Consultations of the Court

City Government of Tagaytay v Guerrero

600 s 33

Facts of the case:

Tagaytay-Taal tourist development corporation (TTTDC) is the registered owner of two parcels
of land. It incurred real estate tax liabilities on the said properties for the tax years 1976 to 1983.
For failure of TTTDC to settle its delinquent real estate tax obligations, the city government of
Tagaytay offered the properties for sale at a public auction. Being the only bidder, a certificate of
sale was executed in favor of the city of Tagaytay and was correspondingly inscribed on the titles
of the properties. The city of Tagaytay filed an unnumbered petition for entry of new certificates
of title in its favor before the regional trial court (RTC) of Cavite. RTC granted the petition. The
TTTDC appealed to the ca. The subject properties were later purchased by Amuerfina Melencio-
Herrera and Miliana Melencio-Fernando (Melencios) for the amount equivalent to the taxes and
penalties due to the same. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the case before the ca, TTTDC
filed a petition for nullification of the public auction involving the disputed properties on the
ground that the properties were not within the jurisdiction of the city of Tagaytay and thus,
beyond its taxing authority. On the other hand, the city of tagaytay averred that based on its
charter, said properties are within its territorial jurisdiction. The RTC denied this motion.

Issue:

Won the city of tagaytay is liable for damages when it levied real estate taxes on the subject
properties

Ruling of the Court:

Yes. It is basic that before the city of tagaytay may levy a certain property for sale due to tax
delinquency, the subject property should be under its jurisdiction. Nonetheless, the failure of the
city officials in this case to verify if the property is within its jurisdiction before levying taxes on
the same constitutes gross negligence. The negligence of its officers in the performance of their
official functions gives rise to a an action ex contractu and quasi ex-delictu. Under the doctrine
of respondeat superior, the city of tagaytay is liable for all the necessary and natural
consequences of the negligent acts of its city officials. It is liable for the tortious acts committed
by its agents who sold the properties to the melencios despite the clear mandate of ra no 1418,
separating barrio birinayan from its jurisdiction and transferring the same to the province of
batangas. Decision affirmed with modification.
Consultations of the Court
Linkaichong VS COMELEC
594 S 434
Facts of the case:

Jocelyn Limkaichong ran as representative in the first district of Negros Oriental. Olivia Paras,
her rival, and some other concerned citizens filed disqualification cases against her. She allegedly not a
natural- born citizen of the Philippines because when she was born her father was still a Chinese citizen
though her mother was a Filipino. During the pendency of the case, election day came and votes were
cast. Limkaichong won the election. COMELEC after due hearing, declared Limkaichong disqualified, but
then, COMELEC issued a proclamation announcing Limkaichong as the winner of the recent election.
Paras countered the proclamation and she filed a petition before the COMELEC.

Issue of the case:

Whether the COMELEC should still exercise jurisdiction over the matter.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The proclamation was valid. The COMELEC second Division rendered its joint Resolution.
Limkaichong time filed with the COMELEC En Banc her motion for reconsideration as well as for lifting of
the incorporated directive suspending her proclamation. Since the execution of the Joint Resolution was
suspended. There was no impediment to the valid proclamation of Limkaichong as the winner as it was
provided by Section 2, Rule 19 of the COMELEC Rules of procedure. The HRET must exercise jurisdiction
after Limkaichong’s proclamation. The SC has held that once a winning candidate has been proclaimed,
taken his oath and assumed office as a member of the lower house, the COMELEC jurisdiction over
election contests relating to his election, returns and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction
begins. It follows then that the proclamation of winning can dictate divests the COMELEC of its
jurisdiction over matters pending before it at the time of the proclamation. The party questioning her
qualification should present his case in the proper proceeding before the HRET, the constitutionality
mandated tribunal to hear and decide a case involving a member of the House of Representatives with
respect to the latter’s election, returns and qualification.
Periods of Decision

Malacora VS Court of Appeals

117 S 435

Facts of the case

Private Respondent filed a motion of execution after a final decision made by court acting on the
motion, the respondent court entered an order of execution. The clerk of court issued a writ of
executing which commanded petitioners to pay plaintiffs dionisio Malacora and Lucia Marabulas for the
273 coconut trees planted by the plaintiffs. The respondent sheriff of Agusan del Norte enforced the
writ of execution by levying upon the property of petitioners. As petitioners failed to exercise their of
redemption, the respondent sheriff executed a final deed of sale in favor of private respondents.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration.

Issue of the case:

Whether the Court of Appellate erred in declaring the writ of execution as annulled.

Ruling of the Supreme court:

Under the provision of Article X, Section II of the constitution provides for a period of 18 months
within which an appealed case should be decide by this court, the appealed decision may also be
deemed affirmed, this case having been submitted for decision. Unless reduced by the Supreme Court,
12 months for an inferior collegiate courts, and months for all other inferior courts. With respect to the
Supreme Court and other collegiate appellate courts, when the applicable maximum period shall have
lapsed without the rendition of the of the corresponding decision or resolution because the necessary
vote cannot be had, the judgement, order or resolution appealed for shall be deemed affirmed except in
those cases where a qualified majority is required and in appeals from judgement of conviction in
criminal cases; and in original special civil actions and proceedings for habeas corpus, the petition in
such cases shall be deemed dismissed and a certification to this effect signed by the chief magistrate of
the court shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case. From the plain language
of the provision, the constitution could not have intended anything but full and immediate compliance.
The manifest purpose is to avoid delay in the disposition of cases which is a cause of injustice, under the
familiar aphorism that justice delayed is justice denied. It would ceased the clogged docket of the courts.
The Constitutional Commissions

Brillantes VS Yorac

192 S 258

Facts of the case:

A coup attempt occurred prompting the President to create a fact finding commission which
would be chaired by Davide. Consequently he was to vacate his chairmanship over the Commission on
Elections. Yorac, an associate commissioner in the COMELEC, was appointed by then President Aquino
as a temporary substitute, in short, she was appointed in an acting capacity. Brillantes then questioned
such appointment urging that under Article 10 of the constitution- in no case shall any member of
COMELEC be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. Brillantes further argued that
the choice of the acting chairman should not come from the President for such is an internal matter that
should be resolved by the members themselves and that the intrusion of the President violates the
independence of the COMELEC as a constitutional commission.

Issue of the case:

Whether the designation made by the president violates the constitutional independence of
COMELEC.

Ruling of the Supreme Court:

Yorac’s designation as acting chairman is unconstitutional. The supreme court ruled that all
constitutional commissions are essentially executive in nature, they are not under the control of the
President. In discharge of their functions. Then designation made by the President has dubious
justification as it was merely grounded on the quote administrative expediency to present the functions
of the COMELEC. Aside from such justification, it found no basis on existing rules on statutes. It is the
members of the COMELEC who should choose whom it sit temporarily as acting chairman in the absence
of Davide. But even though the president’s appointment of Yorac as acting president is void, the
members of the COMELEC can choose to reinstate Yorac as their acting chairman- the point is that, it is
the members who should select their acting chairman pursuant to the principle that the constitutional
commission are independent bodies.
The Constitutional Commissions

Funa VS The Chairman of Commission on Audit

670 S 579

Facts of the case:

President Arroyo appointed Carague as Chairman of the Commission on Audit (COA) for a term
of 7 years. Carague’s term of office started on February 2, 2001 to end on February 2, 2008 in 2004,
Villar was appointed as the third member of the COA for a term of 7 years starting February 2, 2004 until
February 2, 2011. Following the retirement of Cargue on February 2, 2008 and during the fourth year of
Villar as COA Commissioner, Villar was designated as acting chairman of COA from February 4, 2008 to
April 14 2008. Subsequently, on April 18, 2008, Villar was nominated and appointed as chairman of the
COA. Shortly thereafter, the COA confirmed his appointment. He was to serve as choir man of COA, as
expressly indicated in the appointment papers, until the expiration of the original term of his office as
COA Commissioner.

Issue of the case:

Whether or not a promotional appointment from the position of Commissioner to chairman is

constitutional.

Ruling of the Supreme court:

A commissioner who resigns after serving in the commission for less than seven years is eligible
for an appointment to the position of Chairman for the unexpired portion of the term of the departing
chairman. Such appointment is not covered by the ban on appointment, provided that the aggregate
period of the length of service as commissioner and the unexpired period of the term of the predecessor
will not exceed 7 years and provided further that the vacancy in the position of Chairman resulted from
death, resignation, disability or removal by impeachment. Reappointment found in Section 1(2), Article
1X(D) means a movement to one and the same office. On the other hand, an appointment involving a
movement to a different position or office would constitute a new appointment and hence, not in the
strict legal sense, a re- appointment barred under the constitution.
The Civil Service Commission

Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation VS Court of Appeals

202 S 191, 194

Facts of the case:

Manahan was interrogated by PAGCOR’s casino operations manager and Senior Chief Security
Officer. A notice of preventive suspension was received by Manahan. After the investigation, charging
her of serious procedural deviation/ gross negligence, arising from the anomalous fund transfer
transaction. Manahan finally received PAGCOR’s HRD a letter informing her of the PAGCOR Board of
Director’s decision to dismiss her from the service. Manahan filed a motion for Reconsideration but the
Board dismissed her from service. The motion was also denied. Feeling aggrieved Manahan appealed
from the PAGCOR’s rulings to the civil service commission. CSC issued a resolution granting respondent’s
appeal. A motion for Reconsideration by PAGCOR was denied. CA affirmed the decision of CSC.

Issue of the case:

Whether or not Manahan was guilty of the offense charged.

Ruling of the Supreme court:

A cursory reading of the purported formal charge issued to Manahan shows that the same is
defective as it does not contain the requirements and it was not issued by the proper disciplining
authority. Hence, under the forgoing Factual and milieu, Manahan was not deemed formally changed.
The stance of PAGCOR was in clear disregard of the respondent’s rights protected under the cited
Section 16 of Civil Service Commission while due process in an agency investigation may be limited as
compared to due process of criminal case, where however a statute specifically provides for a procedure
and grants particular rights to a party under investigation such as in the investigations of persons
covered by the Civil Service Rules, these rights shall not be utterly disregarded, especially so when
invoked by the party under investigation, as was Manahan, because these rights already form part of a
procedural due process. The finding of PAGCOR failed to comply with the required procedure is further
supported by the fact that in PAGCOR failed to comply with the investigation process against the
respondent had just commenced. If these were the cases that the investigation process had just began
at that time, then the proceedings conducted were flawed, since a formal charged can be made only
after a finding of prima facie case.
The Civil Service Commission

Casino Labor Association VS Court of Appeals

554 S 323

Facts of the case:

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner against the first
Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and denied petitioners motion for
reconsideration. The series of events which ultimately led to the filing of the petition at bar started with
the consolidated cases filed by the petitioner Labor Union with the Arbitration Branch of NLRC. In an
order dated July 20 1987, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the consolidated cases for lack of jurisdiction over
the respondents therein, Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation and Philippine Casino
Operators Corporation.

Issue of the case:

Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the employer- employee relations.

Ruling of the Supreme Court:

The Court ruled that there are no questions from the petition and its annexes that the
respondent corporations were created by an original charter. The court collectively referred to all
respondents corporations, including PCOC and PSSC and held that in accordsnce with the Constitution
and Jurisprudence, corporations with original charter fall under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service
Commission and not the Labor Department. The Court stated further that PD 1869 exempts casino
employees from the coverage of labor code provisions and although the employees are empowered by
the constitution to form unions, these are subjects to the laws passed to regulate union in offices and
corporations governed by the civil service laws. Thus, in dismissing the petition, the ruling of the third
division wa clear, it is the Civil Service Commission and not the National Labor Relations Commission
that has the jurisdiction over the employer- employee problems in PAGCOR, PCOC and PSSC. The
statement that any petitions brought against private companies will have to be brought before the
appropriate agency or office of the Department of Labor and Employment upon which petitioners entire
case relies is of no consequence.
The Commission on Elections

Banat Party List VS COMELEC

595 S 477

Facts of the case:

BANAT Party List Candidate, questioned the proclamation as well as the formula being used in
allocating party- list seats. BANAT averred that the 2% threshold is invalid. Section II of RA 7941 is void
because its provisions that a party- list, to qualify for a congressional seat, must gamer atleast 2% of the
votes cast in the partylist election, is not supported by the constitution. Further 2% rule creates a
mathematical impossibility to meet the 20% party- list prescribed by the constitution. It also questioned
if the 20% rule is a mere ceiling or it is mandatory. Banat proposes a new computation. On the other
hand, BAYAN MUNA, another party- list candidate, questions the validity of the 3 seat rule. It also raised
issue whether major political parties are allowed to participate in the party- list elections.

Issue of the case:

How are party- list seats allocated?

Ruling of the Supreme court:

Section 12 of Republic Act 7941 provides the procedure in allocating seats for party- list
Representatives. The COMELEC shall tally all the votes for the parties, organizations or coalitions on a
nationwide basis, rank them according to the number of vote received and allocate party- list
representatives proportionally according to the percentage of votes obtained by each party,
organization or coalition as against the total nationwide vote cast for the party- list system. The court
ruled that in computing the allocation of additional seats, the continued operation of 2% threshold for
the distribution of additional seats as found in the second clause of Section II of RA 7941 is
unconstitutional. The two percent threshold makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the
maximum number of available seats when the number of available party- list seats exceeds 50. The
continued operation of two percent threshold in the distribution of the additional seats frustrates the
attainment of the permissive ceiling that 20% of the members of the House of Representatives shall
consist of party- list representatives. The 2% threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full
implementation of Section 5 (2) Article VI of the constitution and prevents the attainment of the
broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interest in the House of Representative.
The Commission on Elections

Geronimo VS Ramos

135 S 435

Facts of the case:

Private Respondent fiked a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify
Geronimo from running as candidate for mayorship of Rizal on the ground of political turncoatism. After
hearing, the petition, the COMELEC issued a resolution disqualifying Geronimo. He the filed a motion for
reconsideration, he also filed with this court a petition for certiorari to restain the COMELEC from
implementing its resolution, the Court granted its petition. Geronimo won the election but the court
then noted that Geronimo was disqualified for being political turncoat. Bayani Ferrera was then
proclaimed the winner as the second rank during the said election.

Issue of the case:

Whether or not COMELEC exceeds its power and jurisdiction when it proclaimed Ferrera as the
Mayor despite of not obtaining plurality of votes

Ruling of the Supreme court:

The importance the people’s choice must be the paramount consideration in evert election for
the constitution has vested the right to freely select, by secret- ballot in clean elections, the men and
women who shall makes laws for them or govern their name and behalf. The people have a natural and
constitutional right to participate directly in the form of government under which they live. Thus, it
would be extremely repugnant to the basic concept of constitutionality guaranteed right to suffrage if a
candidate who has not acquired the majority or plurality of votes is proclaimed a winner and imposed as
a representative of constituency, a majority of which have positively declined through their ballots that
they did not choose him. The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later
declared as disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not necessarily entitle
the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner of the
elective office. As early as 1912 the court has already declared that the candidate who lost in an election
cannot be proclaimed the winner in the candidate who found in eligible for the office to which he was
elected. This was the ruling in Tapacio Vs Paredes.
Commission on Audit

Delallana VS The Commissioner, Commission on Audit

665 s 176 (2012)

Facts of the case:

With the normalization of the political system and the stabilization of government operations,
the COA saw it fit to issue Circular no. 89- 299, which again lifted the pre- audit of government
transactions of national government agencies and government- owned or controlled corporations.
Concomitant to the lifting of the pre- audit of the government transactions of the NGA’s and GOCCs,
Circular No. 89- 299 mandated the installation, implementation and monitoring of an adequate internal
control system, which would be the direct responsibility of the government agency head, Circular no.
89-299 further provided that the pre audit activities retained by the COA as their outline shall no longer
be a pre- requisite to the implementation of prosecution of projects and the payment claims. The COA
aimed to focus on its efforts of post- audits on financial accounts and transactions, as well as, on the
assessment and evaluation of the adequacy and effectivity of the agency’s fiscal control process.
However, the circular did not include the financial transactions of local government units (LGUs) in its
coverage. Petitioner filed a petition alleging that pre- audit duty on the COA can not be lifted by mere
circular because it is a constitutional mandate under Art. 90, Section 2.

Issue of the case:

Ruling of the Supreme court: