MARCITA MAMBA PEREZ, 

vs COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and RODOLFO

E. AGUINALDO 

G.R. No. 133944. October 28, 1999

FACTS

On March 26, 1998, private respondent filed his certificate of candidacy

for Representative of the Third District of Cagayan in the May 11, 1998
elections. Four days later, on March 30, 1998, Petitioner, as a voter and
citizen, filed in the COMELEC a petition for the disqualification of private
respondent as a candidate on the ground that he had not been a resident of the
district for at least one (1) year immediately before the day of the elections as
required by Art. VI, 6 of the Constitution.

In support of her claim, petitioner presented private respondents

certificates of candidacy1 for governor of Cagayan in the 1988, 1992, and 1995
elections; his voters affidavit2 which he used in the 1987, 1988, 1992, 1995,
and 1997 elections; and his voter registration record dated June 22, 1997, 3 in
all of which it is stated that he is a resident of Barangay Calaoagan Dackel,
Municipality of Gattaran, which is outside the Third District of Cagayan.
Petitioner alleged that private respondent filed an application for the transfer of
his registration as voter from Gattaran, Cagayan to Tuguegarao, Cagayan only
on December 17, 1997 and that said application was approved only on
January 7, 1998. Petitioner prayed that in the event the case was not finally
decided before the elections and private respondent obtained the highest
number of votes, the latters proclamation be suspended.

In his answer, private respondent claimed that while he had been a resident of
Gattaran, Cagayan in 1990, he transferred his residence to Tuguegarao,
Cagayan by renting an apartment at Magallanes St. Tuguegarao, Cagayan, in
order to hide his mistress from public view because, at that time, his marriage
to his former wife was still subsisting. In support of his claim, he presented the
affidavit of the owner of the apartment, Engineer Alfredo Ablaza, in which it is
stated that private respondent had been his lessee since July 1990. He claim
that he had been a resident of Tuguegarao, Cagayan for at least one (1) year
before the May 11, 1998 elections.

On May 10, 1998, the First Division of the COMELEC, in a unanimous

resolution, dismissed the petition for disqualification, finding private
respondent Aguinaldo qualified to run as representative

On May 11, 1998, private respondent was elected Representative of the

Third District of Cagayan.

On May 22, 1998, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but

denied by the COMELEC en banc in its resolution .Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition

for certiorari and eventually pass upon private respondents eligibility for the
office of Representative of the Third District of Cagayan?
 HELD

NO. As already stated, petitioner still filed a motion for reconsideration

on May 22, 1998, which the COMELEC en banc denied. Clearly, this could not
be done. Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6646 authorizes the continuation of proceedings for
disqualification even after the elections if the respondent has not been
proclaimed. The COMELEC en banc had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion
because the proclamation of private respondent barred further consideration of
petitioners action.

The court also has no jurisdiction over the same. Pursuant to Art. VI, section
17 of the 1987 Constitution, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
has the exclusive original jurisdiction over the petition for the declaration of
private respondents ineligibility.

In any event, even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction to resolve the
instant petition for certiorari, we find no merit in petitioners allegation that
private respondent is ineligible for the office of Representative of the Third
District of Cagayan.

Art. VI, 6 of the Constitution states:

No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a

natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at
least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list
representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected,
and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately
preceding the day of the election.

The meaning and purpose of the residency requirement were explained in

one case decided by the Supreme court which ruled that what is required by
law when speak of residency is domicile and not permanent home.

In the case at bar, the COMELEC found that private respondent changed
his residence from Gattaran to Tuguegarao, the capital of Cagayan, in July
1990 on the basis of the following:

(1) the affidavit of Engineer Alfredo Ablaza, the owner of the residential
apartment at 13-E Magallanes St. Tuguegarao, Cagayan, where private
respondent had lived in 1990;

(2) the contract of lease between private respondent, as lessee, and

Tomas T. Decena, as lessor, of a residential apartment at Kamias St., Tanza,
Tuguegarao, Cagayan, for the period July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996;

(3) the marriage certificate, dated January 18, 1998, between private
respondent and Lerma Dumaguit;

(4) the certificate of live birth of private respondents second daughter;

and

(5) various letters addressed to private respondent and his family, which
all show that private respondent was a resident of Tuguegarao, Cagayan for at
least one (1) year immediately preceding the elections on May 11, 1998.
There is thus substantial evidence supporting the finding that private
respondent had been a resident of the Third District of Cagayan and there is
nothing in the record to detract from the merit of this factual finding.

CECILIO RAFAEL, doing business under the style EL BARATO ALCE

COMPANY
vs.
THE EMBROIDERY AND APPAREL CONTROL AND INSPECTION BOARD, ET
AL., respondents. THE EMBROIDERY AND APPAREL CONTROL AND
INSPECTION BOARD, and THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FINANCE
DOMINADOR AYTONA

G.R. No. L-19978 September 29, 1967

FACTS

In 1961 RA 3137 was passed. This law create the embroidery and apparel
control and inspection board. Under the section 2 of such the board shall
compose of:

1 a representative from the Bureau of customs to act as a chairman;

2 a representatative form the central bank;
3 A representative from department of commerce
4 Representative from national economic council;
5 A representative from the private sector coming from the association of
embroidery and apparel exporters of the Philippines.

Later in the performance of its duties, the EACI mad certain assessment
against Rafael but the latter refused to comply. Rafael sued EACIB and he
averred that TA 3137 is unconstitutional for while Congress may create an
office it cannot specify who shall be appointed therein ;That the members of the
EACIB can only be appointed by the President in accordance with Article 7
section 10 (2)

ISSUE

Whether or not RA 3137 bypassed the appointing power of the president?

HELD

NO. The Supreme Court noted that indeed “the appointing power is the
exclusive prerogative of the President, upon which no limitation maybe
impose by Congress ,except those resulting from the need of securing the
concurrence of the Commission on appointments and form the exercise of
the limited power to prescribe the qualifications to the given appointive
office.

In this case the representative in the EACIB are not appointed by the
Department heads, they are merely going to be designated hence whoever
was designated was merely sitting as an ex-officio member.
 FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 153809 : July 27, 2011]

ELOISA L. TOLENTINO, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. ROY M. LOYOLA,

MUNICIPAL MAYOR, DOMINGO C. FLORES, MUNICIPAL BUDGET
OFFICER, ALICIA L. OLIMPO, MUNICIPAL TREASURER, ANNALIZA L.
BARABAT, MUNICIPAL ACCOUNTANT, AMADOR B. ALUNIA, MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATOR, NENITA L. ERNACIO, MUNICIPAL AGRICULTURIST,
AMELIA C. SAMSON, HUMAN RESOURCE OFFICER IV, EDWIN E.
TOLENTINO, COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OFFICER IV, DOMINGO R.
TENEDERO AND ROEL Z. MANARIN, SANGGUNIANG BAYAN (SB)
MEMBERS, ALL FROM CARMONA, CAVITE, RESPONDENTS.

DECISION

The facts of this case, as narrated in the assailed Court of Appeals ruling, are as
follows:

On November 9, 1999, the petitioner filed a Complaint-Affidavit charging respondents

with Violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, for Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Public
Documents and, administratively, for Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, Gross Neglect of
Duty, and Falsification of Official Documents.

The complaint averred that in a letter dated October 6, 1998, respondent Municipal
Mayor Roy M. Loyola requested the Sangguniang Bayan of Carmona, Cavite for the
creation of twenty-four (24) unappropriated positions for the inclusion in the 1998
Plantilla, to wit

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR

One (1) Computer Programmer III - SG - 18

One (1) Licensing Officer II - SG - 15

GENERAL SERVICE OFFICE

One (1) Supply Officer III - SG - 18

Eight (8) Driver I - SG - 3
Two (2) Utility I - SG - 1

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OFFICE

One (1) HRM Officer II - SG - 15

TREASURER'S OFFICE

One (1) Local Rev. Coll. Officer II - SG - 15

ACCOUNTING OFFICE

One (1) Bookkeeper II - SG - 9

ENRO

Two (2) Environment Mngt. Specialist II - SG - 15

One (1) Clerk III - SG - 6

DA

Agriculture Chief Center IV - SG - 18

Farm Foreman - SG - 6
Three (3) Farm Worker II - SG - 4

On November 23, 1998, the Sangguniang Bayan of Carmona, Cavite passed Municipal
Resolution approving the creation of only 19 out of the 24 requested positions, under
the different offices of the Municipality of Carmona for inclusion in the 1998 Plantilla of
Personnel. The following proposed positions were set aside:

DA

Agriculture Chief Center IV - SG - 18

Farm Foreman - SG - 6
Three (3) Farm Worker II - SG - 4

Despite the disapproval of the aforesaid positions, on April 5, 1999, the Personnel
Selection Board presided by the respondent Municipal Mayor as Chairman with Amelia
C. Samson, HRMO V, as Secretary, together with the following respondents - Board
Members: Edwin E. Tolentino, Domingo R. Tenedero and Roel Z. Manarin, filled-up the
aforesaid inexistent positions and appointed the following:

1. Irene C. Paduyos - Farm Foreman

2. Mustiola A. Mojica - Farm Worker II
3. Ma. Cecilia F. Alumia - Farm Worker II
4. Lilibeth R. Bayugo - Farm Worker II

The appointment papers of the aforesaid personnel were subsequently approved by the
Civil Service Commission.

Thereafter, respondents Budget Officer Domingo C. Flores, Municipal Treasurer Alicia L.

Olimpo, Municipal Accountant Annaliza L. Barabat, Municipal Agriculturist Nenita L.
Ernacio and Municipal Administrator Amador B. Alumia, allowed and caused the
payment of salaries of the aforesaid employees.

The petitioner further alleged that by the respondents' concerted efforts to make it
appear that the inexistent positions were created, causing the unlawful payment of
salaries to illegally appointed employees, the respondents are liable for malversation of
public funds thru falsification of public documents. Likewise, the respondents are
allegedly liable administratively for gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct, dishonesty
and falsification of official documents.

On May 23, 2000, upon recommendation of the OIC Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon
Emilio A. Gonzales III, Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto ordered the dismissal of the
instant administrative Complaint for lack of merit. The respondent moved for a
reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision which the respondents opposed. The said
motion for reconsideration was however denied.

Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE
 Whether or not the CA erred in upholding that the finding of the Ombudsman is final
and executory?

HELD

NO. The Court of Appeals did not committed an error in holding as such?

Section 27. Effectivity and Finality of Decisions. All provisionary orders of the Office of
the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory.

Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial

evidence are conclusive. Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of public
censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one (1) month's salary shall be final
and unappealable.
However if there was a grave abused of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the Ombudsman the Court may intervene. Constitution whose
Section 1, Article VIII empowers the courts of justice to determine whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

In the case at bar, the petitioner did not file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
of the Rules of Court and instead filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules
of Court with the Court of Appeals.  The latter is effectively an appeal to the Court of
Appeals which is disallowed by the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman
as well as the Ombudsman Act in case the respondent is exonerated by the
Ombudsman for an administrative charge.

In any event, the instant petition failed to show any grave abuse of discretion or any
reversible error on the part of the Ombudsman in issuing its assailed administrative
decision, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which would compel this Court to
overturn it.

The Court quotes with approval the findings and conclusion of the assailed
Ombudsman ruling which was also adopted by the Court of Appeals:

The Supreme Court believe that the questioned positions had been created under the
circumstances. Evidence shows that on October 6, 1998, respondent Mayor Loyola
requested the Sanggunian to create twenty-four (24) positions by including the same in
the 1998 plantilla. Such creation has been taken up by the Sanggunian in its session
and traces of  favorable action thereon has been shown in the minutes of the
Sanggunian session held on November 19, 1998 when the 1999 Annual Budget was
taken up Though the four (4) positions had not been created by a separate ordinance,
its creation has been made when the Sanggunian included them in the 1999 Plantilla of
Positions under Ordinance enacting the 1999 Annual Budget.

In the case at bar, the 24 new positions were included in Ordinance No. 006-98
enacting the 1999 Annual Budget.  Subsequently, the Sangguniang Bayan later
affirmed the creation of all questioned positions in separate resolutions and continued
to include the said positions in the appropriations in subsequent budget ordinances. It is
likewise undisputed that the questioned appointments were all approved by the Civil
Service Commission.

In view of the foregoing, petitioner's underlying premise for her administrative

complaint the alleged non-creation of the subject positions, cannot be upheld and thus,
it is no longer necessary to pass upon the remaining corollary issues of the instant
petition.

PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA (PLM), ,

vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (CSC), PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG
MAYNILA FACULTY ORGANIZATION (PLMFO), ROBERTO AMORES,
ROLANDO AUSTRIA, VICENTE BANAGALE, NEMENCIO CABATUANDO,
MANOLO HINA, ELEANOR JIMENEZ, ANITA LEYSON, JONATHAN
MANZANO, JOSE MEJIA, ESTELITA PINEDA, LORDEO POQUIZ, ALFREDO
RAZON, MA. ZELDA REYES, SALVACION RODRIGUEZ, BELINDA SANTOS,
and VIRGILIO ZAMORA R. No. 107590 February 21, 1995

FACTS

Petitioner Pamantasan na lunsod ng Maynila (PLM )sent notices of termination

to the private respondents. The 16 employees filed a verified complaint before
the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for illegal dismissal and unfair labor
practice against the PLM. The Public respondent CSC referred the case to the
Public Sector labor management council (PSLMC). PSLMC through Med-arbiter
Hope Ruiz rendered her resolution found petitioner guilty for unfair labor
practice and for illegal termination of 16 employees.

PSLMC transmitted the back the case to CSC since there was a motion for
reconsideration filed by PLM. The said motion was denied by CSC.

The PLM assailed the jurisdiction of PSLMC and CSC , that they only exercising
quasi-judicial function before Court of appeals by a certiorari. It was found out
by the court that the main reason of termination of 16 workers is because of
their affiliation with PLMFO an organization which not in good terms with PLM.

ISSUE

Whether or not PLM committed unfair labor practice; and whether the 16
employees are illegally dismissed?

HELD

Yes. The PLM illegally dismissed the workers and committed unfair labor
practice.

1987 Constitution Provides that every employee whether temporary of

enjoy security of tenure has the right to form organization or association for the
purpose not contrary to law.

The PLM illegally terminated the employees on account its self-

organization. The members of PLMFO cannot be dismissed for simple reason of
its membership in the said organization.