1. civil liberties vs.
exec misfeasance while the same is being investigated, to
The general rule is that cabinet members, their deputies
and secretaries are not allowed to multiple office unless
allowed by constitution. All other appointive offiers may
hold other offices if allowed by law.
2. matibag vs. benipayo
Ad interim appointment is a permanent appointment. It is
permanent because it takes effect immediately and can
no longer be withdrawn by the President once the
appointee qualified into office. The fact that it is subject
to confirmation by the CA does not alter its permanent
character
3. debulgado vs. csc
Nepotism includes all appointments, whether original or
promotional.
Nepotism is all appointments in the national, provincial,
city and municipal governments or in any branch or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative of the
appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of
the bureau or office, or of the persons exercising
immediate supervision over him, are hereby prohibited
Exempted from the operation of the rules on nepotism:
(a) persons employed in a confidential capacity,
(b) teachers,
(c) physicians, and
(d) members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines:
Provided, however, That in each particular instance full
report of such appointment shall be made to the
Commission.
4. csc vs. salas
Nature of the position determines confidential capacity.
Confidential capacity
(a) when the President, upon recommendation of the Civil
Service Commission, has declared the position to be
primarily confidential;
(b) in the absence of such a declaration, when from the
nature of the functions of the office, there exists close
intimacy between the appointee and the appointing
authority which insures freedom of intercourse without
embarrassment or freedom from misgivings or betrayals
on confidential matters of State
5. beja vs. ca
Preventive suspension is not a penalty by itself; it is
merely a measure of precaution so that the employee who
is charged may be separated from the scene of his alleged
prevent him from using his position or office to influence
prospective witnesses or tamper with the records which
may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him.
6. gloria vs. ca
For preventive suspension
a) pending investigation, the public officer must be
exonerated and suspension unjustified in order to be
entitiled to back wages.
b) pending appeal, if the penalty imposed by the
disciplining authority is suspension or dismissal and, after
review, the respondent is exonerated, the civil service
officer or employee is entitled not only to reinstatement
but also to back salaries for the period of preventive
suspension pending appeal.
7. garcia vs. mojica
If a public official is reelected and the people knowing his
past misconduct, his reelection is deemeed a condonation
and he is no longer administratively accountable.
8. segovia vs. SB
Preventive suspension is mandatory and ministerial so as
not to frustrate the prosecution. The provision of
suspension pendente lite applies to all persons indicted
upon a valid information under the Act, whether they be
appointive or elective officials; or permanent or temporary
employees, or pertaining to the career or non-career
service.
Preventive suspension may not exceed the maximum
period of ninety (90) days.
9. santiago vs. SB
Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 does not state that
the public officer concerned must be suspended only in
the office where he is alleged to have committed the acts
with which he has been charged. Thus, it has been held
that the use of the word office would indicate that it
applies to any office which the officer charged may be
holding, and not only the particular office under which he
stands accused.
10. aguinaldo vs. santos
The rule is that a public official cannot be removed for
administrative misconduct committed during a prior term,
since his re-election to office operates as a condonation
of the officer's previous misconduct to the extent of
cutting off the right to remove him therefor.
11. galarosa vs. valencia
The rule is unless holding over be expressly or impliedly
prohibited, the incumbent may continue to hold over until
someone else is elected and qualified to assume the
office.
12. SB of San Andres vs. CA
Resignation was not complete for lack of acceptance of
the proper authority. However, his office was deemed
relinquished through voluntary his abandonment which
needs no acceptance.
*Resignation
(a) an intention to relinquish a part of the term;
(b) an act of relinquishment; and
(c) an acceptance by the proper authority
*2 essential elements of abandonment:
(1) an intention to abandon and
(2) an overt act by which intention is carried on
In the case at bar, the first element was manifested on
the following instances:
(1) private respondents failure to perform his function as
SB;
(2) his failure to collect the corresponding remuneration
for the position,
(3)his failure to object to the appointment of Aquino as
his replacement to SB and
(4) his prolonged failure to initiate any act to reassume
his post in the SB after SC had nullified his designation as
member of Sanguniang Panlalawigan.
The second element was demonstrated by the following:
(1) his letter of resignation,
(2) his assumption of office as member of the Sanguniang
Panlalawigan,
(3) his faithful discharge of his duties and functions of SP
and
(4) his receipt of remuneration for such post.
13. Estrada vs. Desierto
Resignation is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a
factual question and its elements are beyond quibble:
there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be
coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a
resignation is not governed by any formal requirement as
to form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be
express. It can be implied. As long as the resignation is
clear, it must be given legal effect.
In the press release containing his final statement,
(1) he acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent
as President of the Republic albeit with the reservation
about its legality;
(2) he emphasized he was leaving the Palace, the seat of
the presidency, for the sake of peace and in order to begin
the healing process of our nation. He did not say he was
leaving the Palace due to any kind of inability and that he
was going to re-assume the presidency as soon as the
disability disappears;
(3) he expressed his gratitude to the people for the
opportunity to serve them. Without doubt, he was
referring to the past opportunity given him to serve the
people as President;
(4) he assured that he will not shirk from any future
challenge that may come ahead in the same service of
our country. Petitioners reference is to a future challenge
after occupying the office of the presidentwhich he has
given up; and
(5) he called on his supporters to join him in the
promotion of a constructive national spirit of reconciliation
and solidarity. Certainly, the national spirit of
reconciliation and solidarity could not be attained if he did
not give up the presidency. The press release was
petitioners valedictory, his final act of farewell. His
presidency is now in the past tense.
14. Buklod ng Kawani EIIB vs. Exec. Sec
It is a general rule that the power to abolish a public office
is lodged with the legislature. The exception is when it
comes to agencies, bureaus, and other offices under the
executive department, the president may deactivate them
pursuant to control power over such offices, unless such
office is created by the Constitution.
EEIB employees right to security of tenure is not violated.
Since there is no bad faith in the abolition of EIIB, such
abolition is not infirm. Valid abolition of offices is neither
removal nor separation of the incumbents.
If the public office ceases to exist, there is no separation
or dismissal to speak of. Indeed, there is no such thing as
an absolute right to hold office. Except constitutional
offices which provide for special immunity as regards
salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested
right in an office or its salary.
The deactivation of EIIB and the creation of Task Force
Aduana were well within this authority. The executive
orders were issued in good faith: first, there is no
employment of new personnel to man the Task Force;
second, the thrust of the EO is to encourage the utilization
of personnel, facilities and resources of already existing
departments, agencies, bureaus, etc., third, it appears
that the creation of the Task Force was intended to lessen
EIIBs expense.
15. In Re: Gonzalez
A public officer (such as Justice Fernan) who under the
Constitution is required to be a Member of the Philippine
Bar as a qualification for the office held by him and who
may be removed from office only by impeachment,
cannot be charged with disbarment during the
incumbency of such public officer. Further, such public
officer, during his incumbency, cannot be charged
criminally before the Sandiganbayan, or any other court,
with any offense which carries with it the penalty of
removal from office.

Impeachment is a method by which persons holding

government positions of high authority, prestige, and
dignity and with definite tenure may be removed from
office for causes closely related to their conduct as public
officials. It is a national inquest into the conduct of public
men.

*Who are the impeachable officers?

1. President
2. VicePresident
3. Members of the Supreme Court
4. Members of the Constitutional Commissions
5. Ombudsman
Note: The enumeration is exclusive. (Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987
Constitution)

*What are the grounds for impeachment?

1. Culpable violation of the
2. Treason
3. Bribery
4. Other high crimes
5. Betrayal of public trust (Sec. 2, Art. XI, 1987
Constitution)

- Culpable violation of the Constitution is wrongful,

intentional or willful disregard or flouting of the
fundamental law.

- Betrayal of public trust, which means any form of

violation of the oath of office even if such violation may
not be criminally punishable.