitutionalityoftheCOMELEC’s
T
authoritytomotupropriorefusetogiveduecoursetoorcanceltheCertificate
of Candidacy (CoC) of a nuisance candidate under Section 69 of the Omnibus
Election Code, and the proper interpretation of its provision pertaining to the
candidate’s bona fide intention to run for public office.
DOCTRINE
heCommissiononElections(COMELEC)hastheministerialdutytoreceiveand
T
acknowledgeaCertificateofCandidacy(CoC)submittedwithinthefilingperiod
usingtheprescribedform.Proceduraldueprocessmustbeobservedbeforethe
COMELECmayrefusetogiveduecoursetotheCoCofanuisancecandidate.In
affording the candidate of due process, it should be stressed that it is not
sufficient, that the candidate be notified of the Commission's inquiry into the
veracity of the contents of his certificate of candidacy, but he must also be
allowed to present his own evidence to prove that he possesses the
qualifications for the office he seeks. While the Commission may look into
patent defects in the certificates, it maynotgointomattersnotappearingon
theirface.Thequestionofeligibilityorineligibilityofacandidateisbeyondthe
usual and proper cognizance of said body.
37
UY, JR. V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. Nos. 260650 & 260952 | August 8, 2023
FACTS
I n the 2022 elections, four (4) candidates vied for the position of Zamboanga
del Norte’s first district representative, namely: Roberto “Pinpin” T. Uy, Jr.
(Roberto), Romeo “Kuya Jonjon” M. Jalosjos (Romeo), Frederico “KuyaJan”P.
Jalosjos, and Richard Amazon. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
declared Frederico Jalosjos a nuisance candidate and canceled his Certificate
ofCandidacy(CoC).FredericofiledaPetitionforCertioraribeforetheSupreme
Court,assailingtheResolutionoftheCOMELECEnBanc,findinghimanuisance
candidate.TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)pointedoutthattheissues
raised in the Petitions partake the nature of an election contest within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
DOCTRINE
uisance candidates are those who filed their COCs: (1) to put the election
N
processinmockeryordisrepute;(2)tocauseconfusionamongthevotersbythe
similarityofthenamesoftheregisteredcandidates;or(3)undercircumstances
oractswhichclearlydemonstratethatthecandidatehasnobonafideintention
torunfortheofficeforwhichtheCoChasbeenfiled.Thecommonthreadofthe
threeinstancesisthatnuisancecandidatesfiledtheirCoCsnottoaspireorseek
public office but to prevent “a faithful determination of the true will of the
electorate.”Thecandidate’sbonafideintentiontorunforpublicofficeisneither
subject to any property qualifications nor dependent upon membership in a
political party, popularity, or degree of success in the elections.
heerroneoususeofanicknameregisteredintheCoCisnotenoughtodeclare
T
anuisancecandidate.Theproperrecourseistobringthistotheattentionofthe
Comelec as a defect of anentryintheCoCtodisallowacandidatefromusing
that nickname. The rules and regulations for the conduct of elections are
mandatory before the election, but when they are soughttobeenforcedafter
the election, they are held to be directory only if that is possible, especially
where,iftheytheyareheldtobemandatory,innocentvoterswillbedeprivedof
theirvoteswithoutfaultontheirpart.Thus,eveniftheCoCwasnotdulysigned
ordoesnotcontaintherequireddata,theproclamationofthecandidateasthe
winner may not be nullified on such grounds. The defects in the certificate
should have been questioned before the election; they may not bequestioned
aftertheelectionwithoutinvalidatingthewilloftheelectoratewhichshouldnot
be done.
38
CAMPAIGN
Statement of Contributions and Expenses – R.A. No. 7166, Sec. 14
PARTIDO DEMOKRATIKO PILIPINO-LAKAS NG BAYAN V.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 225152 | October 5, 2021
FACTS
he Commission on Elections (COMELEC), through Resolution No. 10147,
T
extended the filing of SOCEs until June 30, 2016. The candidates and political
partieswhowillsubmittheirSOCEsonorbeforethenewdeadlinewillnotincur
any administrativeliability.PetitionerfiledaPetitionforCertiorari,questioning
theCOMELEC’sResolutionastheCOMELECexceededthelimitsofitsdelegated
rule-making authority and violated Section 14 of R.A. No. 7166 thattheSOCEs
must be filed within 30 days after the elections.
DOCTRINE
he COMELEC cannot validly extend the deadline for the submission of the
T
Statements of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCEs) and exempt the
candidates and politicalpartiesfromadministrativeliabilities.Thelanguageof
Section 14 of Republic Act No. 7166 is unambiguous and the required SOCEs
must be filed within 30 days after the elections. A statute that is clear is not
susceptible to interpretation and should be applied regardless of who may be
affected, even if the law is harsh and onerous.
39
REMEDIES
ost Proclamation; Election Contest; Jurisdiction; House of
P
Representatives Electoral Tribunal – (1987 CONST., Art. VI, Sec. 17)
UY, JR. V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. Nos. 260650 & 260952 | August 8, 2023
FACTS
I n the 2022 elections, four (4) candidates vied for the position of Zamboanga
del Norte’s first district representative, namely: Roberto “Pinpin” T. Uy, Jr.
(Roberto), Romeo “Kuya Jonjon” M. Jalosjos (Romeo), Frederico “KuyaJan”P.
Jalosjos, and Richard Amazon. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
declared Frederico Jalosjos a nuisance candidate and canceled his Certificate
ofCandidacy(CoC).FredericofiledaPetitionforCertioraribeforetheSupreme
Court,assailingtheResolutionoftheCOMELECEnBanc,findinghimanuisance
candidate.TheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG)pointedoutthattheissues
raised in the Petitions partake the nature of an election contest within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).
DOCTRINE
he House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal’s (HRET) jurisdiction is limited
T
to the election, returns, and qualification of the “Members'' of the House of
Representatives. The HRET has no jurisdiction over a proclaimed district
representative winner unless the following requisites concur: (1) a valid
proclamation, (2) a proper oath, and (3) assumption of office. Theremustalso
beapetitiondulyfiledwiththeelectoraltribunal.Onceaproclamationhasbeen
made, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction is already lost, and the HRET’s own
jurisdiction begins.
40
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS
Powers of Local Government Units
MUNICIPALITY OF BAKUN, BENGUET V. MUNICIPALITY
OF SUGPON, ILOCOS SUR
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 241370 | April 20, 2022
FACTS
he dispute involved a parcel of land found within the boundaries of the
T
Municipality of Bakun, Province of Benguet, represented by Mayor Fausto
Labinio (Bakun), and the Municipality of Sugpon, Province of Ilocos Sur,
represented by MayorGernandoQuiton,Sr.(Sugpon).Thecasewasreferredto
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, which then createdajointcommitteetosettle
the controversy.
DOCTRINE
I n the absence of evidence offalsityofthesedocuments,mapsaretreatedas
credibleproofofthelandboundariesfortheyarepublicdocumentswhichwere
madepursuanttolawandissuedbypublicofficerswhoseperformanceofduty
enjoys the presumption of regularity. These maps are indispensable to
determine the range and extent of the territory where the government can
exercise powers and its technical description to clearly delineate one territory
from the other.
41
Powers of Local Government Units; Principles of Local Autonomy
ABELLA V. COMMISSION ON AUDIT PROPER
LOPEZ, M., J.
G.R. No. 238940 | April 19, 2022
FACTS
he Commission on Audit (COA) Proper upheld the disallowance of the
T
extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses (EME) paid to several City
Government of Butuan officials. The Department of Budget and Management
(DBM) Regional Office No. XIII disapproved the separate item for EME
appropriationintheCityofButuan’sannualbudgetforthefiscalyear2000asit
violates Section 325(h) ofRepublicActNo.7160ortheLocalGovernmentCode
of1991(LGC).PetitionersclaimthattheEMEdisallowancesareanathematothe
city government’s constitutionally guaranteed fiscal autonomy.
DOCTRINE
iscal decentralization—as an aspect of local autonomy—does not signify the
F
absolute freedom of the LGUs to create their own sources of revenue and to
spendtheirrevenuesunrestrictedlyorupontheirindividualwhimsandcaprices.
Notwithstanding autonomy, local appropriations and expenditures are still
under the supervision of the President, through the DBM, as well as the
authority of the COA under its plenary auditing power, to ensure compliance
with laws and regulations.
42
You might also like
- Criminal Law - 2022 Ust Golden Notes (Confidential)Document525 pagesCriminal Law - 2022 Ust Golden Notes (Confidential)Paul Arman Murillo100% (24)
- Labor-Law-2022-Ust-Golden-Notes-Confidential PDFDocument381 pagesLabor-Law-2022-Ust-Golden-Notes-Confidential PDFAthena Antenna93% (15)
- 2019 UST Golden Notes POLITICAL LAWDocument575 pages2019 UST Golden Notes POLITICAL LAWRA Pot's82% (17)
- 2019-Golden Notes-Civil Law PDFDocument710 pages2019-Golden Notes-Civil Law PDFErika Angela Galceran95% (22)
- 4 2021 UST Golden Notes Taxation LawDocument465 pages4 2021 UST Golden Notes Taxation LawRomme Andrae Velasco100% (4)
- 8 2021 UST Golden Notes Legal and Judicial EthicsDocument264 pages8 2021 UST Golden Notes Legal and Judicial EthicsColleen Bunyi100% (3)
- 3 Martinez vs. Heirs of Remberto LimDocument2 pages3 Martinez vs. Heirs of Remberto Limmei atienza100% (4)
- Golden Notes Legal EthicsDocument167 pagesGolden Notes Legal EthicsRodel De Guzman100% (3)
- Complaint - Unlawful DetainerDocument5 pagesComplaint - Unlawful DetainerBernadette Luces BeldadNo ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - POLITICAL LAWDocument43 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - POLITICAL LAWmovieclipsonline28No ratings yet
- (For Public) CD - Criminal LawDocument79 pages(For Public) CD - Criminal LawRalph EarvinNo ratings yet
- (For Public) CD - Labor LawDocument97 pages(For Public) CD - Labor LawRalph EarvinNo ratings yet
- (For Public) CD - TAXATION & COMMERCIAL LAWDocument40 pages(For Public) CD - TAXATION & COMMERCIAL LAWRalph EarvinNo ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - LEGAL ETHICSDocument20 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - LEGAL ETHICSAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - TAXATION & COMMERCIAL LAWDocument19 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - TAXATION & COMMERCIAL LAWAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - LABOR LAWDocument37 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - LABOR LAWAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - REMEDIAL LAWDocument50 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - REMEDIAL LAWmovieclipsonline28No ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - LABOR LAWDocument37 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - LABOR LAWmovieclipsonline28No ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - CRIMINAL LAWDocument34 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - CRIMINAL LAWAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - CIVIL LAWDocument39 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - CIVIL LAWAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- (For Public) CD - Remedial LawDocument109 pages(For Public) CD - Remedial LawRalph EarvinNo ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - CRIMINAL LAWDocument34 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - CRIMINAL LAWmovieclipsonline28No ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - REMEDIAL LAWDocument50 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - REMEDIAL LAWAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- (For Public) Doctrines - Taxation & Commercial LawDocument19 pages(For Public) Doctrines - Taxation & Commercial Lawmovieclipsonline28No ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - CIVIL LAWDocument39 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - CIVIL LAWmovieclipsonline28No ratings yet
- (For Public) DOCTRINES - LEGAL ETHICSDocument20 pages(For Public) DOCTRINES - LEGAL ETHICSmovieclipsonline28No ratings yet
- Gn2015 Poli FinalDocument385 pagesGn2015 Poli FinalRio Angelika LaotNo ratings yet
- Golden Notes Political LawDocument327 pagesGolden Notes Political LawRodel De Guzman86% (7)
- Labor LawDocument224 pagesLabor LawCezz TataNo ratings yet
- SBCA CBO FAQs - Remedial Law (2022)Document78 pagesSBCA CBO FAQs - Remedial Law (2022)marvin ninoNo ratings yet
- Mercantile Law: 2017 Golden Notes Faculty of Civil Law University of Santo Tomas ManilaDocument97 pagesMercantile Law: 2017 Golden Notes Faculty of Civil Law University of Santo Tomas ManilaJaybel Ng BotolanNo ratings yet
- 152 PDFDocument152 pages152 PDFJaybel Ng BotolanNo ratings yet
- SBCA CBO NUAS - Civil Law (2022)Document36 pagesSBCA CBO NUAS - Civil Law (2022)Darlene GanubNo ratings yet
- GN 2015 - Labor Law PDFDocument249 pagesGN 2015 - Labor Law PDFRed Velvet100% (1)
- Ust 2013 Golden Notes-Civil Law (1) Old VersionDocument517 pagesUst 2013 Golden Notes-Civil Law (1) Old Versiontiny a100% (2)
- Legal Eth GN 2018Document232 pagesLegal Eth GN 2018Emos100% (1)
- 2018 Legal and Judicial Ethics and Practical Exercises Ust Golden Notes 1 51Document51 pages2018 Legal and Judicial Ethics and Practical Exercises Ust Golden Notes 1 51sandovalamber01No ratings yet
- 2013 remGN PDFDocument456 pages2013 remGN PDFAtoy Liby OjeñarNo ratings yet
- 2 Executive Order On BADACDocument8 pages2 Executive Order On BADACSto Niño PagadianNo ratings yet
- SBU Civil 2021Document838 pagesSBU Civil 2021Tamayao, Guada Antonette B.No ratings yet
- SBCA CBO CASE DOCTRINES Labor Law 2022 PDFDocument47 pagesSBCA CBO CASE DOCTRINES Labor Law 2022 PDFdaryl canozaNo ratings yet
- Golden Notes - Civil Law PDFDocument104 pagesGolden Notes - Civil Law PDFSuper ScribdoNo ratings yet
- Legal EthicsDocument222 pagesLegal EthicsJohn100% (1)
- SBCA CBO CASE DOCTRINES Mercantile Law 2022 PDFDocument18 pagesSBCA CBO CASE DOCTRINES Mercantile Law 2022 PDFdaryl canozaNo ratings yet
- Legal EthicsDocument222 pagesLegal EthicsJessyyyyy123100% (14)
- Investigation of Competition in Digital MarketsDocument449 pagesInvestigation of Competition in Digital MarketsMikey CampbellNo ratings yet
- Ust 2013 Golden Notes-Political LawDocument318 pagesUst 2013 Golden Notes-Political LawCid Benedict PabalanNo ratings yet
- Golden Notes - Political LawDocument396 pagesGolden Notes - Political LawEstele Estella100% (20)
- 2019 Ust Golden Notes Political LawDocument396 pages2019 Ust Golden Notes Political LawVanessa Evans CruzNo ratings yet
- 2013 ethicsGNDocument197 pages2013 ethicsGNVan EssaNo ratings yet
- AUSL The Law Pertaining To Private Personal and Commercial RelationsDocument68 pagesAUSL The Law Pertaining To Private Personal and Commercial RelationsRedraine ReyesNo ratings yet
- Shapers: Reinvent the Way You Work and Change the FutureFrom EverandShapers: Reinvent the Way You Work and Change the FutureRating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5 (2)
- Toxic Intent: Environmental Harm, Corporate Crime, and the Criminal Enforcement of Federal Environmental Laws in the United StatesFrom EverandToxic Intent: Environmental Harm, Corporate Crime, and the Criminal Enforcement of Federal Environmental Laws in the United StatesNo ratings yet
- Young People in Out-of-Home Care: Findings from the Ontario Looking After Children ProjectFrom EverandYoung People in Out-of-Home Care: Findings from the Ontario Looking After Children ProjectNo ratings yet
- Commercial Law - Corporation LawDocument18 pagesCommercial Law - Corporation LawAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- Commercial Law - Intellectual Property LawDocument22 pagesCommercial Law - Intellectual Property LawAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- FAQ Code of Prof Responsibility Lex ParetoDocument14 pagesFAQ Code of Prof Responsibility Lex ParetoAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- 2023 Ust Golden Notes Civil LawDocument846 pages2023 Ust Golden Notes Civil LawAejy Ducz100% (1)
- Beda Crim - PWLMTDocument123 pagesBeda Crim - PWLMTAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- Criminal Law Care 2023Document229 pagesCriminal Law Care 2023Aejy Ducz100% (1)
- FAQ Canons of Prof Ethics Lex ParetoDocument7 pagesFAQ Canons of Prof Ethics Lex ParetoAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- 2007-2003 Criminal LawDocument44 pages2007-2003 Criminal LawAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- Mnemonics Political Law PDFDocument85 pagesMnemonics Political Law PDFAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- Criminal LawDocument27 pagesCriminal LawAejy DuczNo ratings yet
- Vitto Vs CADocument1 pageVitto Vs CARafael SoroNo ratings yet
- Motion To Disqualify Circuit Judge Anthony M TattiDocument92 pagesMotion To Disqualify Circuit Judge Anthony M TattiNeil Gillespie100% (1)
- Acknowledgment: B.S.A. College, Mathura, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra ForDocument100 pagesAcknowledgment: B.S.A. College, Mathura, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra ForPrabhakar SharmaNo ratings yet
- Calucag Vs ComelecDocument1 pageCalucag Vs Comelecjanine nenaria100% (1)
- Reportable CASE NO.: SCR 1/95 in The Supreme Court of NamibiaDocument10 pagesReportable CASE NO.: SCR 1/95 in The Supreme Court of NamibiaAndré Le RouxNo ratings yet
- Jaylo Vs SandiganbayanDocument2 pagesJaylo Vs SandiganbayanJ. Lapid100% (3)
- Sri Usha Charan Naskar Vs SMT Niva Rani Naskar On 2 September 2009Document15 pagesSri Usha Charan Naskar Vs SMT Niva Rani Naskar On 2 September 2009KAPIL DEVNo ratings yet
- Reodica vs. CADocument3 pagesReodica vs. CAMae Navarra100% (2)
- Garcia v. ValdezDocument4 pagesGarcia v. ValdezJon Joshua Falcone100% (1)
- 5 Keppel Bank Philippines Inc Vs AdaoDocument11 pages5 Keppel Bank Philippines Inc Vs AdaoGfor FirefoxonlyNo ratings yet
- 61 Re Problems of Delays in Cases Before The SandiganbayanDocument1 page61 Re Problems of Delays in Cases Before The SandiganbayanNMNGNo ratings yet
- USA V Osiel Cardenas-GuillenDocument80 pagesUSA V Osiel Cardenas-GuillenMXNo ratings yet
- Javier Vs ComelecDocument46 pagesJavier Vs ComelecGeeNo ratings yet
- De Miranda v. United States Post Office - Document No. 8Document3 pagesDe Miranda v. United States Post Office - Document No. 8Justia.comNo ratings yet
- Ra 9439Document23 pagesRa 9439marky2121No ratings yet
- Garcia v. DomingoDocument2 pagesGarcia v. DomingoLyleTherese100% (2)
- 05 - Table of ContentsDocument4 pages05 - Table of ContentsAdv Harender SinghNo ratings yet
- USA History PapersDocument4 pagesUSA History PapersWaqar HassanNo ratings yet
- Philippine Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and MarcosDocument16 pagesPhilippine Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and MarcosClaudia LapazNo ratings yet
- In Re Rolando Elbonbueda y Marfil, G.R. No. 237721, July 31, 2018Document5 pagesIn Re Rolando Elbonbueda y Marfil, G.R. No. 237721, July 31, 2018meriiNo ratings yet
- Kellberg v. Yuen, No. SCWC-12-0000266 (Haw. Jan. 22, 2014)Document68 pagesKellberg v. Yuen, No. SCWC-12-0000266 (Haw. Jan. 22, 2014)RHTNo ratings yet
- GAN TIANGCO Vs PabinguitDocument4 pagesGAN TIANGCO Vs PabinguitphgmbNo ratings yet
- Grazzini-Rucki V Knutson Amended Appendix ECF 17-2 13-CV-02477 Michelle MacDonald MinnesotaDocument209 pagesGrazzini-Rucki V Knutson Amended Appendix ECF 17-2 13-CV-02477 Michelle MacDonald MinnesotaghostgripNo ratings yet
- United States v. Kelly, 10th Cir. (1999)Document5 pagesUnited States v. Kelly, 10th Cir. (1999)Scribd Government DocsNo ratings yet
- Detective and Protective Bureau v. CloribelDocument6 pagesDetective and Protective Bureau v. CloribelPaul Joshua SubaNo ratings yet
- P L D 1964 (W. P.) Pesh. 67Document23 pagesP L D 1964 (W. P.) Pesh. 67Farwan AkhtarNo ratings yet
- G.R. No. 199199 Dolot Vs PajeDocument6 pagesG.R. No. 199199 Dolot Vs PajeJason BUENANo ratings yet
- G.R. No. 14904Document42 pagesG.R. No. 14904Kuzan AokijiNo ratings yet
