rd

3 Floor, Philippine Nurses Association,

# 1663 F. T. Benitez St, Malate, Manila
POLITICAL LAW
Handout No. 39

GOVERNMENT ENTITIES SHALL DENY ANY MONEY CLAIM FILED AGAINST IT WHEN THERE IS
LACK OF APPROPRIATION FOR SAID MONEY CLAIM OR THERE IS FAILURE TO ADDUCE
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE SUCH MONEY CLAIM.

In the instant case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Commission on Audit (“COA”) had sufficient
reason to doubt and disregard the documentary evidence presented by petitioner Daraga Press
Inc. (“DPI”) as the Fraud and Audit and Investigation Office (“FAIO”) found inconsistencies,
discrepancies, and inaccuracies in the dates and figures stated in documents. DPI has the burden
to show, by substantial evidence, that it is entitled to the money claim. Corollarily, it has to prove
the actual delivery of the subject textbooks by presenting substantial evidence. In said case, the
Supreme Court ruled that substantial evidence is defined as that evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

In the instant case, there was no finding of substantial evidence. In said case, the Supreme Court
ruled that “However, petitioner DPI’s documentary evidence could hardly be considered
substantial evidence as these also contain so many inconsistencies, discrepancies, and
inaccuracies, which would cause a reasonable person to doubt the veracity and authenticity of
the money claim.

Also, there was no appropriation to support said money claims. Under Section 29(1) of, Article
VI of the 1987 Constitution, it provides that “No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except
in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.” Daragra Press, Inc. vs. Commission on Audit and
Department of Education-Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, GR. No. 201042, June 16,
2015.

COOPERATIVES ARE EXEMPTED FROM PAYMENT OF WITHHOLDING TAX BY REASON OF A

PREFERENIAL TAX TREATMENT

A cooperative is not liable to pay an assessed deficiency withholding taxes on interest from the
savings and time deposits of its members, as well as the delinquency interest of 20% per anum,
by reason of the following:

a. The Constitution considers cooperatives as instruments for social justice and economic
development (Section 15, Article VII);
b. The Constitution declares that the promotion of social justice is a policy of the State in all
phases of national development; and

0942 – 949 91 76
Legal Edge Bar Review legaledge8@gmail.com
0995 – 213 82 58
Page 1 of 11
 rd
3 Floor, Philippine Nurses Association,
# 1663 F. T. Benitez St, Malate, Manila
POLITICAL LAW
Handout No. 39

c. Promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic

opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.

The Supreme Court ruled that members of cooperatives play a vital role in the attainment of
economic development and social justice. Therefore, despite the lifeblood theory of the
government, said principle must give way to the creation and growth of cooperatives. Jimmu
Areno, Jr. vs. Sky Cable PCC-Bagui, GR. No. 180302, February 5, 2010.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW IS NOT DENIED BY THE EXCLUSION OF IRRELEVANT, IMMATERIAL,

OR INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE, OR TESTIMONY OF AN INCOMPETENT WITNESS.

It is not an error to refuse evidence which although admissible for certain purposes, is not
admissible for the purpose which counsel states as the ground for offering it. On the basis of
the afore-mentioned precedents, the Court has no option but to declare that the courts
below correctly disallowed the introduction in evidence of the CA Decision. “Due process of
law is not denied by the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent evidence, or
testimony of an incompetent witness. It is not an error to refuse evidence which although
admissible for certain purposes, is not admissible for the purpose which counsel states as the
ground for offering it.” Catacutan vs. People, 656 SCRA 524, G.R. No. 175991 August 31, 2011.

NATURALIZATION LAWS SHOULD BE RIGIDLY ENFORCED AND STRICTLY CONSTRUED IN

FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT AND AGAINST THE APPLICANT.

The courts must always be mindful that naturalization proceedings are imbued with the
highest public interest. Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed
in favor of the government and against the applicant. The burden of proof rests upon the
applicant to show full and complete compliance with the requirements of law. Republic vs.
Ong, 673 SCRA 485, G.R. No. 175430 June 18, 2012

UNLIKE IN ORDINARY JUDICIAL CONTEST, THE GRANTING OF A PETITION FOR

NATURALIZATION DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE REOPENING OF THAT CASE AND GIVING THE
GOVERNMENT ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT NEW EVIDENCE.

A review of the decisions involving petitions for naturalization shows that the Court is not
precluded from reviewing the factual existence of the applicant’s qualifications. In fact,

0942 – 949 91 76
Legal Edge Bar Review legaledge8@gmail.com
0995 – 213 82 58
Page 2 of 11
 rd
3 Floor, Philippine Nurses Association,
# 1663 F. T. Benitez St, Malate, Manila
POLITICAL LAW
Handout No. 39

jurisprudence holds that the entire records of the naturalization case are open for
consideration in an appeal to this Court. Indeed, “[a] naturalization proceeding is so infused
with public interest that it has been differently categorized and given special treatment. x x x
[U]nlike in ordinary judicial contest, the granting of a petition for naturalization does not
preclude the reopening of that case and giving the government another opportunity to
present new evidence. A decision or order granting citizenship will not even constitute res
judicata to any matter or reason supporting a subsequent judgment cancelling the
certification of naturalization already granted, on the ground that it had been illegally or
fraudulently procured. For the same reason, issues even if not raised in the lower court may
be entertained on appeal. As the matters brought to the attention of this Court x x x involve
facts contained in the disputed decision of the lower court and admitted by the parties in
their pleadings, the present proceeding may be considered adequate for the purpose of
determining the correctness or incorrectness of said decision, in the light of the law and
extant jurisprudence.” In the case at bar, there is even no need to present new evidence. A
careful review of the extant records suffices to hold that respondent Ong has not proven his
possession of a “known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation” to qualify for
naturalization. Republic vs. Ong, 673 SCRA 485, G.R. No. 175430 June 18, 2012

IN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN, PROPERTY INTERESTS ARE

APPROPRIATED AND APPLIED TO SOME PUBLIC PURPOSE WHICH NECESSITATES THE
PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION THEREFOR.

In the exercise of the power of eminent domain, property interests are appropriated and
applied to some public purpose which necessitates the payment of just compensation
therefor. Normally, the title to and possession of the property are transferred to the
expropriating authority. Examples include the acquisition of lands for the construction of
public highways as well as agricultural lands acquired by the government under the agrarian
reform law for redistribution to qualified farmer beneficiaries. However, it is a settled rule
that the acquisition of title or total destruction of the property is not essential for “taking”
under the power of eminent domain to be present. Examples of these include establishment
of easements such as where the land owner is perpetually deprived of his proprietary rights
because of the hazards posed by electric transmission lines constructed above his property
or the compelled interconnection of the telephone system between the government and a
private company. In these cases, although the private property owner is not divested of
ownership or possession, payment of just compensation is warranted because of the burden
placed on the property for the use or benefit of the public. Manila Memorial Park, Inc. vs.

0942 – 949 91 76
Legal Edge Bar Review legaledge8@gmail.com
0995 – 213 82 58
Page 3 of 11
 rd
3 Floor, Philippine Nurses Association,
# 1663 F. T. Benitez St, Malate, Manila
POLITICAL LAW
Handout No. 39

Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, 711 SCRA 302, G.R. No.
175356 December 3, 2013

THE TAX DEDUCTION SCHEME PURSUANT TO THE 20% DISCOUNT FOR SENIOR CITIZENS IS
A VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER.

The 20% discount granted in favor of senior citizens is an exercise of police power. This is not
exercised under the power of eminent domain.

A fair reading of Carlos Superdrug Corporation would show that the Supreme Couurt
categorically ruled therein that the 20% discount is a valid exercise of police power. Thus,
even if the current law, through its tax deduction scheme (which abandoned the tax credit
scheme under the previous law), does not provide for a peso for peso reimbursement of the
20% discount given by private establishments, no constitutional infirmity obtains because,
being a valid exercise of police power, payment of just compensation is not warranted. The
Supreme Court has carefully reviewed the basis of our ruling in Carlos Superdrug Corporation
and it finds no cogent reason to overturn, modify or abandon it. Manila Memorial Park, Inc.
vs. Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, 711 SCRA 302, G.R. No.
175356 December 3, 2013

WHERE A PARTY WAS AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE

PROCEEDINGS, YET HE FAILED TO DO SO, HE CANNOT BE ALLOWED LATER ON TO CLAIM
THAT HE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS DAY IN COURT.

The contention that petitioner was deprived of her day in court is plainly specious; it simply
does not follow. Where a party was afforded the opportunity to participate in the
proceedings, yet he failed to do so, he cannot be allowed later on to claim that he was
deprived of his day in court.

Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do
so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. Notice and hearing is the bulwark of
administrative due process, the right to which is among the primary rights that must be
respected even in administrative proceedings. The essence of due process is simply an
opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to
explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. So long as the party is given the opportunity to advocate her cause or defend

0942 – 949 91 76
Legal Edge Bar Review legaledge8@gmail.com
0995 – 213 82 58
Page 4 of 11
 rd
3 Floor, Philippine Nurses Association,
# 1663 F. T. Benitez St, Malate, Manila
POLITICAL LAW
Handout No. 39

her interest in due course, it cannot be said that there was denial of due process. A formal
trial-type hearing is not, at all times and in all instances, essential to due process — it is
enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective
sides of the controversy and to present supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be
based. “To be heard” does not only mean presentation of testimonial evidence in court —
one may also be heard through pleadings and where the opportunity to be heard through
pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due process. Demaala vs. Sandiganbayan (Third
Division), 717 SCRA 1, G.R. No. 173523 February 19, 2014

AN APPLICANT FOR NATURALIZATION MUST SHOW FULL AND COMPLETE COMPLIANCE

WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATURALIZATION LAW; OTHERWISE, HIS PETITION FOR
NATURALIZATION WILL BE DENIED.

In Republic v. Hong, 485 SCRA 405 (2006), it was held in essence that an applicant for
naturalization must show full and complete compliance with the requirements of the
naturalization law; otherwise, his petition for naturalization will be denied. This ponente has
likewise held that “[t]he courts must always be mindful that naturalization proceedings are
imbued with the highest public interest. Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and
strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant. The burden of proof
rests upon the applicant to show full and complete compliance with the requirements of law.”
Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law or CA 473 requires, among others, that an
applicant for naturalization must be of good moral character and must have some known
lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation. Republic vs. Huang Te Fu, 753 SCRA 562,
G.R. No. 200983 March 18, 2015

USE OF HIS UNITED STATES (US) PASSPORT WILL INVALIDATE AN OATH OF RENUNCIATION
RESULTING IN THE DISQUALIFICATION TO RUN FOR MAYOR.

The circumstances surrounding the qualification of Arnado to run for public office during the
May 10, 2010 and May 13, 2013 elections, to reiterate for emphasis, are the same. Arnado’s
use of his US passport in 2009 invalidated his oath of renunciation resulting in his
disqualification to run for mayor of Kauswagan in the 2010 elections. Since then and up to
the time he filed his CoC for the 2013 elections, Arnado had not cured the defect in his
qualification. Maquiling, therefore, is binding on and applicable to this case following the
salutary doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere, which means to adhere to precedents,

0942 – 949 91 76
Legal Edge Bar Review legaledge8@gmail.com
0995 – 213 82 58
Page 5 of 11
 rd
3 Floor, Philippine Nurses Association,
# 1663 F. T. Benitez St, Malate, Manila
POLITICAL LAW
Handout No. 39

and not to unsettle things which are established. Under the doctrine, “[w]hen the court has
once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that
principle and apply it to all future cases where facts are substantially the same.” It enjoins
adherence to judicial precedents and bars relitigation of the same issue. Arnado vs.
Commission on Elections, 767 SCRA 168, G.R. No. 210164 August 18, 2015

GROSS MISCONDUCT IS DEFINED AS WRONGFUL, IMPROPOER, OR UNLAWFUL AND

INTENTIONAL CONDUCT OUT OF ALL MEASURE BEYOND ALLOWANCE.

Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a

premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. It is a transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty. Qualified by the term “gross,” it
means conduct that is “out of all measure beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful; such
conduct as is not to be excused.” We find that the evidence on record demonstrates a pattern
of negligence and gross misconduct on the part of the petitioner that fully satisfies the
standard of substantial evidence. Hallasgo vs. Commission on Audit Regional Office No. X,
599 SCRA 514, G.R. No. 171340 September 11, 2009

WHERE THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH IN THE DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS
WHICH WERE SUSQUENTLY DISALLOWED BY THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), THEY
SHOULD NOT BE ORDERED TO REFUND THE SAME.

No grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction can thus be attributed
to respondent COA. Grave abuse of discretion exists where an act of a court or tribunal is
performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility which must be so patent and gross as to amount to an invasion
of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law—mere abuse of discretion is not enough. However, we find that
petitioners should not be ordered to refund the disallowed amount because they acted in
good faith.

The assailed Decisions of the COA clearly presented the factual findings and adequately
explained the legal basis for disallowing the said amount. Indeed, as computed by Ms. Virginia
Farro, the Provincial Budget Officer of Ifugao, the annual budget of Mayoyao for 2002
exceeded the limit for personal services as prescribed in Section 325(a) of the LGC by

0942 – 949 91 76
Legal Edge Bar Review legaledge8@gmail.com
0995 – 213 82 58
Page 6 of 11
 rd
3 Floor, Philippine Nurses Association,
# 1663 F. T. Benitez St, Malate, Manila
POLITICAL LAW
Handout No. 39

P3,944,568.05. Further, it was established that the grant of the increase through the adoption
of higher salary class schedule is not among the list of items and activities whereby the
limitation for personal services may be waived pursuant to LBC No. 75. Finally, the
municipality adopted the salary rates under LBC No. 69 and not the salary rates under LBC
No. 74. Lumayno vs. Commission on Audit, 601 SCRA 163, G.R. No. 185001 September 25,
2009

THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, AS THE CENTRAL PERSONNEL AGENCY OF THE

GOVERNMENT, HAS STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH RULES AND REGULATIONS TO
PROMOTE EFFICIENCY AND PROFESSIONALISM IN THE CIVIL SERVICE.

The Commission, as the central personnel agency of the government, has statutory authority
to establish rules and regulations to promote efficiency and professionalism in the civil
service. Presidential Decree No. 807, or the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines, provides
for the powers of the Commission, including the power to issue rules and regulations and to
review appointments. Nazareno vs. City of Dumaguete, 602 scra 578, G.R. No. 181559
October 2, 2009

APPOINTMENTS ARE BANNED PRIOR TO THE ELECTIONS TO ENSURE THAT PARTISAN

LOYALTIES WILL NOT BE A FACTOR IN THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS, AND TO PREVENT
INCUMBENTS FROM GAINING ANY UNDUE ADVANTAGE DURING THE ELECTIONS.

It is not difficult to see the reasons behind the prohibition on appointments before and after
the elections. Appointments are banned prior to the elections to ensure that partisan
loyalties will not be a factor in the appointment process, and to prevent incumbents from
gaining any undue advantage during the elections. To this end, appointments within a certain
period of time are proscribed by the Omnibus Election Code and related issuances. After the
elections, appointments by defeated candidates are prohibited, except under the
circumstances mentioned in CSC Resolution No. 010988, to avoid animosities between
outgoing and incoming officials, to allow the incoming administration a free hand in
implementing its policies, and to ensure that appointments and promotions are not used as
a tool for political patronage or as a reward for services rendered to the outgoing local
officials. Nazareno vs. City of Dumaguete, 602 scra 578, G.R. No. 181559 October 2, 2009

0942 – 949 91 76
Legal Edge Bar Review legaledge8@gmail.com
0995 – 213 82 58
Page 7 of 11
 rd
3 Floor, Philippine Nurses Association,
# 1663 F. T. Benitez St, Malate, Manila
POLITICAL LAW
Handout No. 39

WHEN THE PENALTY IMPOSED EXCEEDS THIRTY DAYS OR IS A FINE WHICH EXCEEDS AN
AMOUNT THIRTY DAY’S SALARY, THE PENALTY IMPMOSED MAY BE APPEALED BEFORE THE
CSC.

In Civil Service Commission v. Albao, 472 SCRA 548 (2005), we rejected the contention that
the CSC, under the aforestated Sections 47 and 48 of Book V of EO 292, only has appellate
disciplinary jurisdiction on charges of dishonesty and falsification of documents in connection
with an appointment to a permanent position in the government service. We enunciated,
thus: It is true that Section 47 (2), Title I (A), Book V of EO No. 292 gives the heads of
government offices original disciplinary jurisdiction over their own subordinates. Their
decisions shall be final in case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty
days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty days’ salary. It is only when the penalty
imposed exceeds the aforementioned penalties that an appeal may be brought before the
Civil Service Commission which has appellate jurisdiction over the same in accordance with
Section 47 (1) Title I(A), Book V of EO No. 292. Capablanca vs. Civil Service Commission, 605
SCRA 61, G.R. No. 179370 November 18, 2009

ABSENT AN EXPRESS PROVISION OF LAW, THE GRANT OF BOTH SEPARATION AND

RETIREMENT BENEFITS FROM ONE SINGLE ACT OF SEPARATION FROM EMPLOYMENT
WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE COMPENSATION.

Section 8 of Article IX(B) of the Constitution provides that “[n]o elective or appointive public
officer Absent an express provision of law, the grant of both separation and retirement
benefits from one single act of separation from employment would amount to double
compensation.—Section 8 of Article IX(B) of the Constitution provides that “[n]o elective or
appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect
compensation, unless specifically authorized by law.” In prior decisions, we have ruled that
there must be a clear and unequivocal statutory provision to justify the grant of both
separation pay and retirement benefits to an employee. Here, absent an express provision of
law, the grant of both separation and retirement benefits would amount to double
compensation from one single act of separation from employment. Herrera vs. National
Power Corporation, 608 SCRA 475, G.R. No. 166570 December 18, 2009

0942 – 949 91 76
Legal Edge Bar Review legaledge8@gmail.com
0995 – 213 82 58
Page 8 of 11
 rd
3 Floor, Philippine Nurses Association,
# 1663 F. T. Benitez St, Malate, Manila
POLITICAL LAW
Handout No. 39

A SANGGUNIAN MEMBER CANNOT APPEAR AS COUNSEL OF A PARTY ADVERSE TO THE

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NPC), WHICH IS AN INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE
GOVERNMENT

Section 446 of the Local Government Code provides that “[t]he sangguniang bayan, the
legislative body of the municipality, shall be composed of the municipal vice mayor as the
presiding officer x x x.” Thus, pursuant to Sec. 90(b) (1) of the Local Government Code, Atty.
Rambuyong, as sanggunian member, cannot appear as counsel of a party adverse to the NPC,
which is an instrumentality of government. Republic vs. Rambuyong, 632 SCRA 66, G.R. No.
167810 October 4, 2010

THE SUABILITY OF A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE OFFICIAL

CONCERNED WAS ACTING WITHIN HIS OFFICIAL OR JURISDICTIONAL CAPACITY, AND
WHETHER THE ACTS DONE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS WILL RESULT IN
A CHARGE OR FINANCIAL LIABILITY AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.”

As regards the other petitioners, to wit, Secretaries Romualdez and Dayrit, and
Undersecretary Galon, it must be stressed that the doctrine of state immunity extends its
protective mantle also to complaints filed against state officials for acts done in the discharge
and performance of their duties. “The suability of a government official depends on whether
the official concerned was acting within his official or jurisdictional capacity, and whether the
acts done in the performance of official functions will result in a charge or financial liability
against the government.” Otherwise stated, “public officials can be held personally
accountable for acts claimed to have been performed in connection with official duties where
they have acted ultra vires or where there is showing of bad faith.” Moreover, “[t]he rule is
that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative
act to satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages
awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state x x x. In such a situation,
the state may move to dismiss the [C]omplaint on the ground that it has been filed without
its consent.” Department of Health vs. Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc., 691 SCRA 421, G.R. No.
182358 February 20, 2013

AS A GENERAL RULE, A STATE MAY NOT BE SUED. HOWEVER, IF IT CONSENTS, EITHER

EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY, THEN IT MAY BE THE SUBJECT OF A SUIT. THERE IS EXPRESS
CONSENT WHEN A LAW, EITHER SPECIAL OR GENERAL, SO PROVIDES. ON THE OTHER HAND,

0942 – 949 91 76
Legal Edge Bar Review legaledge8@gmail.com
0995 – 213 82 58
Page 9 of 11
 rd
3 Floor, Philippine Nurses Association,
# 1663 F. T. Benitez St, Malate, Manila
POLITICAL LAW
Handout No. 39

THERE IS IMPLIED CONSENT WHEN THE STATE “ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT OR IT ITSELF
COMMENCES LITIGATION.”

As a general rule, a state may not be sued. However, if it consents, either expressly or
impliedly, then it may be the subject of a suit. There is express consent when a law, either
special or general, so provides. On the other hand, there is implied consent when the state
“enters into a contract or it itself commences litigation.” However, it must be clarified that
when a state enters into a contract, it does not automatically mean that it has waived its non-
suability. The State “will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability [only] if it has
entered into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity. [However,] when the contract
involves its sovereign or governmental capacity[,] x x x no such waiver may be implied.”
“Statutory provisions waiving [s]tate immunity are construed in strictissimi juris. For, waiver
of immunity is in derogation of sovereignty.” Department of Health vs. Phil. Pharmawealth,
Inc., 691 SCRA 421, G.R. No. 182358 February 20, 2013

FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS IS CONSIDERED FRAUD

The falsification of public documents is considered as fraud upon government or public funds
or property. In the case of Bustillo v. Sandiganbayan, the petitioner therein was charged with
falsifying municipal vouchers which, as used in government, are official documents. He
asserted the said offenses does not involve “fraud” as used in Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019,
the Court held said case that the same is understood in its general sense that is, referring to
“an instance or an act of trickery or deceit especially when involving misrepresentation. The
existence of fraud in the commission of the offense charged can be easily ascertained from
the nature of the acts of herein accused when they made it appear that Engr. Zubair F. Murad
was then the Municipal Engineer who prepared and signed Local Budget Preparation Forms
No. 152, 153 and 154, when in truth and in fact, said Engr. Murad was not even an employee
of the Municipality of Mulondo, Lanao del Sur. As a consequence of this act, several projects,
their costs and extent, were authorized without the careful assessment of [the] legitimate
municipal engineer. This alone is sufficient to justify the Court’s conclusion that, indeed, the
alleged act of accused constitutes fraud upon the government. Abdul vs. Sandiganbayan
(Fifth Division), 711 SCRA 246, G.R. No. 184496 December 2, 2013

DISHONESTY, IN ORDER TO WARRANT DISMISSAL, NEED NOT BE COMMITTED IN THE

COURSE OF THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY BY THE PUBLIC OFFICER, FOR IT INEVITABLY

0942 – 949 91 76
Legal Edge Bar Review legaledge8@gmail.com
0995 – 213 82 58
Page 10 of 11
 rd
3 Floor, Philippine Nurses Association,
# 1663 F. T. Benitez St, Malate, Manila
POLITICAL LAW
Handout No. 39

REFLECTS ON THE FITNESS OF THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE TO CONTINUE IN OFFICE AND THE
DISCIPLINE AND MORALE OF THE SERVICE.

Without a doubt, respondent’s supposed dishonest acts and misrepresentations committed

in relation to a land dispute arising from her private dealings cast doubt on her fitness to
discharge her responsibilities as a public official. If it is true that respondent caused the
execution of a forged or falsified deed of sale in 1992 in order to transfer the disputed portion
of the property to her children, then she committed a dishonest act even as she is enjoined
to adhere at all times to law, morality, and decency in her private and professional life.
“[D]ishonesty, in order to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course of the
performance of duty” by the public officer, for it “inevitably reflects on the fitness of the
officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the service.”
Balasbas vs. Monayao, 716 SCRA 190, G.R. No. 190524 February 17, 2014

0942 – 949 91 76
Legal Edge Bar Review legaledge8@gmail.com
0995 – 213 82 58
Page 11 of 11