LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
AUTONOMY
Duties and functions are given with minimal supervision
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF BATANGAS v. ROMULO, MAY
27, 1994
Congress itemized the General Appropriations for that year.
Batangas contended that the Congress is dictating the LGUs
on how they shall spend their IRRA.
Ruling of SC: The allocation of the IRRA that was the subject
of the Executive Order mandating the method and manner
by which the Local Government can appropriate the budget
was deemed a violation of the fiscal autonomy of the Local
Governments.
MANDANAS CASE
Why the collections of BIR and Customs are excluded from
the IRRA?
Ruling of SC: Collections from BIR and Customs are deemed
as part of IRRA as the LGUs enjoy fiscal autonomy. However,
these collections cannot have a retroactive effect for the tax
collections of the national treasury are not stored. The DBM
were instructed to provide for the IRR for the collections but
it can only be implemented only in 2022.
AUTONOMOUS REGIONS
The Constitution provides for two autonomous regions,
namely:
1. Autonomous Region of the Muslim Mindanao; and
2. Cordillera Autonomous Region
However, the autonomy of CAR did not gain enough votes
in the plebiscite.
Thus, as of now, only one autonomous region is present in
the Philippines.
ABAS V. COMELEC
Facts: The arguments against R.A. 6734 raised by petitioners
may generally be categorized into either of the following:
(a) that R.A. 6734, or parts thereof, violates the Constitution,
and
(b) that certain provisions of R.A. No. 6734 conflict with the
Tripoli Agreement.
Petitioner Abbas argues that R.A. No. 6734 unconditionally
creates an autonomous region in Mindanao, contrary to the
aforequoted provisions of the Constitution on the
autonomous region which make the creation of such region
dependent upon the outcome of the plebiscite.
In support of his argument, petitioner cites Article II, section
1(1) of R.A. No. 6734 which declares that “[t]here is hereby
created the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, to be
composed of provinces and cities voting favorably in the
plebiscite called for the purpose, in accordance with Section
18, Article X of the Constitution.” Petitioner contends that
the tenor of the above provision makes the creation of an
autonomous region absolute, such that even if only two
provinces vote in favor of autonomy, an autonomous region
would still be created composed of the two provinces where
the favorable votes were obtained. The matter of the
creation of the autonomous region and its composition
needs to be clarified.
1
Ruling: Thus, under the Constitution and R.A. No 6734, the
creation of the autonomous region shall take effect only
when approved by a majority of the votes cast by the
constituent units in a plebiscite, and only those provinces
and cities where a majority vote in favor of the Organic Act
shall be included in the autonomous region. The provinces
and cities wherein such a majority is not attained shall not be
included in the autonomous region. It may be that even if an
autonomous region is created, not all of the thirteen (13)
provinces and nine (9) cities mentioned in Article II, section 1
(2) of R.A. No. 6734 shall be included therein. The single
plebiscite contemplated by the Constitution and R.A. No.
6734 will therefore be determinative of (1) whether there
shall be an autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao and (2)
which provinces and cities, among those enumerated in R.A.
No. 6734, shall compromise it. It will readily be seen that the
creation of the autonomous region is made to depend, not
on the total majority vote in the plebiscite, but on the will
of the majority in each of the constituent units and the
proviso underscores this. for if the intention of the framers
of the Constitution was to get the majority of the totality of
the votes cast, they could have simply adopted the same
phraseology as that used for the ratification of the
Constitution, i.e. “the creation of the autonomous region
shall be effective when approved by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose.” It is thus clear
that what is required by the Constitution is a simple
majority of votes approving the organic Act in individual
constituent units and not a double majority of the votes in
all constituent units put together, as well as in the individual
constituent units. More importantly, because of its
categorical language, this is also the sense in which the vote
requirement in the plebiscite provided under Article X,
section 18 must have been understood by the people when
they ratified the Constitution.
ORDILLO V. COMELEC DEC. 4, 1990
Facts: On January 30, 1990, the people of the provinces of
Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Abra and Kalinga-
Apayao and the city of Baguio cast their votes in a plebiscite
held pursuant to Republic Act No. 6766 entitled “An Act
Providing for an Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous
Region.” The official Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
results of the plebiscite showed that the creation of the
Region was approved by a majority of 5,889 votes in only the
Ifugao Province and was overwhelmingly rejected by
148,676 votes in the rest of the provinces and city above-
mentioned. Consequently, the COMELEC, on February 14,
1990, issued Resolution No. 2259 stating that the Organic Act
for the Region has been approved and/or ratified by majority
of the votes cast only in the province of Ifugao.
the petitioner filed a petition with COMELEC to declare the
non-ratification of the Organic Act for the Region. The
petitioners maintain that there can be no valid Cordillera
Autonomous Region in only one province as the Constitution
and Republic Act No. 6766 require that the said Region be
composed of more than one constituent unit.
Issue: The question raised in this petition is whether or not
the province of Ifugao, being the only province which voted
favorably for the creation of the Cordillera Autonomous
Region can, alone, legally and validly constitute such Region.
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
Ruling: The sole province of Ifugao cannot validly constitute
the Cordillera Autonomous Region.
It is explicit in Article X, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution.
The keywords — provinces, cities, municipalities and
geographical areas connote that “region” is to be made up
of more than one constituent unit. The term “region” used
in its ordinary sense means two or more provinces. This is
supported by the fact that the thirteen (13) regions into
which the Philippines is divided for administrative purposes
are groupings of contiguous provinces. Ifugao is a province
by itself. To become part of a region, it must join other
provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas. It
joins other units because of their common and distinctive
historical and cultural heritage, economic and social
structures and other relevant characteristics. The
Constitutional requirements are not present in this case.
Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of Republic Act No. 6766 provide
that the Cordillera Autonomous Region is to be administered
by the Cordillera government consisting of the Regional
Government and local government units. It further provides
that:
“SECTION 2. The Regional Government shall exercise powers
and functions necessary for the proper governance and
development of all provinces, cities, municipalities, and
barangay or ili within the Autonomous Region . . .”
From these sections, it can be gleaned that Congress never
intended that a single province may constitute the
autonomous region. Otherwise, we would be faced with
the absurd situation of having two sets of officials, a set of
provincial officials and another set of regional officials
exercising their executive and legislative powers over
exactly the same small area.
AUTONOMOUS REGIONS A RE DIFFERENT FROM
LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT S
The requirement of plebiscite is only needed for an
autonomous regions, and not for legislative districts.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS ARE:
1. Cities
2. Provinces
3. Municipalities
4. Barangays
CITIES ARE CREATED W HEN THE FOLLOWING AR E
MET:
1. Locally generated annual income of at least
P100,000,000.00 for at least the past two years
2. Land area of at least 100 sq. km or a population of
at least 150,000
LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES
Facts: During the 11th Congress, 57 bills seeking the
conversion of municipalities into component cities were filed
before the House of Representatives. However, Congress
acted only on 33 bills. It did not act on bills converting 24
other municipalities into cities. During the 12th Congress, R.A.
No. 9009 became effective revising Section 450 of the Local
Government Code. It increased the income requirement to
qualify for conversion into a city from P20 million annual
income to P100 million locally-generated income. In the 13th
Congress, 16 of the 24 municipalities filed, through their
respective sponsors, individual cityhood bills. Each of the
2
cityhood bills contained a common provision exempting the
particular municipality from the 100 million income
requirement imposed by R.A. No. 9009.
Tabuk only has an annual income of at least P20,000,000.00.
Subsequently, sixteen cities were enacted, one of which is
the Municipality of Tabuk under RA No. 9409. Tabuk
contended that the other cities has lower than
P100,000,000.00 annual income.
League of cities contended that there would be a reduction
of the allotment for cities in the GAA when more cities are
created.
Ruling (2011 penned by CJ Bersamin): The 16 Cityhood Laws
are constitutional. “We should not ever lose sight of the fact
that the 16 cities covered by the Cityhood Laws not only had
conversion bills pending during the 11th Congress, but have
also complied with the requirements of the [Local
Government Code] LGC prescribed prior to its amendment
by RA No. 9009. Congress undeniably gave these cities all
the considerations that justice and fair play demanded.
Hence, this Court should do no less by stamping its
imprimatur to the clear and unmistakable legislative intent
and by duly recognizing the certain collective wisdom of
Congress,” the SC said.
The Court stressed that Congress clearly intended
that the local government units covered by the Cityhood
Laws be exempted from the coverage of RA 9009, which
imposes a higher income requirement of PhP100 million for
the creation of cities.
“The Court reiterated that while RA 9009 was being
deliberated upon, the Congress was well aware of the
pendency of conversion bills of several municipalities,
including those covered by the Cityhood Laws. It pointed out
that RA 9009 took effect on June 30, 2001, when the 12th
Congress was incipient. By reason of the clear legislative
intent to exempt the municipalities covered by the
conversion bills pending during the 11th Congress, the House
of Representatives adopted Joint Resolution No. 29 entitled
Joint Resolution to Exempt Certain Municipalities Embodied in
Bills Filed in Congress before June 30, 2001 from the coverage
of Republic Act No. 9009. However, the Senate failed to act
on the said Joint Resolution. Even so, the House readopted
Joint Resolution No. 29 as Joint Resolution No. 1 during the
12th Congress, and forwarded the same for approval to the
Senate, which again failed to prove it. Eventually, the
conversion bills of respondents were individually filed in the
Lower House and were all unanimously and favorably voted
upon. When forwarded to the Senate, the bills were also
unanimously approved. The acts of both Chambers of
Congress show that the exemption clauses ultimately
incorporated in the Cityhood Laws are but the express
articulations of the clear legislative intent to exempt the
respondents, without exception, from the coverage of RA
No. 9009. Thereby, RA 9009, and, by necessity, the LCG,
were amended, not by repeal but by way of the express
exemptions being embodied in the exemption clauses.”
The Court held that the imposition of the income
requirement of P100 million from local sources under RA
9009 was arbitrary. “While the Constitution mandates that
the creation of local government units must comply with the
criteria laid down in the LGC, it cannot be justified to insist
that the Constitution must have to yield to every
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS

amendment to the LGC despite such amendment imminently collected by customs from the casinos, from part of
producing effects contrary to the original thrusts of the LGC the bingo production collection taxes are still part
to promote autonomy, decentralization, countryside of the ERA. Section 284 of the Local Government
development, and the concomitant national growth.” Code (inaudible) with Section 10, Article 6 of the
1987 Constitution (local autonomy). Local
government units are entitled to expanded internal
revenue allotment. Lately, when local governments,
In order for a municipality be declared a city, the particularly the petitioner Mandanas demanded
P100,000,000 requirement must be from the locally that the LGUs given the expanded ERA. They said
generated income and not from the IRRA. IRRA is not part of that it will only be given to LGUs in 2022. The LGUs
the locally generated income. prayed for retroactivity but there could be no
retroactive effect because the funds were already
used in the previous years.
PROVINCES ARE CREATED WHE N THE FOLLOWING  As to local autonomy, the Supreme Court discussed
ARE MET: the meaning of decentralization. They discussed
1. Must have a territory of at least 2000 sq. km. political decentralization, administrative
2. Actual income of at least P2,000,000. decentralization (which is “de-concentration”), and
3. Population of at least 250,000 as determined by fiscal decentralization, as well as decision-making
the NSO
decentralization. These are given to the local
4. Must be approved by a plebiscite.
government units
MUNICIPALITIES ARE C REATED WHEN THE
FOLLOWING ARE MET: There is also a discussion on the meaning of the “operative
fact doctrine” in relation to the claim for ERA in the
1. Annual income of at least P2,000,000.00;
previous years. This was also discussed in the Cityhood
2. An area of at least 50 sq. km.; and
cases. The operative fact doctrine is applicable in the
3. A population of at least 25,000
Mandanas case.
BARANGAYS ARE CREATED WHEN THE FOLLOWING
ARE MET:
1. There are at least 2000 persons (when outside NCR POWERS OF LGU IN RELATION TO THE
and highly urbanized city); or at least 5000 persons INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE
(NCR or highly urbanized city) For LGUs, they are not inherent. Congress must enact a law
EXCEPTION: the 2000 persons within the barangay delegating such to the LGU. They only implement what is
is not needed when a barangay is composed of provided for in the Local Government Code.
mainly Indigenous Peoples. Section 16 of the LGC. General Welfare
2. There is no land area required for a barangay.
“Every local government unit shall exercise the powers
expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as
WHO CREATES A LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its
efficient and effective governance, and those which are
CONGRESS essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within
The Congress can create the following LGU: their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government
units shall ensure and support, among other things, the
1. City
preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and
2. Municipality
safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced
3. Province
ecology, encourage and support the development of
4. Barangay composed of IPs
appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological
SANGGUNIAN capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic
The Sangguniang panlalawigan/ panglungsod creates a prosperity and social justice, promote full employment
barangay. Those that votes for the creation of such barangay among their residents, maintain peace and order, and
are those that are directly affected for the creation. preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.”
POLICE POWER
As of 2019, there are: -the enactment of laws for regulation, for violation of
82 provinces ordinances, etc. Police power is legislative in nature. When
exercising police power, the presumption is that all
425 cities ordinances enacted by the Sangguinians are
1278 municipalities valid/constitutional. The presumption will be overturned
21,213 barangays when there is irregularity.

MANDANAS V. EXECUTIV E SECRETARY GR NO.

199802, JULY 3, 2018
 This is about the Expanded Revenue Allotment
(ERA). It used to be that the ERA was based on the
internal revenue collection (IRC) but because of this
case, the Supreme Court ruled that even those
ZOMZAT INC. VS. PEOP LE GR NO. 135535
FEBRUARY 14, 2005
Facts: Sangguniang Panlungsod of Gingoog City passed
Resolution No. 261 which resolved "to express the
willingness of the City of Gingoog to allow Zoomzat to install

3
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
and operate a cable TV system." Thereupon, petitioner
applied for a mayor’s permit but the same was not acted
upon by the mayor’s office. Subsequently, respondents
enacted Ordinance No. 19 which granted a franchise to
Gingoog Spacelink Cable TV, Inc. to operate a cable
television for a period of ten (10) years, subject to automatic
renewal. Hence, petitioner filed a complaint with the Office
of the Ombudsman against herein respondents for violation
of Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019. Petitioners contended that the
NTC is a licensing and regulatory body, and the actual
operations of cable television entails other activities which
may be regulated by the LGU under its general welfare
clause or subject to its revenue generating powers.
Issue: Whether or not LGU has the power and authority to
allow or disallow the operation of cable television.
Decision: In the absence of constitutional or legislative
authorization, municipalities have no power to grant
franchises. There is no dispute that respondent Sangguniang
Panlungsod, like other local legislative bodies, has been
empowered to enact ordinances and approve resolutions
under the general welfare clause of B.P. Blg. 337, the Local
Government Code of 1983. That it continues to possess such
power is clear under the new law, R.A. No. 7160 (the Local
Government Code of 1991). Indeed, under the general
welfare clause of the Local Government Code, the local
government unit can regulate the operation of cable
television but only when it encroaches on public properties,
such as the use of public streets, rights of ways, the founding
of structures, and the parceling of large regions. Beyond
these, its acts such as grant of the franchise would be ultra
vires.
ERMITA MALATE HOTEL V. CITY MAYOR OF
MANILA
Prohibit the operation of sauna and massage parlors,
karaoke bars, beerhouses, night clubs, day clubs, super
clubs, discotheques, cabarets, dance halls, motels, inns or
order their transfer or conversion without infringing the
constitutional guarantees of due process and equal
protection of laws not even under the guise of police power
WHITELIGHT CORPORATI ON V. CITY OF MANILA
Enact an ordinance preventing motels from offering wash
rates and renting out a room more than once a day is an
unreasonable exercise of police power where the behavior
which the ordinance seeks to curtail (i.e., prostitution, use of
illicit drugs) is already prohibited and can be curtailed by
applying existing laws.
RIMANDO V. NAGUILIAN EMISSION TESTING
CENTER, JULY 23, 201 2
Naguilian Emission Testing Center wants to get a business
permit but the Mayor denied the application. They filed a
petition for mandamus. The SC said mandamus is not the
proper remedy because the granting of business permit by
the LGU is discretionary. Mandamus is a remedy for the
exercise of ministerial powers and functions. (Police power
as a discretionary power or function, not ministerial.)
POWER TO TAX
Section 18 (Power to Generate and Apply Resources)
“Local government units shall have the power and
authority to establish an organization that shall be
4
responsible for the efficient and effective implementation
of their development plans, program objectives and
priorities; to create their own sources of revenues and to
levy taxes, fees, and charges which shall accrue exclusively
for their use and disposition and which shall be retained by
them; to have a just share in national taxes which shall be
automatically and directly released to them without need
of any further action; to have an equitable share in the
proceeds from the utilization and development of the
national wealth and resources within their respective
territorial jurisdictions including sharing the same with the
inhabitants by way of direct benefits; to acquire, develop,
lease, encumber, alienate, or otherwise dispose of real or
personal property held by them in their proprietary capacity
and to apply their resources and assets for productive,
developmental, or welfare purposes, in the exercise or
furtherance of their governmental or proprietary powers
and functions and thereby ensure their development into
self-reliant communities and active participants in the
attainment of national goals.”
 LGUs must have revenue or income to continue its
operations.
 Most LGUs rely so much on the internal revenue
allotment
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
Section 19 Eminent Domain
A local government unit may, through its chief executive and
acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of
eminent domain for public use, or purpose or welfare for the
benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just
compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution and pertinent laws.
Can be exercised when:
 There is a valid and definite offer has been
previously made
 The owner accepted the offer
LGU may immediately take possession of the property
upon:
 Filing of the expropriation proceedings;
 Upon making a deposit with a proper court of at
least 15% of the FMV of the property based on the
current tax declaration of the property
 Amount to be paid for the expropriation shall be
determined by the proper court based on the FMC
at the time of the taking of the property
Requisites for the exercise of the power of eminent
domain:
 It must be exercised by the local chief executive. (It
is available for barangay, municipality, city, and
province through the local chief executive.);
 There must be an ordinance authorizing the local
chief executive to exercise the power of eminent
domain
MUNICIPALITY OF PARA NAQUE V. VM REALTY
CORPORATION
The enabling instrument for the exercise of eminent domain
is an ordinance and not a resolution. A resolution which
merely expresses the sentiment of the municipal council
will not suffice
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS

the deposit of the 15% fair market value even prior to the
determination of public purpose. In other words, it is not a
condition sine qua non.
POWER OF THE LGU TO RECLASSIFY
AN ORDINANCE is a rule, law or statute adopted by a AGRICULTURAL LANDS
municipal corporation for the proper conduct of its affairs
or the government of its inhabitants.

A RESOLUTION is a formal expression of an opinion,

intention or decision by an official body or assembly. The forest or timber
term is usually employed to denote the adoption of a agricultural
motion, the subject matter of which would not constitute a
statute.

mineral national parks

MODAY V. CA, FEBRUAR Y 20, 1997
 The municipality granted an ordinance granting the
1 CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN
local chief executive the power to exercise
expropriation. The provincial board said that it is
ultra vires. The SC said that there is already authority
granted by the local chief executive.
REQUIREMENTS FOR RECLASSIFICATION:
 The term “public use” or “public purpose” has been
1. No longer economically feasible for agricultural
clarified by the Local Government Code through its
purposes
implementing rules and regulations. The IRR
2. Reclassification will lead to greater economical
enumerated the instances when the exercise of that value
power is for public purpose. Prior to the effectivity
Note: Basis of Reclassification must be considered in the
of the LGC the SC already ruled in several cases that
Comprehensive Land Use Act for five years. If an approval is
the expropriation of private property for the benefit
needed from the national agency, it shall not withhold the
of landless or homeless, although not everyone will pending request. If the national agency does not act upon
be benefited, is still for public purpose. the CLUA for a period of three months, it is deemed
approved.
MASIKIP V. CITY OF PASIG, GR NO. 136349,
JANUARY 23, 2006
 Expropriation of private property for a recreational LIMITATION OF THE POWER TO RECLASSIFY
facility is not for public purpose.
 Just compensation - As already ruled in many cases, 1. CITIES CAN ONLY RECLASSIFY THE LANDS
it shall be based on the fair market value at the time Highly Urbanized Cities 15%
of the taking of the property. Component Cities, First 10 %
 There is taking upon the deposit of 15% of the fair Class, Second Class, and
market value based on the tax declaration of the Third Class Municipalities
property. If they did not deposit, they have to wait Fourth and Fifth Class 5%
for the finality of the decision and that is the time Municipalities
where they will determine how much will be paid. If
they have deposited, that is the determination of Note: The President can allow the reclassification upon the
the fair market value which shall be considered as recommendation of the National Economic Development
just compensation for the expropriated land. Authority (NEDA) if public policy so requires

REPUBLIC V. LIM, GR NO. 161656 2. THOSE THAT ARE COVER ED BY THE

The Supreme Court ruled that the owner of the property COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM ACT
may recover the property if the just compensation has not The lands under the CARP cannot be covered by
been paid after the lapse of 5 years from the finality of the reclassification for the Local Government Code does not
decision. amend nor revoke the laws governing CARP.

POWER TO CLOSE AND OPEN ROADS

Roads are beyond the commerce of man. Thus, a collection
FRANCIA V. MEYCAUAYA N, GR NO. 170432, MA RCH of rental fees are not allowed.
24, 2008 An alley or park used by the public can be closed upon the
The owner of the property is questioning public use. He is order of the LGU.
saying it is not for public use and it should not be
expropriated. The LGU deposited 15% of the FMV based on A ROAD CAN BE CLOSED THROUGH:
the tax declaration. The owner objected on the deposit
because they have to determine if it is for public purpose or
AN ORDINANCE
not. The Supreme Court said that the law does not prohibit

5
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
However, if the closure of the road is permanent, a 2/3 vote
of the Sanggunian is required.
IT CAN BE CONVEYED
The road can be donated, sold, or through other means
when it would be devoted for other purposes.
Ex. Market place
WHEN A FREEDOM PARK IS TO BE CLOSED
A freedom park is a place where the people in the locality
can conduct rallies, forums wherein they convey their
grievances. It is required by law that an LGU must have at
least one freedom park.
If a freedom park is to be closed, the LGU must establish
another Freedom Park.
TEMPORARY CLOSURE
LGUs are authorized to close a road temporarily for any
activity that is not permanent in nature.
This can be done through the order of the Local Chief
Executive
WHEN THE CLOSURE IS FOR ATHLETIC OR CIVIC
ACTIVITIES
The closure is prohibited when:
1. The LGU does not sponsor; or
2. The LGU does not recognize the activity
CORPORATE POWERS OR PROPRIETARY
POWERS OF THE LGU
As defined in Sec. 22 of the LGU,
(a) Every local government unit, as a corporation,
shall have the following powers:
(1) To have continuous succession in its
corporate name;
(2) To sue and be sued;
(3) To have and use a corporate seal;
(4) To acquire and convey real or personal
property;
(5) To enter into contracts; and
(6) To exercise such other powers as are
granted to corporations, subject to the
limitations provided in this Code and other
laws.
(b) Local government units may continue using,
modify, or change their existing corporate seals:
Provided, That newly established local government
units or those without corporate seals may create
their own corporate seals which shall be registered
with the Department of the Interior and Local
Government: Provided, further, That any change of
corporate seal shall also be registered as provided
hereon.
(c) Unless otherwise provided in this Code, no
contract may be entered into by the local chief
executive in behalf of the local government unit
without prior authorization by the sanggunian
concerned. A legible copy of such contract shall be
posted at a conspicuous place in the provincial
capitol or the city, municipal or barangay hall.
6
(d) Local government units shall enjoy full
autonomy in the exercise of their proprietary
functions and in the limitations provided in this
Code and other applicable laws,
QUISUMBING V. GARCIA GR NO. 175527, DECE MBER
8, 2008
The subject COA report stated "Several contracts in
the total amount of P102,092,841.47 were not supported
with a Sangguniang Panlalawigan resolution authorizing the
Provincial Governor to enter into a contract, as required
under Section 22 of R.A. No. 7160."
Gov. Garcia sought for reconsideration from COA
but without waiting for its resolution, she instituted an
action for Declaratory Relief where she alleged that the
infrastructure contracts complied with R.A. No. 9184 bidding
procedures and were entered into pursuant to the general
and/or supplemental appropriation ordinances passed by
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, hence a separate authority to
enter into such contracts was no longer necessary.
The trial court declared that Gov. Garcia need not
secure prior authorization from the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan . It further declared that the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan does not have juridical personality nor is it
vested by R.A. No. 7160 with authority to sue and be sued. It
also ruled that it is only when the contract (entered into by
the local chief executive) involves obligations which are not
backed by prior ordinances that the prior authority of the
sanggunian concerned is required.
Petitioners insisted that prior authorization from
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan should be secured before
Gov. Garcia could validly enter into contracts involving
monetary obligations.
The Province of Cebu was operating under a
reenacted budget in 2004. Gov. Garcia entered into
contracts on behalf of the province while this reenacted
budget was in force.
ISSUE: Whether or not prior approval by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan is required before Gov. Garcia could have
validly entered into the questioned contracts.
RULING: The Supreme Court laid out the framework for the
lower court’s guidance in resolving the issue. Requirement
of prior authorization by the Sanggunian Sec. 22(c) of R.A.
No. 7160 requires that prior authorization by
the sanggunian concerned is required before the local chief
executive may enter into contracts on behalf of the local
government unit.
Gov. Garcia argued that Sections 306 and 346 of
R.A. No. 7160 are the exceptions to Sec. 22(c) and operate to
allow her to enter into contracts on behalf of the Province of
Cebu without further authority from the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan.
However, the Court noted that Sec. 306 of R.A. No.
7160 merely contains a definition of terms. Read in
conjunction with Sec. 346, Sec. 306 authorizes the local chief
executive to make disbursements of funds in accordance
with the ordinance authorizing the annual or supplemental
appropriations. The "ordinance" referred to in Sec. 346
pertains to that which enacts the local government unit’s
budget, for which reason no further authorization from the
local council is required, the ordinance functioning, as it
does, as the legislative authorization of the budget.
To construe Sections 306 and 346 of R.A. No. 7160
as exceptions to Sec. 22(c) would render the requirement of
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
prior sanggunian authorization superfluous, useless and
irrelevant. There would be no instance when such prior
authorization would be required. Yet, this is obviously not
the effect Congress had in mind when it required the prior
authorization of the sanggunian concerned.
Sec. 323 of R.A. No. 7160 provides that in case of a
reenacted budget, "only the annual appropriations for
salaries and wages of existing positions, statutory and
contractual obligations, and essential operating expenses
authorized in the annual and supplemental budgets for the
preceding year shall be deemed reenacted and
disbursement of funds shall be in accordance therewith."
To give life to the intendment of the law and to
avoid a construction which would render Sec. 22(c) of R.A.
No. 7160 meaningless, disbursement should be understood
to pertain to payments for statutory and contractual
obligations which the sanggunian has already authorized
thru ordinances enacting the annual budget and are
therefore already subsisting obligations of the local
government unit. Contracts are those which bind the local
government unit to new obligations for which the local chief
executive needs prior authority from the sanggunian.
LIABILITY OF LGU
One must determine in what capacity the LGU is exercising
when it entered into such transaction.
There is liability when the LGU entered into its proprietary
capacity.
When the LGU entered into such transaction in its
ministerial function, no liability.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
LGU AND THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
COORDINATION WITH THE LGUS
The executive department coordinates with the LGUs
concerned in planning, implementation
TECHNICAL, FINANCIAL OR OTHER FORMS OF
ASSISTANCE TO THE LG U
Submit reports to the local chief executives
CONSULT LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS WHEN NATIONAL
AGENCY SHALL HAVE PR OJECTS
DUTY OF NATIONAL TO THE LGUS
Explain to the LGUs the adverse effects of the project to
the LGU
Prior consultation
Approval of the Sanggunian
Occupants shall be evicted unless there is a provision for
relocation when public property is involved
DECLARING HOLIDAYS
NOTE: Mayors are NOT allowed to issue EOs for a local
holiday as it is not within the power of the LGU
Declaring a holiday is only given to the President for
Proclamation or for Congress through enactment
7
The Local Chief Executive can request the President for a
declaration of designating a day as a Holiday.
RELATIONS BETWEEN TH E LGUS
The connection between or among the government
agencies are shown.
The executive department (President) exercises general
supervision over the LGU. General supervision is when the
agency sees to it that the subordinate implements his
powers and duties in accordance with the law.
Doctrine of qualified political agency
The actions of the President’s agents or alter egos are his
acts.
Governor- ensure that every component city and
municipality within its territorial jurisdiction acts within the
scope of its prescribed powers and functions.
Highly urbanized cities and independent component cities
shall be independent of the province.
REVIEW OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Governor- reviews all EO, promulgated by the component
city or municipal mayor within his jurisdiction.
City or Municipal Mayor- review all executive orders
promulgated by the punong barangay within his jurisdiction
Rules:
1. Issuing authority must forward copies of the E.O.
within 3 days from its issuance
2. Review of the local chief executive ensures that
such EO is within the power of granted by law and
in conformity with the provincial, city, or municipal
ordinances
3. When the governor, city, or municipal mayor fails to
act on the EO within 30 days from submission, it
shall be deemed consistent with law and therefore
valid.
LEGAL QUESTIONS
Cities and Provinces are mandated to have legal offices
within their jurisdiction
Municipalities have the option to create legal offices.
Barangays must refer any legal questions to the City or
Provincial Legal Office.
CLUSTER THEMSELVES F OR COMMON OR
COOPERATIVE UNDERTAKING
NOTE: PNP LAW AMENDED THE DILG LAW WITH RESPECT
TO THE APPOINTMENT OF LOCAL CHIEF OF POLICE.
ESTABLISHMENT OF PO AND NGO
May enter into joint ventures with public or private entities
PROVIDE ASSISTANCE T O POS AND NGOS SUBJE CT
TO GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES
Provisions on local PBA repealed by RA 9184 or the Pakyaw
Contracts
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
ELECTION OF LGU OFFICIALS
 Every three years
 Second Monday of May
QUALIFICATIONS OF EL ECTIVE OFFICIALS (SECTION
39)
 Citizenship and Residence
o Citizen of the Philippines, a registered
voter in the barangay, municipality, city, or
province; a resident therein for at least one
(1) year immediately preceding the day of
the election; and able to read and write
Filipino or any other local language or
dialect.
o For a member of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or
sangguniang bayan, the district where he
intends to be elected
 Age qualification- note it must be on the day of the
election
o 21 years old-
 governor, vice-governor,
member of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, mayor, vice-mayor,
or member of the sangguniang
panglungsod of highly urbanized
cities ;
 mayor or vice-mayor
independent component cities,
component cities,
municipalities
o 18 years old
 member of the sangguniang
panlungsod or sangguniang bayan
 punong barangay or member of
the sangguniang barangay
o 15 years old but not more than 18 years old
 punong barangay or member of
the sangguniang barangay
o 15 years old but not more than 21 years old
 sangguniang kabataan
DISQUALIFICATION
 sentenced by final judgment for an offense
involving moral turpitude, or for an offense by one
year or more of imprisonment, within two years
after serving sentence;
 removed from office as a result of an administrative
case;
 convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of
allegiance to the Republic;
 dual citizenship;
 fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political
cases here or abroad;
 permanent residents in a foreign country or those
who have acquired the right to reside abroad and to
continue to avail of the same right; and
 insane or feeble-minded
Note: For insane, there must be a court declaration
MANNER OF ELECTION
 Elected at large in their respective units by
qualified voters- For governor and vice-governor;
city, municipal mayor and vice-mayor; and punong
barangay
o Sangguniang barangay members
 Registered voters of the katipunan ng kabataan-
Sangguiniang Kabataan Chairman for each
barangay
 Elected by district- Regular members of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, panlungsod, and bayan
 For the Presidents of the Leagues of Sanggunian
Members of Component Municipalities- Serve as ex
officio members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
concerned
 Sectoral Representatives
o 1 from the women, and 1 from the workers,
and 1 from the following:
 Urban poor
 Indigenous culture
 Disabled persons
 Any other sector as may be
determined by the sanggunian
concerned within 90 days prior to
the holding of the next local
elections as may be provided by
law.
o When there is a vacancy in the office of the
or Sectoral Representative, they shall be
succeeded by the person next in rank in
their organizations
VACANCIES AND SUCCESSION
of Two Kinds of Vacancies:
 Temporary Vacancy
or
o Only for the office of the local chief
executive
 Permanent Vacancy
TEMPORARY VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF THE
LOCAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE (SECTION 46)
TEMPORARILY INCAPACITATED TO PERFORM HIS
DUTIES FOR PHYSICAL OR LEGAL REASON S SUCH AS
BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
 Leave of absence
 Travel abroad
 Suspension from office
WHO SHALL FILL THE V ACANCY
The vice-governor, city or municipal vice-mayor, or highest
sangguniang barangay member shall automatically
exercise duties and functions of the local chief executive
 Powers they cannot perform:
o Power to appoint
o Power to suspend
o Power to dismiss employees which can
only be exercised if the period of
temporary incapacity exceeds 30 working
days
 A local chief executive can designate in writing an
officer-in-charge when:
o Travelling within the country but outside
his territorial jurisdiction
o Period of absence must not exceed 3
consecutive days
o The powers he can exercise must be
provided in the designation but he cannot
8
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
also delegate those powers provided
above.
Q: If on the fourth day, the mayor did not return, can the
vice-mayor demand that the designated OIC vacate the
office so he can be designated?
Yes. The OIC’s designation is only for three consecutive day.
The Vice-Mayor shall have the right to assume powers, duties
and functions of the office on the fourth day of absence of
the local chief executive, subject to the limitations provided.
(See Sec. 46(d))
Q: May an acting mayor solemnize marriage?
In the case of People v. Bustamante, GR No. L-11598, the
designation of the acting mayor must provide that he can
solemnize marriages. (This was prior to the Family Code
when Mayors are allowed to solemnize marriage).
TERMINATION OF THE T EMPORARY VACANCY
Requirements:
 Upon the submission to the appropriate sanggunian
of a written declaration by the local chief executive
concerned that he has reported back to office.
 When vacancy is because of legal causes, the local
chief executive shall also submit necessary
documents showing that said legal causes no longer
exist.
If the mayor returned: vacancy shall be terminated
If suspension was served: An order of reinstatement must
be provided with the written declaration to the Sanggunian
with the pertinent documents.
If due to sickness: a written declaration is enough
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Shall be approved by the following:
 President- for LOA of governor and mayor of highly
urbanized city or independent component city
 Local Chief Executive concerned- LOA of vice-
governor or city or municipal vice-mayor
 Vice-governor, or city or municipal vice-governor-
LOA of members of the Sanggunian and its
employees
 Governor- LOA of Component City or municipal
mayor
 City or Municipal Mayor- LOA of punong barangay
 Punong barangay- LOA of sangguniang barangay
members
Note: When the approving authority did not act upon the
application within 5 working days from receipt, the
application for the LOA shall be deemed approved.
TRAVEL ORDERS
When the fund for travelling has been allocated to the
Sanggunian for the approval of Chief Executive, the
approval is ministerial with recommendation of Vice
Mayor or Vice- Governor.
When the travelling has been allocated in the general
funds, approval is mandatory.
PERMANENT VACANCY (SEC. 44- 45)
A permanent vacancy happens in the following instances:
 Elective local official fills a higher vacant office;
 Refuses or fails to assume office;
 Fails to qualify;
9
 Dies;
 Removed from office;
 Voluntarily resigns; or
 Permanently incapacitated to discharge the
functions of his office.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, VICE-GOVERNOR,
MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR
When the permanent vacancy occurs in the:
 Office of the governor, mayor- Vice-mayor or Vice-
governnor shall become the governor or mayor
 Offices of governor and vice-governor, mayor and
vice-mayor- the highest ranking sanggunian
member. The subsequent vacancies in the Office of
the Sanggunian shall be filled automatically by the
other Sanggunian members according to ranking.
 Office of the Punong Barangay- Highest ranking
Sangguniang Barangay Member, or in his
permanent inability, the second highest ranking
Sanggunian
Note that the ranking of the sanggunian shall be based on
the proportion of votes obtained by each winning candidate
to the total number of registered voters in each district.
When there is a tie between the highest ranking
sanggunian members: to be resolved by drawing of lots.
Term of office of the successors: the unexpired portion of
the terms of their predecessors.
PERMANENT VACANCIES IN THE SANGGUNIAN
(SEC. 45)
When the automatic succession does not apply, the
appointment shall be filled in the following manner:
 For Sangguniang Panlalawigan and Sangguniang
Panglungsod of Highly Urbanized Cities- President
through the Executive Secretary appoints
 Sangguniang Panglungsod of Component Cities
and Sangguninang Bayan- Governor
 Sangguniang Barangay- City or Municipal Mayor
upon recommendation of the Sangguniang
Barangay concerned.
When the vacancy is not in the Sangguniang Barangay,
 Nominee of the political party under the sanggunian
member concerned had been elected and whose
elevation to the position next higher in rank created
the last vacancy shall be appointed.
 The appointee must:
o Come from the same political party as that
of the Sangguniang Member who caused
the vacancy;
o Serve the unexpired term of the vacant
office.
o He must also have the nomination and
certificate of membership of the appointee
from the highest official of the political
party, otherwise, his appointment is null
and void.
 When the vacancy is caused by a sanggunian
member who does not belong to a political party-
local chief executive shall, upon recommendation of
the Sanggunian concerned, appoints a qualified
person
 Vacancy in the representation of the youth and the
barangay in the sanggunian- filled automatically by
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
the official next in rank of the organization
concerned.
Question: The Vice-Mayor, member of the L Partylist, of X
Municipality was appointed as a cabinet. Succession
followed. The Sanggunian Member garnering the highest
vote became the Vice-Mayor. The last member of the
Sanggunian was vacated. Y, the last councilor, contended
that since he succeeded the other Sanggunian Member, and
the one who will fill his vacancy must come from his political
party. Is Y correct?
Answer: No. The factor that determines how the last
position to be filled is who caused the vacancy. In this case,
the vacancy was caused by the Vice-Mayor.
AN OFFICER-IN-CHARGE enjoys limited powers which are
confined to the functions of administration and ensuring
that the office continues to its usual activities. No exercise
of discretion on an OIC’s part, and it is nothing more than a
temporary and convenient arrangement intended to avert
paralyzation of the day to day operations of an office in the
meantime that the chief or head of office is temporarily
absent.
A designation in the acting capacity entails not only the
exercise of the ministerial function attached to the position
but also the exercise of discretion.
For Vice Mayor, the law is silent on how the vacancy shall
be succeeded.
LOCAL LEGISLATION
Legislation- an act of law or act of coming up with law.
The local legislative power- delegated by Congress
Principle: Water does not rise above its source.
The National Legislature is higher than local legislature.
SANGGUNIAN
 Granted by the LGC the power to legislate
 However, its function is not confined with
legislation. It has multifaceted power and functions.
FUNCTIONS OF THE SAN GGUNIAN
 Legislate Ordinances and Resolutions
-See the discussion on Resolutions and Ordinances
There must be a law granting the Sanggunian contempt and
subpoena powers
 Power of the purse
-determines the appropriation of funds
- must come up with budget for the year
Limitation: appropriate funds based on existing revenues
and funds. The estimated revenue or income used for next
year’s appropriation.
 Power to come up with regulations
 Generation of revenue by coming up with
legislation for local economic enterprise
- In tandem with power to appropriate funds.
10
- It has the oversight function of the Sanggunian in
aid of legislation: To make sure that in the
implementation, it must serve the people. May still
work with the Mayor in implementation under the
oversight function.
 Quasi-judicial body when an administrative case
was filed against elective officials of lower LGU
- Decisions of Barangay Officials shall be reviewed
by the Sanggunian Bayan or Panglungsod
PRESIDING OFFICER
 For Provinces- Vice Governor
 City- Mayor
 Barangay- Punong-Barangay
The Presiding Officer is only required to vote in case of a
tie.
In case of the absence of the Presiding Officer the
Sanggunian Members present shall decide provided that
there is a quorum.
Quorum- majority of the members of the body that can
transact business.
Majority- greater than half of the membership of the body
(Santiago v. Guingona)
LA CARLOTA CITY V. A TTY. ROJO GR NO. 181367
Facts: Vice- Mayor Jalandoon appointed Atty. Rex Rojo as
the Sangguniang Panglungsod Secretary. The status of the
appointment was permanent. The next day, Vice-Mayor
Jalandoon tendered his resignation. Rojo’s appointment was
forwarded to the CSC but it was recalled. It was found that
during the manifestation of his resignation, Jalandoon was
the Vice-Mayor acting as the presiding officer. There was no
quorum manifested in his resignation for only 6 members
and the two ex-officio members were present. (10
Sanggunian Members and 2 ex-officio composes the
Sanggunian).
Issue: Is the Presiding Officer included in the counting of the
quorum?
Ruling: Yes. There was a quorum and a valid resignation. The
LGC provides that the composition of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod provides that a Vice-Mayor who is the presiding
officer of the SP only votes to break a tie. Thus, the Vice-
Mayor is a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod is a
member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod, thus he should
be included in considering the quorum.
Also note that during the first session of the Sanggunian
would convene to discuss matters regarding its internal
rules of procedure.
MALONZO V. ZAMORA GR NO. 137718
The Sanggunian proceeded with enacting an ordinance
instead of discussing its internal rules of procedures.
Additionally, the ordinance was enacted on the same day,
undergoing the three readings in just one session.
Doctrine: (With respect to the matters to be taken up in
the first session) There is nothing in the language of the law
that restricts the matters to be taken up during the first
regular session merely to the adoption or updating of the
house rules. A supplemental budget may be passed on the
first session day of the sanggunian.
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
(with respect to the validity of an ordinance enacted in one
day) There is nothing in the law which prohibits the conduct
of three readings of a proposed ordinance from being held in
just one session day
PROCEDURE IN ENACTING A LOCAL LAW (THE
THREE READING RULE)
Bills that must undergo three readings:
 Ordinances
 Local development plan
 Public investment plants
Other measures not included in the enumeration above do
not need three readings
FIRST READING
Title of the ordinance is read and referred to appropriate
committee.
A Committee report is made to determine whether to
pursue or ignore the bill.
When the bill is ignored- it is laid into table.
When the committee decided to pursue- proceed to second
reading.
SECOND READING
-debate, public, consultations
- if the proposal is complete, the bill shall be passed for third
reading
THIRD READING
- The bill is read in its entirety
- When it has been read completely, the Sanggunian must
vote for its enactment as an ordinance (Approved) or for
the records to be submitted to the archives (Not
approved)
- If approved, the bill shall be forwarded to the local chief
executive for its approval or veto
FOR BARANGAY ORDINANCES
The barangay captain is the presiding officer. The bill will go
to the local chief executive to be reviewed if the ordinance
is consistent with law and city or municipal ordinances.
In Sangguniang Panlalawigan: Forward within 15 days from
enactment
In Sangguniang Panglungso or bayan: Forward within 10
days. failure to return the barangay ordinance within 30
days from receipt shall be deemed approved.
ACTION OF THE LOCAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE
 Sign
The bill shall be an ordinance.
 No action
The bill shall be deemed approved after 30 days from receipt.
 Veto
The local chief executive must communicate the veto in
writing. The bill with the veto shall be brought back to the
Sanggunian
In overriding the veto: 2/3 vote is needed
In case of tie: Presiding Officer shall vote to break the tie
11
REVIEW OF THE ORDINA NCES
 For provinces, Highly Urbanized Cities, and
Independent Component Cities
No reviewing authority except for Appropriation
ordinances. Appropriation ordinances can be reviewed
by the DBM
 Barangay
Reviewed by their respective Sanggunians within 10
days of enactment. The Sanggunians are given 30 days
to review.
 If they found an irregularity, they will transmit
it to the barangay with the recommendations
to amend or revise to make it valid
 Component Cities
Within 3 days of approval shall forward to the
Sanggunian for review
If found defective: the law is deemed invalid
Within 30 days, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan shall
refer it to the Prov. Atty or Prosecutor. The Provincial
Atty. Or Prosecutor shall review it within 10 days to give
its opinion.
- The Sanggunian may or may not follow the
opinion.
Publication is still required for the law to be valid.
Question: What is the effect if an ordinance that was
declared void is enforced?
The official implementing such shall be suspended.
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
 Nature: Administrative Case
 An action can be initiated against:
o Elective officials; and
o Employees
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES ARE GENERALLY
 Can be filed simultaneously with criminal cases
 Defenses not available in Administrative Cases:
o No prejudicial question. The nature of the
disciplinary action is administrative.
Prejudicial question exists only when there
is a civil and criminal action pending.
o Forum Shopping
 Quantum of evidence: Substantial evidence
 Order of removal from Office: Must be through an
order of the proper court
 Penalty of Censure or Reprimand- already a
penalty. This means that the respondent is guilty of
the act but the Court found that the proper penalty
is censure or reprimand.
GR NO. 147870 JULY 21, 2002, PUBLIKO CAS E
Order of removal was expanded by the Implementing Rules
and Regulations, providing that: removal by order of proper
court or order of disciplinary authority whichever acquires
jurisdiction first.
Doctrine: The provision is invalid. The agency must not expand
or decrease the law including additional means on how to
impose removal. The Local Government Code prevails.
Proper Remedy of the Aggrieved: File the proper criminal
case in the court.
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS FOR ELECTIVE OFFICIALS
GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLI NARY ACTIONS
 Disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines
 Culpable violation of the Constitution;
 Dishonesty, oppression, misconduct in office, gross
negligence, or dereliction of duty;
 Commission of any offense involving moral
turpitude or an offense punishable by at least
prision mayor;
 Abuse of authority;
 Unauthorized absence for fifteen (15) consecutive
working days, except in the case of members of the
sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang
panlungsod, sangguniang bayan, and sangguniang
barangay;
 Application for, or acquisition of, foreign citizenship
or residence or the status of an immigrant of
another country; and
 Such other grounds as may be provided in this Code
and other laws.
FORM AND FILING OF COMPLA INTS
 Verified complaint file in:
o Office of the President- For Cities, and
Provinces
o Sangguniang Panlalawigan- Municipality
o Sangguniang Panglungsod- Punong
Barangay
 Procedure:
o Seven days from receipt of an order shall
be issued. The order requiring the
respondent to file his verified answer
within 15 days from receipt of summons
should attach a copy of the verified
complaint.
 Venue:
o For provinces or highly urbanized cities-
where the respondent is found
o For municipalities, barangays- where the
Sanggunian is located
 Limitations
o No investigation shall be held within 90
days immediately prior to any local and
national elections; and
o no preventive suspension shall be imposed
within the said period.
 If already imposed before the
period, it shall be deemed lifted
upon the start of the period.
 Ratio: first, to prevent undue
advantage; and second, to
prevent the respondent from
using his office to influence the
witnesses or pose a threat to the
integrity of evidence.
 Note: after the lapse of the 90-day
suspension, the official is deemed
reinstated unless another
complaint was filed against him.
DOCTRINE OF CONDONATION
The reelection of an official facing administrative charges
pardons the respondent.
12
Issue involved is the trust and confidence of the electorate.
Reelection reaffirms the electorate’s trust and confidence.
OMBUDSMAN V. BINAY
FACTS: Binay Jr. was placed under preventive suspension
when his case was pending in the Ombudsman. He filed a
petition for certiorari and a temporary restraining order
(TRO) before the CA to enjoin the implementation of the
order, arguing that he could not be held administratively
liable for the anomalous activity before he was elected
Mayor of Makati was undertaken before he was elected
Mayor, and his reelection as City Mayor condoned his
administrative liability with respect to those undertaken
during his first term. The CA granted Binay Jr.’s TRO
ISSUE: a) Whether Binay Jr. has been condoned of his
administrative offenses;
b) Whether Binay Jr. can raise the defense of the
Condonation Doctrine to absolve himself of any liability.
DECISION: a) No. Election is not a mode of condoning an
administrative offense. The President can condone
liability arising from administrative offenses. The
Constitution does not distinguish which cases executive
clemency may be exercised by the President, except
impeachment. Executive clemency can be granted by the
President to administrative cases if he can grant it to
criminal offenses. It is also invalid to allow re-election as a
means to prevent the removal of an official for acts in the
preceding term of office based on condonation.
Condonation implies forgiveness, so there must be
knowledge of the act. One cannot forgive something of
which one has no knowledge;
b) No. In this case, the Court abandoned the Condonation
Doctrine. The concept of public office is a public trust and
the corollary requirement of accountability to the people
at all times, as mandated under the Constitution, is plainly
inconsistent with the condonation doctrine. Election is
not a mode of condoning an administrative offense.
Furthermore, Sec 40 (b) of the LGC precludes
condonation since, an elective local official who is meted
with the penalty of removal could not be re-elected to an
elective local position due to a direct disqualification from
running for such post. Also, it cannot be inferred from
Section 60 of the LGC that the grounds for discipline
enumerated therein cannot anymore be invoked against
an elective local official to hold him administratively liable
once he is re-elected to office. In addition, it is contrary to
human experience that the electorate would have full
knowledge of a public official's misdeeds. Thus, there
could be no condonation of an act that is unknown.
Note: The Supreme Court held that in Administrative
cases, what is being disputed here is whether the official
committed a violation and not the trust and confidence
of the electorate. Its effectivity, however, is prospective.
OMBUDSMAN V. VERGARA GR NO. 216871
FACTS: On June 21, 2005, a complaint was filed before the
Office of the Ombudsman against then Mayor Vergara for
maintaining an open burning dumpsite and other several
acts in violation of R.A. 9003. He was then found guilty of
neglect of duty in implementing R.A 9003, and given a
penalty of suspension. Vergara filed a motion for
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
reconsideration, claiming that the penalty cannot be
enforced as he was re-elected on May 10, 2010, giving as
his basis the condonation doctrine. The case eventually
reached the Supreme Court, after the pronouncement of
the abandonment of the condonation doctrine in
Conchita Carpio Morales v. VA and Jejomar Binay Jr
(November 10, 2015).
ISSUE: Considering that the Condonation Doctrine was
already abandoned, can it still apply to Vergara’s case?
DECISION: Yes, the Condonation Doctrine can still apply
to Vergara’s case because the effect of the abandonment
is prospective in nature and for the reason that judicial
decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the
Constitution, until reversed, shall form part of the legal
system of the Philippines. This case was filed before the
decision was rendered, thus the doctrine may still be
applied.
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSIO N OF ELECTIVE OFFICIALS
 It is not a penalty
 Can be preventively suspended even without
notice and hearing
 It is imposed when:
o In the opinion of the disciplining tribunal,
the respondent is probably guilty of the act
imputed against him.
o A proceeding shall follow, thus due process
is not violated (Sec. 63).
 The suspension may be imposed by
o President- if the respondent is an elective
official of a province, highly urbanized city
and independent component city
o Governor- respondent is an elective official
of a component city or municipality
o Mayor- respondent is an elective official of
the barangay
 When imposed: At any time after the issues are
joined, when the guilt is strong, and given the
gravity of the offense, there is a great probability
that the continuance of the respondent could:
o Influence the witnesses; or
o Pose threat to the integrity of the
evidence.
 Limitations:
o Must not be more than 60 days
o But if the respondent has several
complaints, his suspension must not be
more than 90 days within that year.
 After lapse of the period, he shall be deemed
reinstated.
 When the proceeding is terminated, the tribunal
will find the respondent either
o Guilty: No salary or benefits within the
period; or
o Exonerated: Has the right to backwages
and other benefits at the time of his
suspension.
 Administrative Appeal:
o Decision of Sangguinang Panglungsod of
component cities and Sangguniang bayan-
appeal to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
o Decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
and Panglungsod of highly urbanized and
13
independent cities- to the Office of the
President.
 The decision of the Office of the President is final
and executory. However, the aggrieved may file a
petition for certiorari on the ground of grave abuse
of discretion.
 If evidence of guilt is not strong but the disciplinary
tribunal still adjudged the respondent guilty: a
ground for abuse of discretion on the part of the
issuing authority.
 The Appeal does not bar the execution of a decision
of the disciplinary authority.
RECALL (RA NO. 9244)
 Initiated by: Petition of a registered voter
 Limitation:
o No recall elections shall be held within one
year from the holding of elections.
o The election pertained in this case is
National Election.
o The holding of the recall election is
prohibited but the preparatory activities
(filing of pleadings, etc) are allowed.
o Only local elective officials are subjected to
recall.
SOCRATES V. COMELEC
Summary of Facts: Jagidorn served his third term as a mayor.
Socrates was elected as mayor but a recall election was
deemed proper by the COMELEC. A person being recalled is
automatically a candidate. Jagidorn filed his COC. Jagidorn
won. Socrates contended that Jagidorn must be disqualified
for this would be his fourth term.
Doctrine: Jagidorn did not run for the same position after his
third consecutive term in the national elections. A candidate
who won in a recall election shall not be considered as his
fourth consecutive term for before such, there was a gap.
RECALL IS ALLOWED
An SK election was held a year before the recall elections.
The Mayor of the municipality was the subject of the recall.
The complainants contended that there should be no recall
elections.
The Supreme Court held that the Recall Election is valid
because what the law prohibits is a recall election of the
person occupying the position less than a year from the
holding of the same. The position of the person being recalled
is the basis for applying the limitations.
EXAMPLE: Mayor held office on July 1, 2019.
 Within one year, no recall is allowed from
assumption of office.
 The window for holding a recall is less than
1 year during the 2nd year of the candidate’s
term.
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS

HUMAN RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT  Permanent

 Casual Employee
An LGU may not survive even with elective officials. o Considered as regular but not permanent.
The LGU shall design and implement its own organizational o Enjoys some benefit but no security of
structure and staffing pattern taking into consideration its: tenure depending on certain factors
 service requirements; and  Regular temporary
 financial capability o An employee is considered as regular
temporary when:
Subject to the minimum standards and guidelines prescribed
 The person fails to meet the
by the Civil Service Commission. (Sec. 76, LGC)
eligibility requirement;
Organizational structure  No other person is available for
the position; and
 The appointment is for a period of
less than one year.
Organizational  Contract of Service Job Order Positions
Struture o With limitations on its appropriations as to
the hiring of employees.
o Depends on the capacity of the local
government unit
 Emergency Employee
Legislative Executive
Department Department APPROPRIATIONS OF LO CAL GOVERNMENT UNITS
Based on the collection of the BIR:
 National government gets 60% of the collected
revenue
 Local Government Units get 40% of the collected
Headed by the funds.
Local Chief
Vice-Mayor or o 23%- Provinces
Executive
Vice- Governor o 23%- Cities
Note: Assisted by an o 34%- Municipalities
Note: Assisted by the Executive Assistant
Sanggunian Secretary. He o 20%- Barangays
may appoint an Executive Forty-five percent of the main source of LGU is allotted in
Secretary and Private
Security Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA).
Administrative
 Prior to the Mandanas Case: all amounts collected
Heads
Sanggunian for Casinos, Custom fees are not included in the IRA
Note: The Human  After Mandanas Case: every general collection must
Resources and be included in the IRA, however, it shall only be
Development is under
applicable in 2022. This is because the funds
the Executive
collected for 2019 are already appropriated, and
Department
those collected for 2020 are already allocated.
o The SC held that the taxes of casinos and
RESPONSIBILITY FOR HUMAN RESOURCES AND
custom duties shall be given to the LGUs as
DEVELOPMENT (SECTION 77)
well for the IRA of other cities and
The Local Chief Executive shall: municipalities (especially the fourth and
 be responsible for the Human Resources and fifth class) may not be able to sustain the
Development; and personnel services needed.
 take all personnel actions in accordance with the Formula for Appropriation:
Constitutional provisions on civil service, pertinent
laws, and rules and regulations, including such 50%- Population
policies and guidelines and standards as the Civil 25%- Land Area, except for barangays
Commission may establish. 25%- equal sharing
The Local Chief Executive may employ:
 emergency; or REGULAR EMPLOYEES
 casual employees; or  Confidential and Co-terminus Employees
 laborers paid on a daily wage; or o Under the LGU, these employees are under
 piecework basis; and the administrator and legal officer
 hired through job orders for local projects o Under the Civil Service, dependent on the
authorized by the Sanggunian concerned without term of office of the appointing authority.
the need of approval or attestation by the CSC o These employees may not pass through the
Note: The period of employment of casual or emergency selection process. Such positions are
laborers shall not exceed six months. normally advertised in a newspaper of
general circulation, but the requirement
may be dispensed with when a person is
CLASSIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES: appointed.
 Regular; and

14
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
APPOINTING AUTHORITI ES
Local Chief Executive- for executive department
Vice-Mayor or Vice- Governor- for the legislative department
PROCESS OF APPOINTMENT
 The Human Resource Project and Development
Office publishes vacant positions and processing of
vacant positions.
 There must be a promotion and selection board that
pre-screens those qualified. They will conduct an
interview of the applicants.
 There would be an individual breaking of applicants.
Those qualified shall be ranked.
 The names shall be submitted to the appointing
authority and the latter would select among those
short-listed.
CASE: (SEARCH FOR TH E CASE)
An Assistant City Engineer objected to the appointment of
the City Engineer alleging that the former had worked in the
City Engineering Office longer than the appointed one.
SC held that the appointing authority as a wide latitude of
discretion in selecting the appointee, provided that the
appointee meets the minimum qualification. There is no such
thing as next in rank.
Note: the Civil Service Law provides for other kinds of
employees working for the LGU.
Other Human Resources Actions covers LGU
GRIEVANCE MACHINERY
In every LGU, the local chief executive shall establish a
procedure to inquire into, act upon, resolve or settle
complaints and grievances presented by the local
government employees. –Sec. 83
SEXUAL HARASSMENT
- Moral ascendancy or influence must be present.
Catcalling cannot be categorized as sexual harassment
unless the offender is working with the victim.
COMMITTEE ON DECORUM AND INVESTIGATION
(CODAI)
 Mandated by law
 Tasked to investigate any complaints regarding
sexual harassment.
 Any person can be charged civilly or criminally in
courts.
 Venue of filing an administrative case.
 Prejudicial question does not attach for one of the
requisites (One civil action, and one criminal
action) are not met. Thus, the criminal or civil case
may proceed separately.
ACTUAL CASE (SEARCH FOR THE CASE)
X was found guilty in the administrative case of sexual
harassment filed against him. In the criminal case, the courts
found him only to be guilty of unjust vexation. X was
removed from office.
No prejudicial question in this case.
15
SUSPENSION
 Suspension for less than 30 days
o The decision becomes final and executory.
However, it can be reviewed by the courts
through a petition for certiorari if grave
abuse of discretion is attendant.
 Suspension for more than 30 days
o Appeal to the Civil Service Commission.
o Can be granted a penalty of removal if the
person facing an administrative charge is
an appointed official. This is not applicable
for elective officials.
o The suspension can be effected even when
there is a pending appeal.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION
OF APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND ELECTIVE OFFICIALS
(see discussion on elective officials)
Local Chief Executive may preventively suspend for a period
not exceeding 60 days
 Any subordinate or employee under his authority
pending investigation if the charge against such
official or employee involves the following:
o Dishonesty; or
o Oppression; or
o Grave misconduct; or
o Neglect in the performance of duty; or
o If there is any reason to believe that the
respondent is guilty of the charges which
would warrant removal from service.
 Upon expiration of the preventive suspension, the
suspended official shall be reinstated in office
without prejudice to the continuation of the
administrative proceedings against him until its
termination.
 Delay in the proceedings due to the fault,
negligence or request of the respondent, the time
of delay shall not be counted in computing the
period of suspension.
PRACTICE OF PROFESSION
Appointed employees are not allowed to private practice.
 Prohibited from practicing their profession
o All governors and mayors
o Exception: Doctors of medicine may
practice their profession provided that:
 Only on occasions of emergency;
and
 They do not derive monetary
compensation.
 May practice their profession
o Sanggunian members, provided not
during office hours
o Those who are members of the Bar shall
not :
 Appear as counsel before any
court in any civil case wherein the
LGU or the government is the
adverse party;
 Appear as counsel in any criminal
case wherein an officer or
employee of the national or local
government is accused of an
offense committed in relation to
his office;
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
 Collect any fee for their
appearance in administrative
proceedings involving the LGU of
which he is an official; and
 Use property and personnel of the
government except when the
Sanggunian member concerned is
defending the interest of the
government.
CATU V. RELLOSA, AC NO. 5738, FEB. 19, 2008
Facts: Catu owns a commercial building and lot in Manila. His
mother and brother contested the possession of two
occupants of the units. They ignored demands for them to
vacate the premises. A complaint was filed against them in
the Lupong Tagapamayapa of the barangay. Atty. Rellosa
was the punong barangay and summoned the parties for
conciliation. When the parties failed to arrive at an amicable
settlement, Atty. Rellosa issued a certification for filing the
appropriate action in court. Atty. Rellosa entered his
appearance as counsel for the defendants in the ejectment
case. He contended that the law does not prohibit him from
practicing his profession despite being a punong barangay.
Issue: Is Atty. Rellosa allowed to appear as counsel for the
defendants in the case he presided as the punong barangay?
Decision: No. A government employee or official may be
allowed to practice his profession as provided for in the Civil
Service Commission Regulation. However, the official must
get approval from the head of the department or the
Secretary of the DILG.
Note: A punong barangay can practice law, provided it is
with approval of the head of the department (DILG). For
teaching, must not be during work hours.
DOUBLE COMPENSATION
- An employee receives another compensation for
undertaking another work.
- This is prohibited for government officials and
employees when they have performed another
work in the government.
- Honorarium is not included in the prohibition.
- Basis: Constitution. May be a source of corruption
if such is toletated.
o Estelito Mendoza was appointed as a
Solicitor General while still performing
work as an appointee in another
department during the Marcos regime. He
received compensation as the SolGen and
as appointee- double compensation.
o Thus the Constitution expressly prohibited
such.
Example: A punong barangay gave a lecture on the duties of
the other barangay officials. Should he be given
compensation for the lecture performed?
No, he is not entitled to another compensation. The lecture
is part of his job. He may be given a token for a minimal value
on the capability of the LGU.
APPOINTIVE OFFICIALS MAY BE ALLOWED TO
ENGAGE IN PRACTICE OF PROFESSION
16
 Must get approval of the head of local
government.
 For lawyers, they are given more restrictions.
o They cannot practice law during working
hours
o May represent relatives, provided that
such appearance is with the approval of the
head of the local government.
BOUNDARY DISPUTE
Boundary disputes between and among local government
units shall, as much as possible, be settled amicably. It shall
be referred to the proper Sanggunian to settle the dispute.
JURISDICTION (SEC. 118)
SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD OR SANGGUNIANG
BAYAN
Boundary disputes involving two or more barangays in the
same city or municipality.
SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN
Boundary disputes involving two or more municipalities
within the same province.
SANGGUNIAN OF THE PR OVINCES CONCERNED
Boundary disputes involving municipalities or component
cities of different provinces.
It shall be jointly referred.
SANGGUNIAN OF THE CITIES CONCERNED
Boundary disputes involving a component city or
municipality, and a highly urbanized city; or two or more
highly urbanized cities.
It shall be jointly referred for settlement to the respective
Sanggunians of the parties.
Although there is no express stipulation regarding
Independent Component Cities, it can settle boundary
disputes as that of a component city.
FAILURE TO SETTLE TH E DISPUTE AMICABLY
WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE DISPUTE WAS
REFERRED TO THE SANG GUNIAN
Sanggunian shall issue a Certification to that effect.
The dispute shall be formally tried by the sanggunian
concerned which shall decide the issue within 60 days from
the date of certification.
APPEAL (SEC. 119)
 The decision of the Sanggunian may be elevated to
the proper RTC having jurisdiction over the area in
the dispute.
 Note: The RTC that first took cognizance of the case
shall have jurisdiction over the boundary dispute.
 RTC shall decide within 1 year from filing.
 Pending final resolution, the area shall be
maintained and continued prior to the dispute shall
be maintained and continued for all legal purposes.
SPECIFIC PROCEDURE (AS DISCUSSED IN ANTIQUE
V. JUDGE CALABOCAL)
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
1. Filing of petition
 The Sanggunian may initate the
filing in a form of a Resolution, with the
sanggunian having jurisdiction over the
dispute
2. When there is failure to settle
 A certification shall be issued that
the boundary dispute was not settled if the
sanggunian fails to settle the dispute
within 60 days.
 Note: Disputed boundaries are not included in the
3. Decision
 Within 60 days from the date the
certification was issued, dispute shall be
tried and decided by the sanggunian
concerned.
 Within 15 days, copies of the
decision shall be furnished to the parties
concerned, DILG, local assessor,
COMELEC, NSO, and other agencies
concerned
4. Appeal
 RTC shall decide the case within 1
year from filing.
 Decisions on boundary disputes
promulgated jointly by two or more
sangguniang panlalawigans shall be heard
by the RTC of the province which first took
cognizance of the dispute.
PROVINCE OF ANTIQUE V. JUDGE CALABOCAL, GR
NO. 209146, JUNE 08, 2016
Facts:
Mayor Bago was the mayor of the municipality of
Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro, who lent the administration of
Liwagao Island to Mayor Lim, the mayor of the municipality
of Caluya, Antique. The agreement was made orally and
without executing any formal documents to this effect. The
condition attached to the agreement was that the island
would be returned after the term of office of the two
mayors. Their term ended in 1987, however Caluya continued
to exercise administration over the island. The Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro passed a resolution
confirming its jurisdictional rights and dominion over
Liwagao Island. However, both municipalities continued to
claim and exercise authority over Liwagao Island. Even
though it was Oriental Mindoro that provide government
services of the island, Antique continued collecting real
property taxes from Liwagao’s inhabitants.
Oriental Mindoro’s Sanggunian passed a Resolution
calling for a joint session between the Sangguniang
panlalawigan of Antique for the settlement of the
jurisdictional claim over the island of Liwagao. However, the
province of Antique issued a resolution informing Oriental
Mindoro that it was not amenable to any form of settlement
over the jurisdiction of Liwagao Island, and asserted its
rights over the province.
Issue: a) Does the case involve a boundary dispute?
b) Is the RTC the proper court to decide on the matter?
Decision: a) Yes. There is a boundary dispute when a portion
or the whole of the territorial area of an LGU is claimed by
two or more LGUs. Boundary disputes between or among
LGUs shall, as much as possible, be settled amicably. Nothing
in the provision excludes a dispute over an island. Thus,
17
when an island is being claimed by different LGUs, there
exists a boundary dispute.
b) Yes. The Province of Antique failed to perform its
responsibility under the LGU and its IRR when it made it
impossible for any party to follow the procedures by stating
that it was not amenable to any form of settlement which
effectively blocked any way to continue following the steps
in the IRR.
computation of the IRA.
LOCAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
LOCAL INITIATIVE (SEC. 120)
The process whereby the registered voters of the local
government unit may directly propose, enact, or amend any
ordinance.
WHO MAY EXERCISE LOC AL INITIATIVE (SEC. 121)
All registered voters of the provinces, cities, municipalities,
and barangays.
PROCEDURE IN LOCAL I NITIATIVE (SEC. 122)
 Filing of a petition
o 1000 registered voters- Provinces and cities
o 100 registered voters- municipalities
o 50 registered voters- barangays
 If no favorable action is taken by the Sanggunian
within 30 days from its presentation, the
proponents may invoke their power of initiative,
giving notice thereof to the Sanggunian concerned.
 Proposition
o shall be numbered serially, starting from
roman numeral I
o two or more proposition shall be submitted
in the initiative
 Proponents shall collect the required number of
signatures.
o 90 days- provinces and cities
o 60 days- municipalities
o 30 days- barangays
 The petition shall be signed before the election
registrar or his representatives in the presence of:
o Representative of the proponent; and
o Representative of the sanggunian
concerned
 COMELEC through its office in the LGU shall certify
whether the required number of signatures has
been obtained
 If obtained, COMELEC shall set a date for the
initiative, during which the proposition shall be
submitted to the registered voters in the LGU for
their approval within:
o 60 days- provinces and cities
o 45 days- municipalities
o 30 days- barangays
EFFECTIVITY OF LOCAL PROPOSITIONS (SEC. 123)
If approved by the majority, it shall take effect 15 days after
certification by the COMELEC as if affirmative action thereon
has been made by the sanggunian and local chief executive.
If it fails to obtain the number of votes, the proposition is
defeated.
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
LIMITATIONS OF LOCAL INITIATIVES (SEC. 1 24)
 Power of local initiative shall not be exercised for
more than once a year;
 Subject or matters must be within the legal powers
of the sanggunians to enact;
 Initiative shall be cancelled if at any time before the
sanggunian is held, the sanggunian adopts in toto
the proposition presented and the local chief
executive approves the same.
LIMITATIONS UPON SAN GGUNIANS
 Any proposition or ordinance approved through the
system of initiative and referendum shall not be
repealed, modified, or amended by the sanggunian
within 6 months from the date of approval.
 Can be amended, modified, or repealed within 3
years thereafter, by a vote of ¾ of all its members
 For barangays, 18 months after approval.
LOCAL REFERENDUM
Legal proves whereby the registered voters of the LGU may
approve, amend, or reject any ordinance enacted by the
sanggunian.
It shall be held under the control and direction of the
COMELEC within:
 60- provinces and cities
 45- municipalities
 30- barangays
KATARUNGANG PAMBARANGAY
Local Chief Executive: Punong Barangay
The katarungang pambarangay empowers the barangay to
resolve a dispute. This is similar to the jury in the western
system.
LUPONG TAGAPAMAYAPA
MEMBERS
 Punong Barangay as the Chairman
 Ten to twenty members
o Constituted by the punong barangay. PB
appoints the member.
o Minimum: 10 members
o Maximum: 20 members
Note: The Lupon shall be constituted every three years in the
manner provided in the LGC.
QUALIFICATIONS OF A LUPON MEMBER
 Person actually residing or working in the barangay
 Not otherwise expressly disqualified by law
 Possessing integrity, impartiality, independence of
mind, sense of fairness, reputation for probity
Form of Appointment:
 In writing;
 Signed by the punong barangay; and
 Attested to by the barangay secretary.
 List of appointed members shall be posted in three
conspicuous places in the barangay for the entire
duration of their term of office
 For barangays where majority of the inhabitants
are members of indigenous cultural communities,
local systems of settling disputes shall be
recognized
18
FUNCTIONS OF THE LUP ON
 Administrative supervision over the conciliation
panels;
 Meet regularly once a month to provide a forum for
exchange of ideas among its members and the
public on matters relevant to the amicable
settlement of disputes, and to enable various
conciliation panel members to share with one
another their observations and experiences in
effecting speedy resolution of disputes; and
 Exercise other powers and perform such other
duties and functions prescribed by law
PANGKAT NG TAGAPAGKASUNDO
 The conciliation panel constituted for each dispute
brought before the lupon
 Three members from the lupon to be chosen by the
parties. If the parties fail to agree on the members,
the determination shall be through lots drawn by
the chairman.
 Three members shall choose among themselves the
chairman and the secretary.
EVERY DISPUTE MUST B E INSTITUTED WITH THE
LUPON
It is a required condition precedent otherwise the
complainant cannot file a complaint with the court. It can be
a ground for dismissal that can be alleged by the defendant.
 Initiatory Pleading:
o Can be in any form.
o May be orally given or in writing.
o If orally given, it is the obligation of the
punong barangay to reduce the claim in
writing.
JURISDICTION OF THE LUPON
Lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring
together the parties actually residing in the same city of
municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except
the following:
1. One of the parties is a government, or any
subdivision or instrumentality thereof;
2. One of the party is a public official or employee
and the dispute relates to the performance of
his official functions;
3. Where the dispute involves real property
located in different cities and municipalities,
unless the parties agree to submit their
difference to an amicable settlement by an
appropriate Lupon;
4. Any complaint by or against corporations,
partnerships, or juridical entities since only
individuals shall be parties to barangay
conciliation proceedings either as complainants
or respondents;
5. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in
barangays of different cities or municipalities,
except where such barangay is adjoined by
each other and the parties agree to submit to
Lupon
6. Offenses for which the law prescribes a
maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding
one year or a fine over P5,000.00;
7. Offenses where there is no private offended
party; and
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary
to prevent injustice from being committed or
further continued.
VENUE OF DISPUTES
 Between persons actually residing in the same
barangay- before the lupon of the said barangay
 Actual residents of different barangay but within
the same city of municipality- brought in the
barangay where the respondent to any of the
respondents actually resides, at election of the
complainant
 Disputes involving the real property or any
interest- shall be brought in the barangay where the
real property is situated
 Disputes arising at the workplace where the
contending parties are employed or at the
institution where such parties are enrolled for
study- brought in the barangay where the
workplace or instituted is located.
Note: Objection to the venue shall be raised in the mediation
proceedings before the punong barangay, otherwise, it shall
be deemed waived.
Legal questions which may confront the punong barangay
in resolving objections to the venue can be referred to the
Secretary of Justice or his duly designated representative
whose ruling shall be binding.
PROCEDURE
1. Filing of the initiatory pleading.
2. Mediation by the Lupon Chairman. Personal
confrontation in order for the parties to come
up with compromise or amicable settlement
3. If mediation is successful, a certification shall be
issued to that effect. However if mediation is
not successful, conciliation proceedings shall
take place. If the parties still failed to settle, a
Certification to file an action shall be issued, or
the process of arbitration shall commence.
4. Arbitration- the parties are required to come up
with an agreement.
FORM OF SETTLEMENT
 in writing;
 in a language known to by the parties;
 attested by the Lupon
A settlement has an effect of judgment in court if not
repudiated within 10 days.
Repudiation is made through a written statement of
repudiation but only on grounds of fraud, mistake, or
intimidation.
EXECUTION
 within 6 months from date of settlement
o enforced by the Lupon
 lapse of 6 months from date of settlement
o enforced by action in the appropriate city
or municipal court
19
UY V. CONTRERAS GR N O. 111416
Facts: Felicidad Uy subleased from Susanna Atayde the other
half of the second floor of a building located at the corner of
Reposo and Oliman Streets, Makati, Metro Manila. Uy
operated and maintained a beauty parlor. The sublease
expired on April 15, 1993, however, Uy was not able to
remove all her movables. An argument between Uy and
Atayde occurred on April 17, 1993 when Uy sought to
withdraw her movables. The argument turned into a scuffle,
including Winne Javier. Atayde and Javier had themselves
medically examined for the injuries. An information for slight
physical injuries were filed against Uy in the Prosecutor’s
office. She was ordered to submit a counter-affidavit. Uy
contended that the criminal cases were prematurely filed for
there is an ongoing conciliation proceeding between her and
the respondents. She attached the certification of the
barangay captain of Valenzuela, Makati. She later filed a
Motion to Dismiss for non-compliance with the requirement
of prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa udner PD No.
1508 and pursuant to Sec. 18 of the 1991 Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure. The motion to dismiss was denied,
however.
Issue: Is the criminal charge subject to the jurisdiction of the
Lupong Tagapamayapa?
Ruling: Yes. PD 1508 has been repealed by the Local
Government Code of 1991. The requirement of prior referral
to the lupon is a pre-condition to the filing of an action in
court. Such was substantially reproduced in the LGC. The
non-compliance is, however, not jurisdictional (it will not
deprive the court of its jurisdiction over the subject matter
or over the person, but if raised as an issue before the court,
then dismissal is the proper action). In this case, Uy and
Atayde only had PD 1508 in mind as the law, and none knew
of the repeal of the LGC. No complaint for slight physical
injuries could be validly filed with the MTC at any time before
April 28, 1993 for the parties already scheduled a mediation
at the barangay. Thus, the motion to dismiss should have
been granted by the Judge.
ABAGATNAN V. SPOUSES CLARITO, GR NO. 211966
Wenceslao Abagatnan and his wide, Lydia Capote, acquired
a parcel of land located at Barangay Cogon, Roxas City from
Mateo and Soterana Clarito (spouses Clarito) executed by a
Deed of Absolute Sale on August 1, 1967. Lydia died, leaving
her children to succeed her portion of the property. Sps.
Clarito approached Wenceslao to ask for permission to
construct a residential house for Jonathan, a distant relative.
Wenceslao permitted them to do so, subject to the condition
that they will vacate once will use the land. Wenceslao and
his children later sold portions of the property which was still
being occupied by sps. Clarito. They offered to sell to sps.
Clarito but was refused. A complaint for unlawful detainer
was filed in the MTC, alleging that prior barangay conciliation
proceedings are not required as a pre-condition for filing of
the case in court for not all petitioners are residents of Roxas
City. Jimmy Abagatnan resided in Laguna while Jenalyn A. De
Leon resided in Pasig City.
Issue: Is the prior barangay conciliation requirement under
the LGC required even when all the real parties in interest do
not reside in the same city of municipality?
Ruling: No. A case to be referred for conciliation before the
Lupon as a precondition to its filing in court applies only to
those cases where the real parties-in-interest actually reside
in the same city or municipality. In this case, the complaint
filed alleged that not all the real parties actually reside in
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS
Roxas City. Thus, Lupon has no jurisdiction over their
dispute, and prior referral of the case is not a precondition
to its filing in court. Even when the parties authorized their
sister to reside in Roxas to act as their attorney-in-fact, the
residence of their attorney-in-fact is irrelevant insofar as
actual residence requirement under the LGC for prior
barangay conciliation is concerned.
SEBASTIAN V. LAGMAY GR NO. 164594
Facts: Angelita Lagmay was the attorney-in-fact of her
daughter, Annabel Lagmay. Angelita filed a complaint before
the barangay justice of Siclong, Laur, Nueva Ecija to collect
from Michael Sebastian P350,000. Michael and Annabel
were once sweethearts, and they agreed to jointly invest
their financial resources to buy a truck. While Annabel was
working in HongKong, she sent the amount to Michael for
the purchase of the truck. When their relationship ended,
Michael refused to return the money to Annabel. On July 9,
1997, the parties entered into an amicable settlement
wherein Michael agrees to pay Annabel the amount of
P250,000 on specific dates. The Kasunduan was signed by
Angelita, Michael, and the pangkat ng tagapagkasundo.
When Michael failed to comply with the Kasunduan, Angelita
brought the matter back to the Barangay but the Punong
Barangay failed to enforce the kasunduan, and instead
issued a certification to file action.
One and a half years from the date of execution of
kasunduan, Angelita filed with the MTC a Motion for
Execution of the Kasunduan. Michael moved for the
dismissal of the Motion for Execution for Angelito allegedly
violated Section 15, Rule 13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
MTC decided in favor of Angelita. Michael contended that a
hearing was necessary to establish the genuineness of the
kasunduan.
Issue: Should there be a hearing before the kasunduan can
be enforced by the courts?
Ruling: No. An amicable settlement or arbitration award that
is not repudiated within a period of 10 days from the
settlement may be enforced by: first, execution by the
Lupon within 6 months from the date of the settlement; or
second, by an action in the appropriate city or municipal trial
court if more than 6 months from the date of settlement has
already elapsed.
Under the first mode of enforcement, the execution of an
amicable settlement could be done on mere motion of the
party entitled thereto before the Punong Barangay. The
proceedings in this case are summary in nature and are
governed by the Local Government Code and the
Katarungang Pambarangay Implementing Rules and
Regulations. The second mode of enforcement, on the other
hand, is judicial in nature and could only be resorted to
through the institution of an action in a regular form before
the proper City/Municipal Trial Court. The proceedings shall
be governed by the provisions of the Rules of Court.
Note: In this case, Angelita filed before the MTC a motion for
execution rather than a petition or complaint for execution.
Although the body of the motion contains material
requirements of an initiatory action, the motion is held to be
sufficient in form and substance for the court to deem it as a
motion for execution.
The kasunduan has the force and effect of a final judgment.
No repudiation was done within the period provided in the
rules.
20
AQUINO V. AURE GR NO. 153567, FEB. 18, 2008
Facts: Aure and Aure Lending filed a complaint for ejectment
against Aquino before the MTC. Aure Lending alleged that
they acquired the parcel of land from Aquino and her
husband, Manuel, by virtue of a Deed of Sale on June 4, 1996.
Aure alleged that after Aquino received substantial
consideration for the sale, they refused to vacate the
property. The MTC dismissed the case for non-compliance
with the barangay conciliation process. Aure and Aquino
were residents of the same barangay but they did not
attempt to settle the case amicably at the barangay level.
The RTC affirmed the dismissal, stressing that the barangay
conciliation process is a condition sine qua non for filing of
an ejectment complaint involving residents of the same
barangay. Aquino contended that failure to resort to
barangay conciliation makes the action for ejectment
premature, and thus dismissible.
Issue: Is the non-compliance with the barangay conciliation
proceedings is a jurisdictional defect that warrants dismissal
of the complaint?
Ruling: No. The conciliation process is not a jurisdictional
requirement so that non-compliance therewith cannot
affect the jurisdiction which the court has otherwise
acquired over the subject matter or over the person of the
defendant. Aquino cannot be allowed to attack the
jurisdiction of the MeTC over the case after having
submitted herself voluntarily thereto. She did not raise in
defense any lack of conciliation proceedings in her answer,
which raises the exclusive affirmative defense of simulation,
thus she is deemed to have waived such objection.
Consequently, Aquino cannot thereafter move for the
dismissal of the ejectment suit for Aure and Aure Lending's
failure to resort to the barangay conciliation process, since
she is already precluded from doing so. The fact that Aquino
raised such objection during the pre-trial and in her Position
Paper is of no moment, for the issue of non-recourse to
barangay mediation proceedings should be impleaded in her
Answer.
PASCUAL V. PASCUAL G R NO. 15830, NOV. 30 , 2005
Facts:
RTC:
Dante filed a civil case against his sister Marilou, for the
annulment of a TCT, Deed of Absolute Sale, and for the
reconveyance of property with damages.
 Dante is a permanent resident of the U.S., who
appointed Sagario as his attorney-in-fact through
an SPA.
Marilou filed a motion to dismiss.
 There was non-compliance with requirement of
the LGC that there must have been a
confrontation before the Lupon Chairman or
Pangkat, before filing a claim in court.
 There is no showing that the dispute was referred
to barangay court before the case was filed.
RTC granted the respondent's motion to dismiss.
 Where real property or interest therein is
involved, the dispute shall be filed before the
barangay where the property is located,
regardless of the residence of the parties.
 Ordinarily non-compliance with the condition
precedent could affect the sufficiency of the
cause of action and allow the complaint to be
 LAW ON MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS

vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground

of lack of cause of action or prematurity.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.
 The court was of the opinion that the attorney-in-
fact shall be deemed the real party in interest, he
was therefore obliged to bring the case before the
barangay.
SC:
Dante elevated the case straight to the SC, questioning
the "palpable legal errors' of the RTC.
 Petitioner argues that, he, not his attorney in fact
is the real party in interest, since he resides
abroad, the lupon would have no jurisdiction.
Ruling:
The pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code
read:
SEC. 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement;
Exception Thereto.—The lupon of each barangay shall
have authority to bring together the parties actually
residing in the same city or municipality for amicable
settlement of all disputes except:
(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in
barangays of different cities or municipalities, except
where such barangay units adjoin each other and the
parties thereto agree to submit their differences to
amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;
In the 1982 case of Tavora v. Veloso, this Court held that
where the parties are not actual residents in the same city
or municipality or adjoining barangays, there is no
requirement for them to submit their dispute to the lupon
as provided for in Section 6 vis-a-vis Sections 2 and 3 of
P.D. 1508
By express statutory inclusion and exclusion, the Lupon
shall have no jurisdiction over disputes where the parties
are not actual residents of the same city or municipality,
except where the barangays in which they actually reside
adjoin each other.
To construe the express statutory requirement of actual
residency as applicable to the attorney-in-fact of the party-
plaintiff, as contended by respondent, would abrogate the
meaning of a “real party in interest” as defined in Section
2 of Rule 314 of the 1997 Rules of Court vis-a-vis Section
3 of the same Rule which was earlier quoted but misread
and misunderstood by respondent.
In fine, since the plaintiff-herein petitioner, the real party
in interest, is not an actual resident of the barangay where
the defendant-herein respondent resides, the local lupon
has no jurisdiction over their dispute, hence, prior referral
to it for conciliation is not a pre-condition to its filing in
court.
The RTC thus erred in dismissing petitioner’s complaint.

21