You are on page 1of 11

CASE SUMMARY DOCTRINE

Carolina Javier was appointed as representative of the private A public office is the right, authority and duty, created and
sector in the Governing Board of the National Book Development conferred by law, by which, for a given period, either fixed
Board. As part of her function, she was supposed to attend a Book by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power,
Fair in Madrid, which she unfortunately was not able to do. She an individual is invested with some portion of the
failed to return the cash advance issued to her for the cancelled sovereign functions of the government, to be exercised
Madrid trip, thus, she was charged of malversation of public funds, by him for the benefit of the public. RA 3019 – One is a
in violation of Section 3(e) RA 3019 and Art. 217 of the RPC. Javier public officer if one has been elected or appointed to a
1. Javier v. filed a Motion to Quash, arguing that she may not be charged public office. RPC – A public officer as any person who,
Sandiganbaya under RA 3019 before the Sandiganbayan or any other statute by direct provision of the law, popular election, popular
n (599 SCRA covering public officials, as she is not a public officer. The election or appointment by competent authority, shall
324) Sandiganbayan denied the motion. SC upheld Sandiganbayan’s take part in the performance of public functions in the
jurisdiction and held that Javier is a public officer. The fact that Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in
Javier was appointed from the public sector and not from the other said Government or in any of its branches public duties
branches or agencies of the government does not take her position as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any
outside the meaning of a public office. The nature of one’s rank or classes, shall be deemed to be a public officer.
appointment, and whether the compensation one receives from the
government is only nominal, is immaterial because the person so
elected or appointed is still considered a public officer.
2. Preclaro v.
Sandiganbaya
n (247 SCRA
454)
The Ombudsman sought to indict petitioner former Vice President (1) Delegation of Sovereign Functions: We hold that the
Salvador Laurel for graft and corruption, among others, for alleged NCC performs executive functions. The executive power
anomalies during his tenure as Chair of the National Centennial is generally defined as the power to enforce and
Commission (NCC). NCC was mandated to take charge of the administer the laws. It is the power of carrying the laws
nationwide preparations for the National Celebration of the into practical operation and enforcing their due
Philippine Centennial of the Declaration of Philippine Independence observance. The executive function, therefore, concerns
and the Inauguration of the Malolos Congress. Petitioner filed a the implementation of the policies as set forth by law.
petition with the SC arguing that the Ombudsman had no NCC implements policies set forth by the constitution and
3. Laurel v. jurisdiction over him because he, as Chair of the NCC, was not a other issuances.
Desierto (381 public officer because the following elements of a public office were (2) Salary: A salary is a usual but not a necessary
SCRA 48) missing: (1) the delegation of sovereign functions; (2) salary, since criterion for determining the nature of the position. It is
he purportedly did not receive any compensation; and (3) not conclusive. The salary is a mere incident and forms
continuance, the life of the NCC being temporary (ad-hoc). SC no part of the office.
denied petitioner’s petition and held that the NCC was a public (3) Continuance: The element of continuance cannot be
office and that petitioner was therefore a public officer. considered as indispensable, for, if the other elements
are present it can make no difference, whether there be
but one act or a series of acts to be done, whether the
office expires as soon as the one act is done, or is to be
held for years or during good behavior.
4. People v. President Aquino created a Committee, later renamed to NCC by Expocorp is a private corporation. It was not created by a
Morales (649 President Ramos, to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the special law but was incorporated under the Corporation
declaration of Philippine Independence. The late VP Salvador Code and was registered with the SEC. It is also not a
SCRA 182)
Laurel was appointed as NCC Chairman. NCC and BCDA GOCC. With the BCDA as a minority stockholder,
organized Expocorp whose primary purpose was to operate, Expocorp cannot be characterized as a GOCC. A GOCC
administer, manage and develop the Philippine Centennial must be owned by the government, and in the case of a
International Exposition 1998 (Expo 98). The project was marred by stock corporation, at least a majority of its capital stock
numerous allegations of anomalies. Investigations resulted in the must be owned by the government.
filing in 2001 of an Information by the Ombudsman against
Morales, the acting president of Expocorp. Morales argued that SB
had no jurisdiction over his person and over the offense charged as
Expocorp is a private corporation and he is not a public employee
or official; that Expocorp is not a GOCC because it was not created
by a special law, it did not have an original charter, and a majority
of Expocorps capital stock is owned by private individuals. He
averred that upon Expocorps incorporation, BCDA owned
essentially all of Expocorps stocks. 2 months after its incorporation,
Global became the majority owner with 55.16% of Expocorps
stocks, while BCDA was left as minority stockholder with 44.84%.
Sandiganbayan dismissed the information and SC affirmed.
Petitioners sought to have EO 284 declared unconstitutional, as it Although Section 7, Article I-XB already contains a
allowed members of the Cabinet, their undersecretaries and blanket prohibition against the holding of multiple offices
assistant secretaries to hold other government offices or positions or employment in the government subsuming both
in addition to their primary positions, running counter to Section 13, elective and appointive public officials, Sec. 13, Article
5. CLU v Exec Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. The Court held that the EO was VII, specifically prohibits the President, Vice-President,
Sec (194 unconstitutional after an analysis of the pertinent Constitutional members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants
SCRA 317) in provisions. from holding any other office or employment during their
tenure, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution
relation to Sec itself.
49, Chapter X, EXC: The prohibition against holding dual or multiple
Book 4, 1987 offices or employment under Section 13, Article VII must
Admin Code not, however, be construed as applying to posts occupied
by the Executive officials specified therein without
additional compensation in an ex-officio capacity as
provided by law and as required by the primary functions
of said officials' office.
Maria Elena Bautista was appointed as Undersecretary of DOTC In the CLU case, the Court held: While all other
and Administrator of MARINA. Petitioner filed the petition to appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold
challenge the constitutionality of her appointment/designation, other office or employment in the government during their
which violated Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution. The Court tenure when such is allowed by law or by the primary
granted the petition and held Bautista’s designation of functions of their positions, members of the Cabinet, their
6. Funa v Ermita Administrator of MARINA null and void. deputies and assistants may do so only when expressly
(612 SCRA authorized by the Constitution itself. In other words,
308) Section 7, Article IX-B is meant to lay down the general
rule applicable to all elective and appointive public
officials and employees, while Section 13, Article VII is
meant to be the exception applicable only to the
President, the Vice-President, Members of the Cabinet,
their deputies and assistants.
Petitioners seek to declare Senator Gordon as having forfeited his No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
seat in the Senate when he was elected as Chairman of the may hold any other office or employment in the
Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) pursuant to the Article VI, Government, or any subdivision, agency, or
Section 13 of the Constitution that no senator may hold any other instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
office or employment in the Government, including GOCCs. controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his
7. Liban v According to the petitioners, PNRC is a GOCC. The Court held that term without forfeiting his seat. PNRC is a private
PNRC is not a GOCC. By its nature, it is a private organization organization performing public functions.
Gordon (593 performing public functions not under the control of the
SCRA 68) government. It does not have government assets and does not
receive any appropriation from the Philippine Congress. It is
finance by contributions and solicitaitons from private individuals
and entities. Its body of governors is composed of 4/5 private
persons. It is an autonomous, neutral and independent body.
Therefore, Gordon did not forfeit his seat in the senate.
In its 2009 decision, SC held that Gordon did not forfeit his seat in Considering the sui generis nature of the PNRC as an
the Senate when he accepted the chairmanship of the PNRC auxiliary of the State, PNRC should not be required to
Board of Governors. The Decision, however, further declared void organize under the Corporation Code just like any other
the PNRC Charter insofar as it creates the PNRC as a private private corporation, instead, the constitutionality of its
8. Partial MR of corporation and consequently ruled that the PNRC should Charter must stay. PNRC’s auxiliary status means that it
incorporate under the Corporation Code and register with the is at one and the same time a private institution and a
Liban (639 Securities and Exchange Commission if it wants to be a private public service organization because the very nature of its
SCRA 709) corporation. Gordon and the PNRC filed an MR to assail this ruling, work implies cooperation with the authorities, a link with
arguing that the same was an obiter. SC granted the MR and ruled the State. No other organization has a duty to be its
that the Court in the 2009 decision went beyond the case in governments humanitarian partner while remaining
deciding the issue of constitutionality of RA 95 which was not independent.
raised by the parties.
The compulsory retirement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno was set
on May 17, 2010 or seven days after the presidential election.
Under Section 4(1), in relation to Section 9, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution, it states that "vacancy shall be filled within ninety days
from the occurrence thereof" from a "list of at least three nominees
prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy." JBC
ex officio member Cong. Defensor requested that the search
process for the next Chief Justice be commenced immediately. The
9. De Castro v. JBC initiated the search process on January 2010. Various
petitioners come to the Court questioning the initiation of the search
JBC (651 process; petitioning for prohibition in JBC’s intervention in the
SCRA 666) nomination; others seeking clarification on the propriety of JBC’s
duties; while others compelling that the JBC to submit its shortlist to
the president via mandamus. The main issues sought to be
resolved by the court was whether the president is allowed to
appoint the succeeding Chief Justice despite coinciding with the
midnight appointment prohibition period of the Constitution (two
months immediately before the coming presidential elections) and
whether the JBC can initiate the search process and nominate prior
to the actual vacancy during said period.
10. Tomali v. CSC
(238 SCRA
572)
11. Obiasca v.
Basallote (613
SCRA 110)
12. Matibag v.
Benipayo (380
SCRA 49)
13. Griño v. CSC
14. Tria v. Sto.
Tomas
15. Hilario v. CSC
16. Province of
Camsur v. CA
246 SCRA 281
17. Gloria v. De
Guzman 249
SCRA 128
18. Tarossa v.
Singson 232
SCRA 553
19. Mendoza v.
Allas 302
SCRA 623
20. Soriano v.
Laguardia 587
SCRA 79
21. Samson v.
Restrivera 646
SCRA 481
22. PAGC v.
Pleyto
23. GSIS v. CSC
24. Bitonio, Jr. v.
Commission
on Audit
25. National
Amnesty
Commission v.
COA
26. De la Victoria
v. Burgos
27. PCSO Board
of Directors vs.
Lapid 648
SCRA 546
28. Vinzons-Chato
vs. Natividad
244 SCRA 787
29. Divinagracia
vs. Sto. Tomas
244 SCRA 595
30. GSIS vs. COA
441 SCRA 532
31. Rabor vs. CSC
244 SCRA 614
32. Tantuico v
Domingo 230
SCRA 391
33. Gloria v. CA
306 scra 287
34. Pagcor v.
Salas 386 scra
94
35. Re: Gross
Violations of
Civil Service
Law… 653
SCRA 141
36. Llorente v.
Sandiganbaya
n 287 SCRA
382
37. Asilo v. People
645 SCRA 41
38. Duterte v.
Sandiganbaya
n 289 SCRA
721
39. Javellana v.
DILG 212
SCRA 475
40. Tuzon v. CA
212 SCRA 739
41. Wylie v.
Rarang 209
SCRA 357
42. Domingo v.
Rayala 546
SCRA 90
43. Ferrer v.
Sandiganbaya
n 548 SCRA
462
44. CSC v.
Colanggo 553
SCRA 640
45. Carpio-
Morales v. CA
and Binay, Jr
774 SCRA 431
(See: LOCOV
DIGEST as
reference)
46. Reyes v. Rural
Bank 424
SCRA 135
47. Tabuena v.
Sandiganbaya
n 268 SCRA
332
48. Garcia v.
Sandiganbaya
n 460 SCRA
588
49. CSC v. Salas
274 SCRA 414
50. Lecaroz v.
Sandiganbaya
n 305 SCRA
396
51. Sangguniang
Bayan v. CA
284 SCRA 276
52. Republic v
Singun 548
SCRA 361
53. Public Interest
Center v. Elma
494 SCRA 53
54. Canonizado v.
Aguirre 351
SCRA 607
55. Rosales vs.
Mijares 442
SCRA 532
56. Ombudsman
vs. CA 491
SCRA 92
57. De Rama vs.
CA 353 SCRA
94
58. Remolona vs.
CSC GR No.
137473 Aug 2,
2001
59. Bernardo v CA
429 SCRA 285
60. CSC v.
Bilagan 440
SCRA 578
61. Villanueva v.
CA 495 SCRA
824
62. Narvaza v.
Sanchez 616
SCRA 586
63. GSIS v.
Mayordomo
649 SCRA 667
64. Ganzon v
Arlos 708
SCRA 115
65. Laurel v CSC
203 SCRA 195
66. Hagad v.
Gozogadole
201 SCRA 242
(LocGov)
67. Pablico v.
Villapando 385
SCRA 601
68. Sangguniang
Barangay v.
Martinez 547
SCRA 416
69. CSC v. Sojor
554 SCRA 160
70. CSC v.
Dacoycoy 306
SCRA 425
71. Geronga v.
Varela (?) 546
SCRA 429
72. Rubenecia v.
CA 244 SCRA
640
73. Quimbo v.
Acting
Ombudsman
GR 155620
(Aug 9, 2005)
74. Ombudsman
v. Peliño 552
SCRA 203
75. Gobenciong v.
CA 550 SCRA
502
76. CSC v. Cortez
430 SCRA 593
77. Office of the
Omb v. Masing
542 SCRA 253
78. Buklod v. Exec
Sec GR
142801 July
10, 2001
79. Eugenio v.
CSC 643
SCRA 196
80. Fernandez v.
Sto Tomas
242 SCRA 192
81. Pan v. Peña
579 SCRA 314
82. Risos-Vidal v.
COMELEC
206 SCRA 666
(Jan 21, 2015)
(Locgov)
83. Kabataan
Party List v.
COMELEC GR
221318 Dec
16, 2015
84. Quinto v.
COMELEC
613 S 385
85. Serafica v.
COMELEC
426 S 743
86. Poe-
Llamanzares
v. COMELEC
GR 221697,
March 8, 2016
(See PRIL)
87. Ejercito v
COMELEC -
GR No 212398
August 25,
2014
88. Maquiling v
COMELEC -
GR No
1956491 April
16, 2013
89. Pinera v
COMELEC -
GR No 181613
Nov 25, 2009
90. Diocese of
Jaro Iloilo v
COMELEC -
GR No 205728
January 21,
2015
91. SWS v
COMELEC -
357 SCRA 497
92. ABS-CBN v
COMELEC -
323 SCRA 811
93. Philippine
Press Institute
v COMELEC -
244 SCRA 272
94. GMA Network
v COMELEC -
GR No 205357
Sept 2, 2014
95. Lokin, Jr. v.
COMELEC
621 SCRA 385
96. Banat v.
COMELEC
586 SCRA 210
97. Atong
Paglaum v.
COMELEC
694 SCRA 477