G.R. No.

154512 November 12, 2002

VICTORINO DENNIS M. SOCRATES, Mayor of Puerto Princesa City, petitioner,

vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondents.

Nature of the case: Petition for certiorari, special civil action in the Supreme Court.

SC Decision: The petition is denied because the categorical language of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC leaves no
room for doubt

Legal Doctrine: The term of office of one who is elected in a special election is considered one term for
purposes of determining the three consecutive terms. Socrates vs. Commission on Elections, 391 SCRA
457, G.R. No. 154512, G.R. No. 154683, G.R. Nos. 155083-84 November 12, 2002

FACTS:

The Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA), which was formed by 312 out of the 528 incumbent
barangay officials of Puerto Princesa, initiated the recall of Victorino Dennis M. Socrates who had
assumed office as the mayor of the city after winning the regular election on June 30,2001. They passed
a resolution which declared its loss of confidence in Socrates and called for his recall. Socrates then filed
with the COMELEC a petition to nullify the Recall Resolution, which the COMELEC en banc dismissed for
lack of merit.

Previous mayor, Edward M. Hagedorn filled his certificate of candidacy for mayor in the recall election
scheduled on September 24, 2002. Two petitions were filed before the COMELEC to disqualify Hagedorn
from running in the recall election and to cancel his certificate of candidacy on the ground that the
Constitution automatically disqualifies him from running for a fourth consecutive term, since he was
already elected and served as mayor of the city for three (3) consecutive full terms immediately prior to
the instant recall election.

Said petitions were consolidated by COMELEC although, its First Divisiondismissed it afterwards for lack
of merit. COMELEC declared Hagedorn qualified to run in the recall election. Previous petitioners filed
another resolution this time aimed at denying the motion for reconsideration. This was later denied by
COMELEC en banc, thus affirming the resolution which made Hagedorn qualified to run in the recall
election.

These petitions were elevated to and consolidated by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, Hagedorn
won the recall election, garnering 20,238 votes, 3,018 votes over his closest opponent, the current
mayor, Socrates.

ISSUES:
 1. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the Recall
Resolution and scheduling the recall election for mayor of Puerto Princesa.

2. Whether Hagedorn is qualified to run for mayor in the recall election of Puerto Princesa.

RULING:

COMELEC found that the proponents for the Recall of incumbent City Mayor sent notices of the
convening of the PRA to the members thereof pursuant to Section 70 of the Local Government Code of
1991. Furthermore, the petition underwent scrutiny from various levels – the City Election Officer of
Puerto Princesa City, the Provincial Election Supervisor of Palawan and the Acting Director IV, Region IV
of COMELEC – all of which individually conducted a review of the petition and unanimously reached the
conclusion that the PRA was validly constituted and that the majority of all members thereof approved
Resolution calling for the recall of Mayor Socrates.

The Supreme Court did not find any valid reason to hold the COMELEC’s findings of fact patently
erroneous; hence, they ruled that COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding the
validity of the Recall Resolution.

Furthermore, the Court held that Hagedorn is qualified to run in the September 24, 2002 recall election
for mayor of Puerto Princesa because:

1. What the Contitution clearly prohibits is an immediate reelection for a fourth term following three
consecutive terms. Since Hagedorn is not running for immediate reelection following his three
consecutive terms as mayor which ended on June 30, 2001, his candidacy and reelection are
permissible;

2. Hagedorn's continuity of service as mayor was involuntarily interrupted from June 30, 2001 to
September 24, 2002 during which time he was a private citizen. Therefore, his candidacy in the recall
election is not an immediate reelection after his third consecutive term;

3. Hagedorn's recall term from September 24, 2002 to June 30, 2004 cannot be made to retroact to June
30, 2001 to make a fourth consecutive term because factually the recall term is not a fourth consecutive
term; and

4. Term limits should be construed strictly to give the fullest possible effect to the right of the electorate
to choose their leaders.

After establishing the above conclusions, the Supreme Court ruled to dismiss the consolidated petitions,
and the temporary restraining order issued by this Court enjoining the proclamation of Hagedorn as
mayor of Puerto Princesa in the recall election of September 24, 2002 was lifted.
H
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner,

vs.

SATURNINO DE LA CRUZ, respondent.

G.R. No. 158737 August 31, 2004

NATURE OF THE CASE:

Petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court in approving Saturnino de la Cruz’
appointment as Chief of the Aviation Safety Regulation Office.

SC DECISION:

The instant petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals setting aside CSC Resolution No. 98-
2970 and CSC Resolution No. 99-1451 is AFFIRMED. The appointment of Saturnino de la Cruz as Chief
Aviation Safety Regulation Officer is APPROVED.

LEGAL DOCTRINE:

It is a well-settled rule in statutory construction that the use of the term "and/or" means that the word
"and" and the word "or" are to be used interchangeably. The word "or" is a disjunctive term signifying
dissociation and independence of one thing from another. Thus, the use of the disjunctive term "or" in
this controversy connotes that either the standard in the first clause or that in the second clause may be
applied in determining whether a prospective applicant for the position under question may qualify.

FACTS:

Saturnino de la Cruz is an employee of the Air Transportation Office, DOTC, presently holding the
position of Chief Aviation Safety Regulation Officer of the Aviation Safety Division. Respondent was
promotionally appointed to the said position on November 28, 1994, duly attested by the Civil Service
Commission (CSC). But prior thereto, he was a Check Pilot II in the Air Transportation Office (ATO).

In February 9, 1995, Annabella A. Calamba of the Aviation Security Division of the ATO formally filed
with the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) her protest against the promotional
appointment of respondent as Chief Aviation Safety Regulation Officer, claiming among others that
respondent did not meet the four-year supervisory requirement for said position. On July 20, 1995, then
DOTC Secretary Jesus B. Garcia rendered a decision finding the protest without merit. Apparently
dissatisfied, Calamba appealed the decision of the DOTC Secretary to the CSC-NCR. On October 17,
1995, Director Nelson Acebedo of CSC-NCR requested ATO Executive Director Manuel Gilo to comment
on the appeal and to submit to the CSC-NCR the documents pertinent thereto.

On November 18, 1997, the CSC-NCR rendered its decision upholding the protest of Calamba and
recalling the approval of respondent’s appointment as Chief Aviation Safety Regulation Officer. Under
date of December 11, 1997, ATO Director Gilo wrote the CSC-NCR asking for the suspension of the order
recalling respondent’s appointment, citing several reasons in support thereof.

Subsequently, a Manifestation with Motion to Admit Addendum dated December 22, 1997 was filed by
Director Gilo with the CSC-NCR. Director Gilo argued that Calamba had no legal personality to file a
protest because she is not a qualified next-in-rank and that the protest was filed out of time. He likewise
asserted that respondent had fully met the qualifications required of the position.

On January 5, 1998, CSC-NCR Director Acebedo ruled that there is no cogent reason to disturb earlier
rulings on the matter. He also denied ATO Director Gilo’s request, for lack of merit.

In a letter on January 13, 1998, CSC-NCR Director Acebedo granted Director Gilo’s request and affirmed
the approval of respondent’s appointment as Chief Aviation Safety Regulation Officer.

On November 13, 1998, the CSC rendered its Resolution No. 98-2970 stating that the appointment of
Saturnino De la Cruz as Chief Aviation Regulation Officer is disapproved. De la Cruz is hereby reverted to
his former position.

On August 11, 1999, respondent filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-
G.R. SP No. 54088, seeking to nullify CSC Resolution Nos. 98-2970 and 99-1451.

In a decision4 dated March 14, 2003, the Court of Appeals granted the petition by setting aside CSC
Resolution Nos. 98-2970 and 99-1451 and approving respondent’s appointment as Chief of the Aviation
Safety Regulation Office.

ISSUE:

Whether the CA erred in approving respondent’s appointment as Chief Aviation Safety Regulation
Officer despite his failure to meet the minimum four-year managerial and supervisory qualification for
the position

RULING:

No. Dela Cruz has sufficiently complied with the required experience standards.

First, Petitioner’s insistence that respondent failed to meet the four-year managerial and supervisory
experience requirement is misplaced. It is a well-settled rule in statutory construction that the use of the
term "and/or" means that the word "and" and the word "or" are to be used interchangeably.7 The word
"or" is a disjunctive term signifying dissociation and independence of one thing from another.8 Thus, the
use of the disjunctive term "or" in this controversy connotes that either the standard in the first clause
or that in the second clause may be applied in determining whether a prospective applicant for the
position under question may qualify.

Respondent would indeed lack the required years of work experience to qualify for the contested
position if the managerial standards in the first clause above were to be strictly followed. At the time of
his permanent appointment on November 28, 1994 as Chief Aviation Safety Regulation Officer,
respondent had a little over one year of managerial experience from his designation as Acting Chief of
the Aviation Safety Division during the latter part of 1993. However, the work already rendered by
respondent in the ATO at the time of his appointment was well within the supervisory standard in the
second clause. Planning, organizing, directing, coordinating and supervising the enforcement of air
safety laws, rules and regulations pertaining to licensing, rating and checking of all airmen and
mechanics and regulation of the activities of flying schools were part of the work performed by
respondent for more than 13 years prior to his appointment.

Second, respondent’s promotional appointment was issued in accordance with petitioner’s selection
process. Respondent passed the rigid screening of the ATO Personnel Selection/Promotion Board as well
as the oral and written examinations of the DOTC Selection Board.

Third, respondent’s multifarious experiences and trainings12 in air transportation were taken into
account when he was chosen for the subject position. Respondent not only showed a continuing
interest to improve his expertise in the field of air transportation, he also acquired an Airline Transport
Pilot’s License in 1998.13 As a privileged holder of such license, respondent exercised administrative
supervision and control over pilots, cabin and crew members to ensure compliance with air safety laws,
rules and regulations

In Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 97-0191 dated January 9, 1997, it ruled thus:

"A careful evaluation of the qualifications of Josue reveals that he meets the education, training and
eligibility requirements of the position. Considering that Josue has already in his favor three (3) years
and eight (8) months experience as Senior Inspector up to the present, he has substantially satisfied the
four (4) years experience required for the appointment as Chief Inspector."

Following petitioner’s line of reasoning, respondent is deemed to have satisfactorily complied with the
experience requirement for the contested position when he was designated Chief of the ATO Operations
Center and Acting Chief of the ATO Aviation Safety Division. Having held said positions from 1993 to the
present, respondent may be considered to have acquired the necessary experience for the position.