SULTAN KUDARAT STATE UNIVERSITY

College of Law
EJC Montilla, Tacurong City

Examinations on Law on Public Officers and Administrative Law

May 5, 2020 at 3:30 pm (Online Examination)

1. JJ was an elected mayor from 2013 to 2016 of Bacoor, Cavite. In 2016

election, he lost to Carl. After his proclamation, Carl requested for an
audit investigation of the City’s financial transactions from 2013-2016 or
during JJ’s term. The audit team rendered its audit observation stating
that there are certain anomalous and irregular transactions transpired
during the covered period, the most serious being the purchase of
construction materials evidenced by Sales Invoices No. 11111 and
121111 in the aggregate amount of P54,542.56, for which payment out
of municipal funds was effected twice. JJ was charged with violation of
RA 3019 or Anti-corrupt and Practices Act. JJ argued as his defense that
he was not aware of the anomaly or irregularity regarding the double
payment and that, he just signed the voucher for payment, as the last
officer to sign the voucher, in order to effect payment thereon, to the
supplier. He further argued that and that it was the duty of the Municipal
Treasurer to verify the actual deliveries of the goods sold and their
payment afterwards. He raised the Arias Doctrine as his defense and he
acted in good faith.

a. What is the Arias Doctrine? (5 pts)

b. Is Arias Doctrine applicable to exonerate JJ from the crime
charged? Discuss. (5pts)

2. Give atleast ten (10) grounds for the discipline of public officers. (10 pts)

3. Ish was first employed by the Phil. Ports Authority (PPA) as arrastre
supervisor. Due to her good conduct, she was promoted and was
appointed as the terminal supervisor. A few years after her promotion,
Sheenah, the PPA General Manager filed an administrative case against
Ish for grave dishonesty, grave misconduct, willful violation of
reasonable office rules and regulations and conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service. Ish allegedly erroneously assessed storage
fees resulting in the loss of P38,150.77 on the part of the PPA.
Consequently, she was preventively suspended for the charges. The
case was administratively filed before Administrative Action Board. Ish
questions AAB’s jurisdiction on ground that P.D. No. 857 provides that the
General Manager shall, subject to the approval by the Board, appoint
and remove personnel below the rank of Assistant General Manager. She
filed a continuance (postponement) before the AAB. Despite said filing,
AAB proceeded to hear the case and required Ish to present evidence.
Instead of presenting her evidence, Ish filed a certiorari with injunction
before the RTC and filed a manifestation before AAB to hold in abeyance
its proceedings pending the resolution in RTC case. AAB still proceeded
to hear the case and rendered decision finding Ish guilty of the
administrative charges and her dismissal from service. Ish contenteded
that the PPA general manager cannot subject her to a preventive
suspension without the approval of the PPA board and only the PPA
board is the proper disciplining authority and not the general manager.
She further contended that AAB violated her right to due process. AAB
 argued that due process was complied with when Ish was given an
ample opportunity to present her evidence.

a. Is Ish’s preventive suspension by Sheena correct? (5 pts)

b. What is preventive suspension? (5pts)
c. Was there a violation of due process under administrative
proceeding committed by AAB? Discuss. (10 pts)

4. Give at least two distinctions of the following:

a. Ministerial powers vs discretionary powers; (5pts)

b. De facto officer vs. de jure officer (5 pts)
c. Quasi –judicial powers vs. legislative powers (5pts)
d. Term vs. Tenure (5pts)

5. Sean filed a civil case against Amiel for cancellation of certificate of title
issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform before the RTC. He
alleged that Amiel is not qualified to be a beneficiary for CARP. In his
answer to the complaint, Amiel denied the allegations of Sean and
prayed for counter-claims and attorney’s fees. The case proceeded to
trial. Amiel then realized that the complaint failed to allege that Sean
exhausted all administrative remedies before filing the case to court, he
thereafter filed for motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Sean
countered that Amiel already lost said remedy after filing of the answer
and his participation during the trial constitute as a waiver to question
the jurisdiction of the court. The RTC ruled in favour of Amiel and
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that jurisdiction being
the issue, can be raised at anytime during the trial even on appeal.

a. Is Amiel correct in raising the issue of jurisdiction after

participating in the trial of the case? (5pts)
b. Is Sean correct in stating therein that said remedy could no longer
be availed of after Amiel’s participation during the trial?(5 pts)
c. Is RTC correct in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction?
Discuss (10pts)

6. State the difference between the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the
exhaustion of administrative remedies? (10 pts)

7. Miss Universe questions aka Bonus questions: (Please be creative in

your answers)

a. What would you like to see done to improve the public’s

understanding of the importance of social distancing? Why?
(5pts)

b. What is the one feature you would change about yourself

and why? (5 pts)

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-