Seville vs COA

- ghost projects
- Sonia Seville Assistant RD for Fisheries
- COA filed admin case before Ombudsman Visayas
- Special Audit done by COA on Post Harvest Component of Grains
Production Enhancement Program of DA MPDP projects in Iloilo
o Findings: Sonia signed ghost MPDP projects in Iloilo (120
projects were audited)
o Since RD and ASD for Administration were absent, she
signed the disbursement voucher o Anti graft and corruption exonerated; no proof of
conspiracy to defraud govt
o Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct Guilty (Ombudsman,
CA affirmed)
SC: in GM, elements of corruption; INTENT to violate;
Flagrant disregard of rule must EXIST
While Sonia merely substituted for RD/ARD for Admin
of DA its not an excuse. She has responsibility
when she signed the voucher for release of funds
PO must use prudence caution and attention, must
show at all times utmost dedication to duty
SONIA IS NOT LIABLE FOR GM she has no motives
based on the evidence presented
ONLY SIMPLE MISCONDUCT must exercised
necessary prudence (suspension for one month to six
months)
NOT LIABLE FOR GD her actions was not spurred by
corrupt intent (RICE farming ; she has no knowledge);
her error in J cannot be equated with GD.
GUTIERREZ vs HOR (committee on Justice)
- that there should be only One candle that is kindled in a year,
such that once the candle starts burining, subsequent
matchsticks can no longer rekindle the candle
- 2 impeachment complaints were filed against MErceditas based
on betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the
Constitution
- Merceditas prayed for TRO premature and not yet ripe
contended by HCOJ
- SC voted to issue a status quo ante order suspending
impeachement proceeding
- ISSUES: 1. SCs power to determine that MErceditas commited
violation of Consti YES, SC has power of judicial review
- 2. Premature? NO. Theres already an issue since only one
impeachment proceeding per year is allowed

3. Initation of Impeachment? Once initiated (filed), another

impeachment compliant may not be filed against the same
official within one year
Impeachment rules? It is were we found the standards to
determine the sufficiency of form and substance
ONE year period reckoned not on the date of the filing but on
the date it was referred to the House committee on Justice
An Impeachment complaint is not necessarily limited to one
impeachment offense. The constitution allows the indictment for
multiple impeachment offenses, with each charge representing
an article of impeachment assembled in one set.

Bolastig vs Sandiganbayan
- Special Prosec suspends Antonio Bolastig (governor of Samar)
from office pending litigation and resolution Anti graft and
corrupt practices act (overpricing of 100 reams of onion skin
paper 550 instead of 55 entering into a contract which is
grossly disadvantageous to the government
- SB ordered Antonio to be suspended from his office for 90 days
mandatory Preventive suspension ---Bolastig argues that aside
from SB power to order preventive suspension, it must go
beyond and determine its necessity first SC: NO merit. It is
mandatory for SB to suspend any Po against whom a valid
information was charged any offense involving fraud upon
government or public funds or property
- 90days was adopted from Sec. 42 of Civil service Decree PD 807
now admin code of 1987
- if decided before 90, then PS will be less than 90, if decided more
than 90, then PS will be only for 90
- PS purpose: possibility of intimidation of witnesses hamper
the prosecution; prevent the accused from commiting further
acts of malfeasance while in office
Fajardo vs. Ombudsman, NBI, Bureau of Customs
- threefold liability rule any act or omission of any public officer
or employee can result in criminal civil administratively liability,
each of which is independent of the other
- Ernesto Fajardo Clerk 1 of BOC, then become Clerk 2, then
designated as Special Collecting Officer at NAIA Customs House,
Collection Division
- Nancy Marco from COA audited all collecting officers of NAIA
customs house and found out that in Fajardos daily abstract of
collection, he receives checks in the amounts ranging from 100k
up to less than 300k to verify, she made a daily analysis of
sales of accountable forms

Bautista (another auditor) reported that Fajardo has unremitted

collection from sales of accountable forms amounting to 20M.
Marco reported that Fajardo failed to remit total amount of ~50M.
Customs commissioner requested NBi to conduct investigation
Plunder then was filed against Ernesto Fajardo and demanded
the unremitted collection but Fajardo failed to remit the same
Admin case was also filed dishonesty and grave misconduct
Ombudsman found Fajardo guilty recommended dismissal from
service affirmed by CA
Fajardo contentions: irregularities in the proceedings in
Ombudsman, audit findings are not correct SC: the discrepancy
bet audit sales and actual remittances by Fajardo is sufficient
evidence of dishonesty and grave misconduct warranting
dismissal from public service admin case only requires
substantial evidence; power of ombudsman to dismiss well
found in Sec. 13, sub.3, Article 11 - ombudsman has power to
recommend the removal of public official or employee such
recommendation is not merely advisory in nature but is actually
mandatory within the bounds of law.

------- National Econ

1. Pedro Lee Hong Kok vs Aniano David
RTC dismissed the complaint to have the Torrens Title of Aniano
David be declared null and void. CA affirmed.
- Aniano David acquired lawful title pursuant to his miscellaneous
slaes application in accordance with an order of award and for
issuance of sales patent by Director of Lands covering 226 sqm
portion of Naga Cadastre.
- Since it was awarded by Director of Lands, Usec. Of Agri and
Natural Resources issued Miscellanous Sales patent pursuant to
OCT issued by RD of Naga.
- From filing of sales application, during proceedings, up to actual
issuance of slaes patent lee hong kok et al did not opposed.
- SC- such no opposition is fatal to their claim because based on
Act 496 any question concerning the validity of cert of Title
based on fraud should be raised within one year from the date of
issuance of patent. After that, it becomes indefeasible.
- Only the government, represented by Director of Lands or Sec. of
Agri and Natural resources can bring an action to cancel a void
certificate of title issued pursuant to a void patent
2. Director of Lands vs. IAC
- Land registration case of J. Antonio Araneta vs Dir. Of Lands and
Dir of Forest Devt RTC approved application for registration of
land in favor of araneta
- Tambac Island in Lingayen Gulf, Bani, Pangasinan 187K sq.m.

Initial application for reg was filed for pacific farms opposed by
govt (did not possess land for 30yrs/ fee simple title; private corp
disqualified under consti to acquire land of public domain); Dir. Of
forest devt also opposed such app such land is unclassified
public land hence inalienable.
Pacific Farms then change it into Araneta (applicant). Despite
amendment, there was no republication.
Testimonies were given (real owner is castelo sold to araneta),
but no tracing cloth plan presented, only certified copies
Pending the case Araneta the assigned his rights to Garcia, who
in turn assigned to Johnny Khonghun whose Nationality was not
alleged) RTC decided in favor of Araneta, CA affirmed
WON tambac island can be subject to registration?
Submission of tracing cloth plan is mandatory requirement for
registration.
Amendment of name is simply to evade disqualification. corp
cannot acquire lands except by lease
Lands of public domain is classified under 3 main categories
mineral, forest, disposable and alienable lands. Only president
upon reco of department hear has the authority to classify such
land of public domain to alienable and disposable, timber,
mineral lands. Absent such classification, the land remains
unclassified.
This is in consonance with the REgalian Doctrine which states
that all lands of public domain belong to the state and that the
state is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land and
charged with the conservation of such patrimony. All lands not
appearing to be cleary with private ownership are presumed to
belong to the state. Hence a positive act is needed to declassify.
The burden of proof lies on the applicant. Tax declarations and
receipts are not conclusive evidence of ownersjhip or right to
possess land when not supported by evid.
Since the subject property is still unclassified, whatever
possession the applicant may have had and however, long,
cannot ripen into private ownership.
What RTC has done was to release the subject property from
unclassified category, which the court cannot do so. It is beyond
their competence and jurisdiction. It is prerogative of executive
department.

3. Heirs of Wilson Gamboa vs. Teves

- PTIC Philippine telecommunication investment corporation
shares- 54% was acquired by 1st pacific HK based investment
firm
- The government shares were open for bidding which represents
6.4% of outstanding common shares of stock of PLDT

designated the Inter-agency privatization council (DOF and

PCGG) as disposing entity ---parallax won the bid 25.6billion
- 1st pacific then would like to exercise their right of first refusal as
PTIC stockholder
- PTIC as stockholder of PLDT sale of government shares is
actually an indirect sale of outstanding common shares of PLDT
- As such, 1st pacific share in PLDT increase from 30.7 to 37% increasing the common shareholdings of foreigners in PLDT to
about 81%. violation of Sec. 11 Article 12 limits foreign
ownership of capital of a public utility to not more than 40%
- WON capital refers to total common shares only or to total
outstantding capital stock (common shares + non voting
preferred shares) of PLDT, a public utility
- SC: Only refers to stocks which are generally entitled to vote are
considered --- those who have voting rights have the control over
the public utitliy
- Mere legal title is insufficient to meet the 60%, full beneficial
ownership is required (common shares, disregard the non voting
preferred shares)
- It must be effectively controlled by Filipinos
- PLDT preferred shares 99.4% were owned by Filipinos are
nonvoting, hence it violates the consti requirement of 60%
Filipino control and beneficial ownership of a public utility.
4. Bank of Commerce vs Planters developemtn bank
------Social Justice
1. Peregrina AStudillo vs. BOD of Peoples Homesite and Housing
Corporation, Ramon Mitra, RD
- Mitra in behalf of his minor son applied for purchase of lot 16 of
East Avenue Subdivision of PHHC in PInahan QC, -9k, mitra paid
full price
- Lot in question is actually in possession of Peregrina AStudillo
who constructed a residential house shanty
- AStudillo filed a petition against PHHC BOD, RD and Mitra on the
legality of award of lot to Mitra, asking that the lot to be sold to
her
- RTC dismissed AStudillos petition on the ground that she is a
mala fide squatter and sale cannot be assailed by means of
certiorari and mandamus.
- WON peregrine has cause of action to annul sale bet mitra and
PHHC and compel the latter to award the lot to her
- SC: Peregrina has no cause of action, as squatter, no possessory
right. The award to Mitra in the eyes of law did not prejudice her
since she was bereft of rights over the said lot.
- The state is committed to promote social justice and to maintain
adequate social services in the field of housing. But the states

soliciture for the destitute and the have nots does not mean that
it should tolerate usurpations of property, public or prvate.
2. SSS employees vs. CA
- WON SSS employees have right to strike
- SSS Employees Assoc staged an illegal strike and barricaded the
entrances to the SS bldg., preventing the nonstriking from
reporting to work and those SSS members to transact business
with SSS.
- SSSEA staged such strike because SSS failed to act on unions
demand: OT pay payment, Night shift differential holiday pay,
childrens allowance of 30,conversion to permanent employment
- RTC issued TRO and PI; CA held that since SSS are government
employees, governed by civil service law, RTC has jurisdiction
- Art. 13 provides that state shall guarantee the rights of all
workers to self-organiation, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the
right to strike in accordance with law.
- BUT CONSTI fails to expressly confirm this impression that all
workers have right to strike since in the rules of CSC, govt ee are
not allowed to strike.
- Right to form org does not carry with it right to strike
- In the absence of any legislation allowing govt ee to strike, they
are prohibited from striking by express provision of Memo Circ
and as implied in Eo 180.
- Since SSS is a GOCC with orig charter its employees are
covered by the prohibition against strike
People & Farmers Cooperative Marketing Assoc (FACOMA) Occidental
Mindoro vs. Emilio Leachon Jr. (judge)
- case about annulment of the orders of Judge Leachon who
dismissed the Crim Case and denied FACOMA MR.
- MTC resolution Prov. Prose filed 2 separate info (Anti Squatting
Law) against Hablo, Mapindan, Escala before RTC (judge
Leachon)
- Judge LEachon dismissed for lack of Jusirdiction. CA reversed.
Instead of conducting another trial, judge dismissed the case
motu proprio once more (PD 772 is already obsolete and
repealed by Sec. 9 & 10 of Art. 13 of Consti, which provide that
urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their
dwellings demolished except in accordance with law nd in a just
and humane manner
- WON Consti repealed the Anti Squatting Law
- Judge Leachon erred in predicating the validity or legality of
evictin on the excistence of a resettlement plan and area
- What is meant by Consti is that the person be accorded due
process and opportunity to be heard

PD 772 was already repealed by RA 8368 provides that all

cases under PD 772 shall be dismissed.
Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company vs. NLRC, and Grace de
Guzman
- Grace was hired as reliever for one CF Tenorio who went on
maternity leave. The mployment contract is for a fixed term and
upon such expiration, she was rehired again (thrice). she already
indicated that she was single on her job application. But Prior to
such rehiring, she already got married. When PTTC discovered
the discrepancy, she argued that she didnt know the policy but
still, was dismissed. Hence she filed for illegal dismissal and LA
decided in her favor, which was affirmed by NLRC.
- WON grace de guzman was validly dismissed for just cause NO!
though management prerogative was recognized, such policy
was considered discrimination and against the constitutional
right of women workers.
Letter of Atty. Acosta to Office of Court Administrator
- RE exemption of PAO clients pursuant to RA 9406 from paying
docket fees and other fees incidental to instituting an action in
court
- Access to justice by all, especially by the poor, is not simply an
ideal in our society. Its existence is essential in a democracy and
in the rule of law. Without doubt, one of the most precious rights
which must be shielded and secured is the unhampered access
to the justice system by the poor, the underprivileged and the
marginalized.
- Officials and employees of PAO are authorized to serve
summons, subpoenas, and other court processes in behalf of
their clinets. The amount to be defrayed could be taken from the
operating expenses of PAO which may be taken from the amount
recovered by it from the adversaries of PAOs clients as cost of
suit atty fees or damages.
Teresita Tablarin (on behalf of applicants for admission into medical
colleges NMAT) vs Judge Angelina Gutierrez
- Petitioners would like to be admitted to schools of medicine but
wasnt able to take or didnt successfully take NMAT required by
Board of Medical Education and Center for Educ Measurement
- NMAT as a condition for securing cert of eligibility for admission,
RTC denied. NMAT was still conducted.
- RA 2382 Medical Act of 1959
- Petitioner in questioning the constitutionality of such provision
cited Art. 11, Sec. 11 values human dignity,
- Art. 2 Sec. 13 & 17

Art. 14, Sec 1 and 5(3) State shall protect and promote the
right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and take
appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.
Sec.5(3) every citizen has a right to select profession or course
of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and
academic requirements
The State is not really enjoined to take appropriate steps to make quality education "
accessible to all who might for any number of reasons wish to enroll in a professional
school but rather merely to make such education accessible to all who qualify under
"fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements. "

Miriam College Foundation, Inc. vs. CA

- Members of Miriam College Foundation was subject to
disciplinary sanction due to the contents of the school paper
Magasing Pampanitikan ng Chi-Ro where obscene, vulgar and
sexually explicit contents are published.
- Prior to sanction of Dicipline Committee, they were required to
submit statements to answer the compliant but defendants
instead of answering, they argue that such must be alleged
before the DECS since it has jurisdiction over the case.
- WON Discipline Board has jurisdiction over defendants?
- Yes. Sec. 5(2) Art. 14 guarantees all institutions of higher
learning academic freedom. Such includes right to decide for
itself its aims and objectives, how to best attain them free from
outside coercion. Right to discipline.
- Right to free speech is not absolute of students
- Power of school to investigate is an adjunce to its power to
suspend or expel. This is inherent part of academic freedom
guaranteed by consti.
Spouses Go and Emerson Go vs Colegion de san juan de letran
- Letran dismissed Emerson from rolls of the high school
department of Letran for violating schools rule against fraternity
membership.
- Tau Gamma Frat, hazing in Tondo 4 students admitted that they
were neophytes and identified Kim as senior member
- The Rectors Council rejected the recommendation to allow 4th yr
stud to graduate from Letran after investigation and sufficient
evid that they were frat members
- RTC in favor of Go. CA reversed.
- SC affirms CA. the disciplinary sanction imposed was not a
dismissal but rather a suspension.
- DECS Order 20 specific for public high school and elem schools
RTC. But SC said it should be read in its entirety and the
prohibition against frat membership applies to all elem and hs
students regardless private or public.

DECS penalty is expulsion, more severe than LEtrans penalty

dismissal, which is limited to the exclusion of an erring student
from the rolls of the school/
Private schools have authority to promulgate their own riles and
regulations
Theres due process notified about rule and penalty

Imbong vs. Ochoa

- consolidated cases on Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive
Health Act of 2012 (RH Law)
Sec. 12 of Article II
Consti affords protection to the unborn from conception
When life begins fertilization = conception (oppose)
Conception = implantation fo fertilized ovum in the uterus
Stat con plain meaning conception means that life begins at
fertilization
- intent of framers: did not intend to ban all contraceptiives for being
unconsti Bernardo Villegas - spearheading the need to have a
constitutional provision on the right to life, recognized that the determination
of whether a contraceptive device is an abortifacient is a question of fact
which should be left to the courts to decide on based on established
evidence.
contraceptives that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum should be deemed an
abortive and thus prohibited
contraceptives that actually prevent the union of the male sperm and the
female ovum, and those that similarly take action prior to fertilization should
be deemed non-abortive, and thus, constitutionally permissible.