Regpala, Regino R.

Local Government
JD1

G. R. No. 137718 - January 28, 2000

REYNALDO O. MALONZO, in his capacity as City Mayor of Caloocan City, 

OSCAR MALAPITAN, in his capacity as Vice-Mayor of Caloocan City, 
CHITO ABEL, BENJAMIN MANLAPIG, EDGAR ERICE, DENNIS PADILLA, ZALDY
DOLATRE, LUIS TITO VARELA, SUSANA PUNZALAN, HENRY CAMAYO, in their
capacities as Members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Caloocan
City, Petitioners

VS.

HON. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, 

HON. RONALDO V. PUNO, in his capacity as Undersecretary of the Department of
Interior and Local Government, and EDUARDO TIBOR, Respondents

Statement of Facts:
On March 15, 1999, the Office of the President (OP) through Executive
Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, rendered a decision to petitioners as guilty of
misconduct and each is meted the penalty of suspension from office for a period
of three (3) months without pay to commence upon receipt of the said decision.
The respondents contends that Caloocan City Ordinance No. 0254, Series of
1998 was enacted without sufficient compliance with Section 50, Chapter 3, Title
II of the Local Government Code of 1991 and that petitioners' failure to observe
the stricture in the enactment of the Supplemental Budget Ordinance constitutes
misconduct.

Statement of the Case:

This is a petition for review through a special civil action for certiorari

seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision the Office of the President (OP) Case
No. 98-H-8520 on March 15, 1999.

Issues:

1. Whether or not Ordinance No. 0254, Series of 1998 was enacted without
sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 50, Chapter 3, Title II of the
Local Government Code of 1991 requiring that house rules be adopted or
updated.
2. Whether or not the enactment of the supplemental budget were
irregular since there was undue haste in conducting the three readings of
Ordinance No. 0254, Series of 1998, in one session day.

Ruling:
1. No. The records satisfactorily show that the Sanggunniang took up the
matter of adopting a set of house rules in its general meeting entitled, "Katitikan
ng Karaniwang Pulong ng Sangguniang Panlungsod na ginanap noong ika 2 ng
Hulyo 1998 sa Bagong Gusali ng Pamahalaang Lungsod ng Caloocan." During said
meeting, the Sangguniang created an Ad Hoc Committee composed of seven (7)
members to study the existing house rules. Thereafter, it enacted Ordinance No.
0254, Series of 1998.
Such succession of events is legally permissible. The law does not require
the completion of the updating or adoption of the internal rules of procedure
before the Sangguniang could act on any other matter like the enactment of an
ordinance. It simply requires that the matter of adopting or updating the internal
rules of procedure be taken up during the first day of session. It would be
inequitable to read something more into the requirement of the law and use it as
a basis for finding petitioners guilty of misconduct, especially when the charge is
serious enough to warrant a penalty of suspension from office for three (3)
months without pay.
2. No. There is nothing in the law, however, which prohibits that the three
readings of a proposed ordinance be held in just one session day. And it certainly
is not the function of this Court to speculate that the Councilors were not given
ample time for reflection and circumspection before the passage of the proposed
ordinance by conducting the three readings in just one day considering that it was
a certain Eduardo Tibor, by himself as taxpayer, and not the Councilors
themselves, who raised such complaint. It might not be amiss to point out that
the salaries of the city employees were to be funded by the said ordinance which
embodied the supplemental budget for 1998, hence, the urgency for its passage.
Even the five (5) Councilors who abstained from voting for the passage of
Ordinance 0254, Series of 1998 took advantage of its benefits by submitting to the
office of petitioner Malonzo the names of the employees assigned to their
respective offices for salary and accounting purposes.
The Court granted the petition. The assailed decision of the office of the
president in O.P. Case No. 98-H-8520 dated March 15, 1999 is annulled and set
aside for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
and/or excess of jurisdiction.
Doctrine/Principles:

Section 50. Internal Rules of Procedure. -

(a) On the first regular session following the election of its members
and within ninety (90) days thereafter, the Ssangguniang concerned shall
adopt or update its existing rules of procedure.

(b) The rules of procedure shall provided for the following:

(1) The organization of the Sangguniang and the election of its

officers as well as the creation of standing committees which shall
include, but shall not be limited to, the committees on
appropriations, women and family, human rights, youth and sports
development, environmental protection, and cooperatives; the
general jurisdiction of each committee; and the election of the
chairman and members of each committee;

(2) The order and calendar of business for each session;

(3) The legislative process;

(4) The parliamentary procedures which include the conduct of

members during sessions;

(5) The discipline of members for disorderly behavior and

absences without justifiable cause for four (4) consecutive sessions,
for which they may be censured, reprimanded, or excluded from the
session, suspended for not more than sixty (60) days, or expelled:
Provided, That the penalty of suspension or expulsion shall require
the concurrence of at least two-thirds (2/3) vote of all the
Sangguniang members: Provided, further, That a member convicted
by final judgment to imprisonment of at least one (1) year for any
crime involving moral turpitude shall be automatically expelled from
the Sangguniang; and

(6) Such other rules as the Sangguniang may adopt.

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
Sangguniang.
There is nothing in the law which prohibits the conduct of three readings
of a proposed ordinance from being held in just one session.