PREFINALS
JANUARY 29, 2015
(POWERPOINT PRESENTATION)
What is a public office?
1987 Constitution, Article XI, Accountability of
Public Officers
Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Pubic
officers and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty ad
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and
lead modest lives.
Public office is a public trust.
It is created in the interest and for the benefit
of the public.
The officers are public servants.
They are mere agents and not rulers of the
people.
As such, they have no contractual
proprietary right to an office.
They merely hold it in trust for the people.
(Cornejo v Gabriel)
all time be accountable to the people
Facts: Random drug test on private and public
employees was challenged as unconstitutional
because it violates the right of privacy.
Held: For private employees, their right to
privacy is inferior to the right of the employer
to maintain discipline and efficiency in the work
place.
If so, with more reason that the civil servants
cannot invoke the right to privacy because by
constitutional command, they are required to
be accountable at all times to the people and
serve them with utmost responsibility and
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTION LAWS 2014-2015
CLASS DISCUSSION: ATTY. GUJILDE | J&J Personal Notes
efficiency. (Social Justice Society v DDB)
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency (RILE)
Thus an employee may be dismissed for being
notoriously undesirable even if it involves
private and personal acts.
As a public servant, a court employee must
exhibit the highest sense of honesty and
integrity not only in the performance of his
official duties but also in his private dealings
with other people to preserve the courts name
and standing. (Concerned Citizens of Laoag City
v Arzaga)
Conviction of criminal offenses is not even
necessary for removal
Notoriety and habit are sufficient ground for
removal pursuant to the 2-fold test:
-Whether it is generally knowns as universally
believed to be true or manifest to the world
or that the public officer committed the acts
imputed against him.
-Whether he had contracted the habit of any of
the enumerated misdemeanor.
(San Luis v CA)
Purpose of Discipline
Dishonesty as ground for dismissal need not be
committed in the performance of duty.
If a pubic officer or employee is dishonest or is
guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, he or
she may be dismissed.
Even if said defects of character are not
connected with his or her right to continue in
office.
The purpose of discipline is not to punish, but
to improve public service and preserve public
1

confidence in government. (Remolona v CSC)
But a resigned public officer cannot be subject
to discipline because it does not serve its
purpose
It is error to interpret CSC MC No. 38 that
administrative case may be filed against a
resigned public officer for as long as the act
complained of was committed in service.
Otherwise, public officers who have long been
separated from service may still be subject of
the administrative cases.
This defeats the purpose of discipline, which is
not to punish, but to improve public trust in
government.
(Ombudsman v Andutan)
lead modest lives
The point of the command is that, even
if the public officer is independently
wealthy, he should not live in a manner
that flaunts his wealth. (Bernas)
What is in excess of what you need is
not yours [favorite quote daw ni Sir]
Public office as defined by Mechem
A public office is the right, authority and duty
created and conferred by law which for a given
period, either fixed bu law or enduring at the
pleasure of the creating power, an individual is
invested with sovereign functions to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the public.
enduring at the pleasure of the creating
power
If the term of office for which the chief of police
was appointed is not fixed pursuant to the city
charter, it is dependent upon the discretion or
pleasure of the appointing power.
Thus, the chief of police may be replaced and
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTION LAWS 2014-2015
CLASS DISCUSSION: ATTY. GUJILDE | J&J Personal Notes
PREFINALS
such replacement does not amount to removal
but expirations of his tenure.
It is one of the ordinary modes of terminating
official relations. (Fernandez v Ledesma)
sovereign functions to be exercises by him for
the benefit of the public
Chairmanship of the National Centennial
Commission to take charge of the centennial
celebrations. (Laurel v Desierto)
Appointment as private sector representative
to the National Book Development Board which
is aimed to promote continuing development of
the book publishing industry.
(Javier v Sandiganbayan)
Appointment as student regent at the
University of the Philippines performing feneral
administrative supervision and exercising
corporate powers. (Serana v Sandiganbayan)
Elements of Public Office
1) It must be created by law or an
ordinance authorized by law;
2) It must be invested with some sovereign
functions of government to be exercised
for public interest;
3) The functions must be defined,
expressly or impliedly by law;
4) The function must be exercised directly
by an officer directly under the control
of the law;
5) It must have some permanency or
continuity, not temporary or occasional.
(State v Hawkins, cited by Martin)
Characteristics of a public office
1) Public office is a public trust.
It is created in the interest and for the
benefit of the public.
The officers are public servants.
They are mere agents and not rulers of
2

the people.
As such, they have no contractual or
proprietary right to an office.
They merely hold it in trust for the
people.
(Cornejo v Gabriel)
2) No one has a vested right to a public office.
A public officer cannot claim injury if placed
under preventive suspension because he has no
vested right or absolute right to a public office.
(Carabeo v CA)
Suspension of a public officer without prior
notice and hearing does not violate due process
because he has no proprietary or contractual
right to it. (Cornejo v Garbriel)
More so if the appointment does not specify
the station, the employee may be re-assigned if
exigency requires, provided it does not reduce
rank, status or salary.
(Fernandez v Sto. Tomas)
Except: if the terms of the law that takes it
away is unclear.
Facts: Segovia is appointed Justice of the Peace.
But later, a law was passed that justices shall be
appointed to serve until they reach 65 only.
When he reach 65, Noel replaced him
Held: The law must be applied prospectively
only.
Even if he has no vested right to the office, he
has some right that cannot be taken away by
law which terms are unclear. (Segovia v Noel)
3) Public office is not a property
Facts: During the pendency of an election
protest, the prostestee died. He was
substituted by his widow to pursue his
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTION LAWS 2014-2015
CLASS DISCUSSION: ATTY. GUJILDE | J&J Personal Notes
PREFINALS
counterclaim for damages.
Held: The substitution is not proper. Public
office is personal to the incumbent and is not a
property which passes to his heirs. (Abeja v
Tanada)
Facts: A municipal president was suspended by
the governor while his administrative vase for
misconduct was pending without opportunity
to be heard.
Held: Prior notice and hearing is not a requisite
to suspension because the holder has no
proprietary and contractual interest on public
office. (Cornejo v Gabriel)
Except: when the issue is which of the two
persons is entitled to the public office.
In which case, a public office may be
considered property within the protection of
the due process clause.
That if one is deprived of title to the office, it
should be properly litigated before the courts.
(Segovia v Noel)
4) Public office cannot be inherited
Facts: During pendency of an election protest,
the protestee died. He was substituted by his
widow to pursue his counterclaim for damages.
Held: Substitution is not proper. Public office is
personal to the folder and is not a property that
can be inherited by his heirs. (Abeja v Tanada)
Definition of public officer.
Sec. 2(b), Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
Public officer includes elective and appointive
officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the classified or
unclassified or exemption service receiving
compensation, even nominal, from the
3

government.
Facts: A student regent charged with estafa
argues she is not a public officer because she is
a mere student who paid her tuition and did
not receive salary as such.
Held: Compensation is not essential to a public
office, but a mere incident to it. (Serena v
Sandiganbayan)
Facts: Laurel chaired NCC to take charge of the
National Centennial Celebrations. He was
charged with graft and corruption due to
contractual anomalies.
He argues he is not a public officer because he
did not receive salary as such which is a
characteristic of a public office.
Held: While salary is a usual criterion to
determine the nature of the position, it is not
necessary because it is a mere incident and
forms no part of the office. (Laurel v Desierto)
An individual with a public office. (Mechem)
Section 2, Administrative Code of 1987
14) Officer as distinguished from clerk or important characteristic of a public office.
employee, refers to a person whose duties,
not being a clerical or manual nature, involves
the exercise of discretion in the performance of
the functions of the government. When used
with reference to a person having authority to
do a particular act or perform a particular
function in the exercise of governmental
power, officer includes any government
employee, agent or body having authority to do
the act or exercise that function.
15) Employee, when used with reference to a
person in the public service, includes any
person in the service of the government or any
of its agencies, divisions, subdivisions or
instrumentalities.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTION LAWS 2014-2015
CLASS DISCUSSION: ATTY. GUJILDE | J&J Personal Notes
PREFINALS
Article 203, Revised Penal Code
any person who, by direct provision of law,
popular election or appointment by competent
authority, takes part in the performance of
public functions in the Government of the
Philippines, or performs in said Government or
any of its branches public duties as an
employee, agent or subordinate official, of any
rank or class.
Elements of a public officer
To be a public officer, one must be
(1) Taking part in the performance of public
functions in the government , or performing in
said government any of its branches public
duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate
official, of any rank or class, and
(2) That his authority to take part in the
performance of public functions or to perform
public duties must be by (a) direct provision of
law, (b) popular election and (c) appointment
by competent authority. (Reyes)
Delegation of sovereign functions is the most
Facts: Laurel chaired the NCC. He was charged
with graft and corruption for contractual
anomalies he entered into as such.
He argues he is not a public officer because the
NCC is a private and temporary office, he was
not paid salary for it, and did not take his oath
of office.
Held: Even if the other characteristics are
missing, he is still considered public officer
because he was delegated with sovereign
functions, the controlling characteristic of
public office. (Laurel v Desierto)
Except: when in the first place, there is no
authority to appoint a private person as public
4

officer.
Facts: Azarcon was designated by the BIR as
custodian of distrained property, one of which
was a truck that suddenly disappeared.
He was charged before the Sandiganbayan
which jurisdiction he now assails for being a
private person.
Held: Azarcon is a private person. While the
NIRC authorizes designation of a custodian, it
does not include the power to appoint him as a
public officer. (Azarcon v Sandiganbayan)
Exception to the exception:
When a private person is charged as co-
principal, accomplice or accessory of a public
officer charged with a crime under the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Fact: Go is Chairman of PIATCO. He was
charged in conspiracy with a public office in
violating Section 3(g) of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
Go says Section 3(g) does not apply to him
because he is not a public officer but a private
person who could not even enter into a
contract in behalf of the government.
The elements of Section 3(g) are that the
accused is a public officer, that he entered into
a contract or transaction in behalf of the
government, and that it is grossly ad manifestly
disadvantageous to it.
Held: When a private person is charged in
conspiracy with a public officer, either as co-
principal, accomplice or accessory, he is also
considered a public officer for the purposes of
acquiring jurisdiction over his person by the
Sandiganbayam. (Go v Sandiganbayan)
Classification of public officers
Executive officers- those whose duties are
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTION LAWS 2014-2015
CLASS DISCUSSION: ATTY. GUJILDE | J&J Personal Notes
PREFINALS
mainly to cause the laws to be executed.
Legislative officers- those whose duties relate
mainly to the enactment of laws.
Judicial officers- those whose duties are to
decide controversies between individuals and
accusations made in the name of the public
against persons charged with a violation of a
law.
Ministerial officers-those whose duties is to
execute the mandate, lawfully issued, of their
superiors.
Military officers- those who are in command in
the army.
Naval officers- those who are in command in
the navy.
Civil officer- one who holds his appointment
under the government, whether his duties are
executive or judicial, in the highest or the
lowest departments of the government, with
the exception of officers of the army and the
navy.
Special agent- one who receives a definite and
fixed order or commission, foreign to the
exercise of the duties of his office.
Officer De Jure- one who has the lawful right
to the office in all respects, but who has either
been ousted from it, or who has never actually
taken possession of it.
Officer De Facto- one who has the reputation
of being the officer he assumes to be, and yet is
not the officer in the point of law.
National officers- those who render service for
the national government
Provincial officers-those who render service for
the provincial government
City and Municipal officers- those who render
5

service for the city and municipal governments,
respectively. (Mechem)
Requisites to be considered a de facto officer:
Necessity of office
There must be a created office. No de jure or
de facto officer without the office to fill.
Colour of title or general recognition and
reputation
May consist in election of appointment
Holding office after expiration of term
Acquiescence by the public in the acts of officer
for such length of time as to raise presumption
of the colourable right
Physical possession
The de facto officer is entitled to
compensation
Facts: Sampayan and other residents sought to
disqualify Daza as Congressman because he is a
green card holder. But his term of office already
expired prior to his disqualification.
Held: A de facto officer cannot be made to
reimburse funds and salaries because his acts
are valid as those of a de jure officer. He is also
entitled to emoluments for the actual services
rendered. (Sampayan v Daza)
Except: where there is a sitting de jure officer.
The general rule is where there is a de jure
officer, the de facto officer is not entitled to
emoluments attached to the office during his
wrongful incumbency even if he occupied it in
good faith.
But where the de jure officer assumed the
lower position in protest, she is entitled to
salary but limited to back pay differentials to
avoid double compensation. (General Manager
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTION LAWS 2014-2015
CLASS DISCUSSION: ATTY. GUJILDE | J&J Personal Notes
PREFINALS
of PPA v Monserate)
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEBRUARY 5, 2015
Doctrine of official immunity
-Error in good faith is covered by immunity
-Facts: Imported film scrap was found to be an
oriented fiber which importation is prohibited.
-Farolan withheld release,pending advice from
the BoI which took years before it allowed
release.
-Farolan was sued for damages because the
delay cost him business losses.
-Held: Farolan is not personally liable because
he acted in good faith. Even if he erred, he is
not liable because the damage did not result in
injury to the importer. (Farolan v Solmac)
Honest mistake in the interpretation of
ordinance is covered by immunity
-Facts: An ordinance authorized the treasurer
to ask thresher operators who apply for permit
to donate 1% of all threshed palay.
-Thus, he prepared an agreement. The operator
who did not sign was refused payment of
license fee and renewal of permit. It turned out
however that the 1% is optional.
-Held: They acted within their authority
pursuant to their honest interpretation of the
ordinance. The error does not amount to bad
faith hence they are not liable for damages.
6

(Tuzon vCA)
Inference in promotion
-There is no mandatory nor peremptory
requirement in law that persons next-in-rank
are entitled to preference in appointment.
-But they would be among the first to be
considered for the vacancy, if qualified.
-If the vacancy is not filled by promotion, the
same shall be filled by transfer or other modes
of appointment. (Taduran v CSC)
Leave of absence
-Right to vacation leave
-at least 6 months continuous, faithful and
satisfactory service
-entitles the employee to 15 days vacation
leave of absence with full pay, exclusive of
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays
-For each calendar year of service. (Secs. 284,
285, Rev. Adm. Code as amended by RA 2625)
-On account of sickness of the employee or any
member of his immediate family.
Retirement Pay
-Pensions- regular allowances paid to the
retiree in consideration of services rendered or
in recognition of merit, civil or military.
-Gratuity- a donation, an act of pure liberality
of the State.
-Pension is an act of justice while gratuity is an
act of generosity.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTION LAWS 2014-2015
CLASS DISCUSSION: ATTY. GUJILDE | J&J Personal Notes
PREFINALS
-Retirement laws should be liberally construed
in favor of the retiree because they are
intended to provide sustenance for the retiree,
and even comfort, when he no longer has the
stamina to continue earning his livelihood.
(Santiago v COA)
Prohibitions for and against public officers
-Article IX-B, 1987 Constitution, Section 2(3)
No officer or employee of the civil service shall
be removed or suspended except for cause
provided by law.
-Section 8. No elective or appointive public
officer or employee shall receive additional,
double or indirect compensation, unless
specifically authorized by law, nor accept
without the consent of the Congress, any
present, emolument, office, or title of any kind
from any foreign government
-Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered
additional, double, or indirect compensation.
LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
-Presumption of good faith and regularity in the
performance of duties
-Kinds of liability
-Three-Fold Liability Rule
-Liability of superior officers for acts of
subordinates
Presumption of good faith and regularity in
the performance of duties
-Even if the withholding of imported goods
turned out to be improper, the public officer is
7

not personally liable because his act enjoys
presumption of good faith and regularity.
(Faralan)
-Even if the public officer erred in the
interpretation of ordinance resulting in the
delay of issuance of permit and business losses,
he is not personally liable if the interpretation is
honest although erroneous. (Tuzon)
Error in the exercise of authority is covered by
immunity provided it is done within the scope
of authority in good faith, without willfulness,
malice or corruption
-Facts: The results of a horse race was nullified
by the Commission on Races after it
investigated and found a faulty start.
-The winners claimed prizes and losers were
reimbursed of the amount of their bets.
-It turned out however that it did not have the
authority to nullify the results of the race.
-Held: Honest belief that it had the power of
control is good faith. (PRC v Bonifacio)
The presumption is however not absolute
-Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court
expressly provides that the presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed is
satisfactory if un-contradicted and overcome by
other evidence. The presumption, however, is
not absolute. (Eulogio v. Sps. Apeles)
-It may be overcome by clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary
-To overcome this presumption, clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary must be
presented. (BPI v Sps. Evangelista)
-The presumption of regularity may only be
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTION LAWS 2014-2015
CLASS DISCUSSION: ATTY. GUJILDE | J&J Personal Notes
PREFINALS
rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and
convincing as to exclude all controversy.
-Absent such, the presumption must be upheld.
-The burden of proof to overcome the
presumption lies on the ones contesting the
same. (Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc)
Kinds of Liability
-Nonfeasance- neglect or refusal, without
sufficient cause, to perform an act which it was
the officers legal obligation to the individual to
perform. This is omission of duty.
-Misfeasance- or negligence, failure to use, in
the performance of a duty owing to the
individual, that degree of care, skill and
diligence which the circumstances of the case
reasonably demand. This is improper act.
-Malfeasance- acts without any authority,
excess, ignorance or abuse of power. This is
illegal act.
Test to determine if offense is committed in
relation to office
-Facts: Crisostomo is a jail guard charged with
murder of a detainee under his custody before
the Sandiganbayan.
-He argues lack of jurisdiction because there is
no direct relation between the commission of
murder and his public office.
-Held: The direct relation is shown in his duty as
a jail guard which is to ensure safe custody and
proper confinement of a detainee who was
murdered under his watch. (Crisostomo v
Sandiganbayan)
-------------------------------------------------------------
8

FEBRUARY 7, 2015
Public office need not be an element of the
crime charged to show they are related
-Facts: A bookbinder charged a judge with acts
of lasciviousness after he made sexual advances
and innuendos on her when she sought his
recommendation.
-The judge argues the acts of lasciviousness
were not committed in relation to his office as
a judge, and it is not an essential element of
the crime.
-Held: True, public office is not an element but
still, he could not have committed it were it not
for his power to recommend appointment.
(Esteban v Sandiganbayan)
Bad faith results in personal civil liability for
damages.
-Facts: A governor suspended and dismissed a
quarry superintendent in defiance of the order
of the CSC and the Office of the President to
revert and reinstate.
- The superintendent was exonerated of the
charges.
Held: The governor acted in bad faith. As such,
he is personally liable for damages in the nature
of civil liability. (San Luis v CA)
Absence of essential elements of the crime
charged does not bar administrative liability
pursuant to the three-fold liability rule
-Facts: A stenographic reporter charged the
NLRC Chairman with sexual harassment.
-The Chairman argued the acts complained of
do not constitute sexual harassment because
the essential elements of demand for sexual
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTION LAWS 2014-2015
CLASS DISCUSSION: ATTY. GUJILDE | J&J Personal Notes
PREFINALS
favor and made as a pre-condition to
employment or promotion were not alleged.
-Held: Correct, if it is a criminal case.
-Even if none of the elements of sexual
harassment is alleged, he is still
administratively liable because under the 3-fold
liability rule, the wrongful acts of a public
officer may also give rise to administrative
liability, apart from criminal and civil liability.
-It is not required that the demand, request or
requirement of a sexual favor be made
categorically.
-It is enough if it creates an intimidating, hostile
or offensive environment. (Domingo v Rayala)
Dismissal of a criminal case does not bar
administrative liability even if both arise from
identical facts because they are separate and
distinct from each other.
-Facts: Cataquiz was criminally and
administratively charged for graft and
corruption.
-He was replaces and later dismissed from
service, disqualified to hold public office and
forfeited of retirement benefits.
-But the criminal case was dismissed.
-He argued it constitutes the law of the case.
-As such, the administrative case must also be
dismissed. He also argued he could no longer
be dismissed because he was dismissed by
replacement earlier.
-As such. The accessory penalties of
disqualification and forfeiture cannot be
imposed pursuant to the principle that the
accessory follows the principal.
-Held: Dismissal of the criminal case do not bar
9

administrative case and accessory penalties
pursuant to the 3-fold liability rule. (OP v
Cataquiz)
But when the public officer acts as a
government lawyer, the action for damages
must be brought in a separate action
-Facts: The PCGG, represented by Solicitor
General Frank Chavez, filed a complaint for re-
conveyance, reversion and accounting,
restitution and damages against Enrile.
-Enrile impleaded Chavez in his counterclaim
for damages, alleging it is a mere harassment
suit because he was already cleared from a
similar case before.
-Held: The action is misplaced.
-There is no general immunity arising solely
from occupying a public office. Public officers
can be held personally liable for ultra vires acts
or if they acted in bad faith.
-But to allow a counterclaim against a lawyer
leads to mischievous consequences.
-Any claim for damages should be filed in an
entirely separate and distinct civil action.
-The issue is whether it is proper to implead a
lawyer. (Chavez v Sandiganbayan)
Liability of officers for acts of subordinates
-The signature of the approving officer does
not in itself amount to conspiracy with the
subordinates
-Facts: An auditor approved payment for
expropriated land which turned out to be
overpriced and supported by falsified
documents. He was charged in conspiracy with
others who examined, reviewed and prepared
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTION LAWS 2014-2015
CLASS DISCUSSION: ATTY. GUJILDE | J&J Personal Notes
PREFINALS
falsified documents for the transaction.
-Held: The mere signature of the head of office
who had to rely to a reasonable extent with
competence and good faith of his subordinates
is not an evidence of conspiracy.
-To require the head of office to personally
probe records, inspect documents or
investigate the motives of all individuals
involved in the transaction before signing it is
asking the impossible.
-There has to be some added reason why the
head of office should examine the documents
in detail.
-Otherwise, he repeats the process all over
again, defeating delegation and division of
labor, which are good administrative practice.
(Arias v Sandiganbayan)
(dili complete facts sa CESA nga case kay
gitawag ko ni sir.haha)
-Invoking the Arias doctrine, he said he had to
rely on his subordinates by virtue of division of
labor and delegation of functions.
-Held: The city treasurer is still liable for neglect
of duty because his lack of supervision
contributed to the malversation of public funds.
-As a matter of fact, he approved paymasters
requests based on papers without particulars.
-Arias doctrine does not apply because he was
not charged in conspiracy with the paymaster.
He was separately charged and found to be
negligent in his supervisory powers. (Cesa v
Ombudsman)
End of term
Facts: The chief of police was replaced by the
10

president with another pursuant to the city
charter that allows him to remove appointed
officers in the city at his pleasure or discretion,
except the municipal judge who may be
removed only for cause provided by law.
-Held: If the creation and tenure of office is
expressly made dependent upon the pleasure
of the appointing authority and appointment
has no fixed term.
-As such, replacement does not _____ removal
but expiration of term. (Chavez v Ledesma)
-Facts: The Director for Security of the Bureau
of Customs was removed and transferred as
Arrastre Superintendent without cause.
-Respondents argued that the transfer is
allowed because the position is primarily
confidential as it coordinates functions of
security, patrol and investigations.
-Primarily confidential, policy-determining and
highly technical positions are excluded from the
merit system and their dismissal is at the
pleasure of the appointing authority.
-Thus, the Director can be removed or
transferred with or without cause.
-Held: The position is not primarily confidential.
The only authority to classify it as such is the
President.
-The constitution merely exempt these
positions from the civil service requirement
that appointments must be made on the basis
of merit and fitness as determined by
competitive examinations.
-As such, they can only be suspended or
removed for cause as may be provided by law.
-And that cause is___
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTION LAWS 2014-2015
CLASS DISCUSSION: ATTY. GUJILDE | J&J Personal Notes
PREFINALS
-If they are____ of confidence, it is____ of the
term of office.
Retirement
-Facts: Beronilla changed his year of birth from
1898 to 1900 which was approved by the GSIS
general manager.
-Thus, the proceeds of his insurance policy was
re-computed, maturity date and value were
adjusted. He also paid additional premium.
-But later it was found out that he had been
paid salaries and fringe benefits despite lapse
of his compulsory retirement.
-Thus, the GSIS Board of officers (approved?) to
supersede the decision of ___ manager that
allowed change or year
-Contention of Beronilla:
-He argued it impaired the obligations of
contract between him and the GSIS regarding
his retirement.
-Held: The constitutional injunction against
impairment of obligations of insurance
contracts can only be directed against
legislation and not resolutions of government
agencies.
-Retirement of government employees is
imposed by law and is not a result of any
contractual stipulation. (Beronilla v GSIS)
Abolition of office presupposes clear intention
to do away with it wholly and permanently
-Facts: A toll collector was laid off when the
bridge was totally destroyed by flood.
-When it reopened, he was replaced because
accordingly, his position is temporary and the
11
 PREFINALS
total collapse of the bridge abolished it.

-Held: The total collapse of the bridge merely

suspended the position, because there is no
intention to do away with it wholly and
permanently. When it reopened, the position,
was automatically restored. (Busacay v
Buenaventura)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS & ELECTION LAWS 2014-2015

CLASS DISCUSSION: ATTY. GUJILDE | J&J Personal Notes
12