VERZOSA, JOANAH CHRISTINE M.

CONSTI 1 – JUSTICE ECONG

CASE BRIEFS

TRINIDAD V. VALLE

FACTS
Complainant filed charges in the Supreme Court with supporting affidavits against
respondent judge for having delivered a speech at a conference of barangay captains in
the house of Mayor Proceso Maramag at Iguig Cagayan, advising them to support the
leadership of Maramag and Minister of Defense Juan Ponce Enrile. While respondent
judge admitted having made a speech, he denied that he favored Maramag but stated that
he enjoined the barangay captains to "follow the doctrine of the New Society" and to
"vote honestly."
The Constitution provides that "no officer or employee in the Civil Service, including
members of the armed forces, shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political
activity or take part in any election except to vote." [Sec. 5, Art. XII (B)].

ISSUE
Whether or not it was improper for judge to take part in political meeting

HELD
The Supreme Court held that it was improper or indecorous for respondent judge to have
taken part in the political meeting held in the Maramag's house which would render him
vulnerable to the charge of electioneering under section 5, Art. XII(B) of the
Constitution, and section 36 (b) (26) of Presidential Decree No. 807, the Civil Service
Decree of Philippines. His mere presence there would be construed as an endorsement of
Maramag as against complainant Trinidad and that such behavior would render him
vulnerable to the charge of electioneering.
VISTAN V. NICOLAS

FACTS
Vistan charged Respondent with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority
and immorality. The charge for violation of election laws was brought up in AC No.
3040. Complainant narrated that as early as 10 February 1987, prior to 24 March 1987, or
the date set by the Commission on Election (COMELEC) to be the start of the campaign
period, and while still an MTC Judge of Guiguinto, Bulacan, Respondent started
circulating handbills/letters addressed to electoral constituents in the second district of
Bulacan indicating his intention to run for a congressional seat. Judge denies, however,
that he was electioneering stating that he was merely voicing out his intention to run for
Congressman as a matter of consultation.

ISSUE
Whether or not judge committed electioneering

HELD
Respondent had acted improperly when he sent out letters/handbills, manifesting his
intention to run as a congressional candidate, addressed to electoral constituents of the
second district of Bulacan as early as 10 February 1987, while still the incumbent MTC
Judge of Guiguinto, Bulacan, and prior to the commencement of the campaign period on
24 March 1987. For having held himself out as a congressional candidate while still a
member of the Bench, Respondent took advantage of his position to boost his candidacy,
demeaned the stature of his office, and must be pronounced guilty of gross misconduct.
PASTOR V. CITY OF PASIG

FACTS
Petitioner was the Budget Officer of Pasig. In 1992, she was reassigned to the Office of
the Municipal Administrator pending investigation of reports against her concerning the
issuance of Advice Allotments by her. After three years with no case filed against her,
she asked for reinstatement to her former position. But she was instead reassigned to
another unit of the now city government. Upon her complaint, the Civil Service
Commission ordered her reinstatement as Budget Officer of the City of Pasig. However,
on appeal of the city government, the Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the Civil
Service Commission (CSC). Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE
Whether or not Pastor’s reassignment to various offices was equivalent to removal in
office

HELD
The Supreme Court agreed with the CSC that petitioner should now be returned to her
original position, for her indefinite detail to other positions would amount to her removal
without cause from the position to which she has been permanently appointed. It has been
held that a reassignment that is indefinite and results in a reduction in rank, status, and
salary is in effect a constructive removal from the service. Petitioner's reassignment to
various offices should be considered more than merely a temporary one. For all intents
and purposes, her reassignment, lasting nearly ten years now, is a removal without cause
as Budget Officer of the City of Pasig.
DOMINGO V. ZAMORA

FACTS
Petition for certiorari seeking to nullify EO No. 81 and Memoranda Nos. 01592 and
01594 issued pursuant thereto, which transferred the sports development programs and
activities of the DECS to the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC). Petitioners claimed
that EO 81 is void for being an undue legislation by President Estrada and the questioned
memoranda reassigned all Bureau of Physical Education and School Sports (BPESS)
personnel named in the DECS Memoranda to various offices within the DECS. ECcDAH
The subsequent enactment of RA 9155 abolishing the BPESS and transferring the DECS'
functions relating to sports competition to the PSC has rendered the petition moot and
academic. Also, petitioners admit that RA 9155 now explicitly provides for the protection
of their right to security of tenure.

ISSUE
Whether EO 81 and the DECS Memoranda are valid

HELD
Since EO 81 is based on the President's continuing authority under Section 31 (2) and (3)
of EO 292, EO 81 is a valid exercise of the President's delegated power to reorganize the
Office of the President. The law grants the President this power in recognition of the
recurring need of every President to reorganize his office "to achieve simplicity, economy
and efficiency."
The abolition of an office in good faith necessarily results in the employee's cessation in
office, but in such event there is no dismissal or separation because the office itself ceases
to exist. On the other hand, the transfer of functions or agencies does not result in the
employee's cessation in office because his office continues to exist although in another
department, agency or office. In the instant case, the BPESS employees who were not
transferred to PSC were at first temporarily, then later permanently reassigned to other
offices of the DECS, ensuring their continued employment. At any rate, RA 9155 now
mandates that these employees "shall be retained by the Department."