Public Officers Muncor

8/13/2019 Public Officers Muncor

1/27

G.R. No. 80391 February 28, 1989

SULTAN ALIMBUSAR P. LIMBONA,petitioner,

vs.

CONT MANGLIN, SALIC ALI, SALIN!ATO ALI, PILIMPINAS CON!ING, ACMA! TOMA"IS, GRR# TOMA"IS, $SUS ORTI%, ANTONIO !LA

FUNT, !IGO PALOMARS, $R., RAUL !AGALANGIT, a&' BIMBO SINSUAT, respondents.

Ambrosio Padilla, Mempin & Reyes Law Offices for petitioner petitioner.

Makabangkit B. Lanto for respondents.

SARMINTO,J.:

The acts of the Sangguniang Pampook of Region XII are assailed in this petition. The antecedent facts are as follows:

1. n Septem!er "#, 1$%&, petitioner Sultan 'lim!usar (im!ona was appointed as a mem!er of the Sangguniang Pampook, Regional 'utonomous

)overnment, Region XII, representing (anao del Sur.

". n *arch 1", 1$%+ petitioner was elected Speaker of the Regional (egislat ive 'ssem!l or -atasang Pampook of entral *indanao /'ssem!l for

!revit0.

. Said 'ssem!l is composed of eighteen /1%0 mem!ers. Two of said mem!ers, respondents 'cmad Tomawis and Pakil 2agalangit, filed on *arch "

1$%+ with the ommission on 3lections their respective certificates of candidac in the *a 11, 1$%+ congressional elections for the district of (anaoSur !ut the later withdrew from the aforesaid election and thereafter resumed again their positions as mem!ers of the 'ssem!l.

#. n cto!er "1, 1$%+ ongressman 2atu )uimid *atalam, hairman of the ommittee on *uslim 'ffairs of the 4ouse of Representatives, invited

Xavier Ra5ul, Pampook Speaker of Region XI, 6am!oanga it and the petitioner in his capacit as Speaker of the 'ssem!l, Region XII, in a letter

which reads:

The ommittee on *uslim 'ffairs well undertake consultations and dialogues with local government officials, civic, religious

organi5ations and traditional leaders on the recent and present political developments and other issues affecting Regions IX and

The result of the conference, consultations and dialogues would hopefull chart the autonomous governments of the two regionenvisioned and ma prod the President to constitute immediatel the Regional onsultative ommission as mandated ! the

ommission.

7ou are re8uested to invite some mem!ers of the Pampook 'ssem!l of our respective assem!l on 9ovem!er 1 to 1, 1$%+,

venue at the ongress of the Philippines. 7our presence, unstinted support and cooperation is /sic0 indispensa!le.

. onsistent with the said invitation, petitioner sent a telegram to 'cting Secretar ;ohnn 'lim!uao of the 'ssem!l to wire all 'ssem!lmen that

there shall !e no session in 9ovem!er as R I9=R*'TI9 '92 )>I2'93 T3(3)R'* R33I?32 =R* SP3'@3R (I*-9'

A>T3 9)R3SS*'9 ;I**7 *'T'('* 4'IR*'9 = T43 4>S3 **ITT33 9 *>S(I* '=='IRS

R3A>3ST32 *3 T 'SSIST S'I2 **ITT33 I9 T43 2IS>SSI9 = T43 PRPS32 '>T9*7 R)'9I

9?. 1ST T 1. 4393 B3R3 '(( 'SS3*-(7*39 T4'T T43R3 S4'(( -3 9 S3SSI9 I9 9?3*-3R 'S

PR3S393 I9 T43 4>S3 **ITT33 43'RI9) = 9)R3SS T'@3 PR332393 ?3R '97 P392I9)->SI93SS I9 -'T'S'9) P'*P@ = *'T'('* =((BS >9A>T3 R3)'R2S.

+. n 9ovem!er ", 1$%+, the 'ssem!l held session in defiance of petitionerCs advice, with the following assem!lmen present:

1. Sali, Salic

". onding, Pilipinas /sic0

. 2agalangit, Rakil#. 2ela =uente, 'ntonio. *angelen, onte

&. rti5, ;esus

+. Palomares, 2iego

%. Sinsuat, -im!o

$. Tomawis, 'cmad1D. Tomawis, ;err

'fter declaring the presence of a 8uorum, the Speaker ProETempore was authori5ed to preside in the session. n *otion to declare the seat of the Spe

vacant, all 'ssem!lmen in attendance voted in the affirmative, hence, the chair declared said seat of the Speaker vacant. %. n 9ovem!er , 1$%+, th

session of the 'ssem!l resumed with the following 'ssem!lmen present:

1. *angelen onteEPresiding fficer". 'li Salic

. 'li Salindatu

#. 'ratuc, *alik

. aFelo, Rene

&. onding, Pilipinas /sic0

+. 2agalangit, Rakil


2/27

%. 2ela =uente, 'ntonio

$. rti5, ;esus

1D Palomares, 2iego11. AuiFano, ;esus

1". Sinsuat, -im!o

1. Tomawis, 'cmad

1#. Tomawis, ;err

'n eGcerpt from the de!ates and proceeding of said session reads:

49. 2')'('9)IT: *r. Speaker, 4onora!le *em!ers of the 4ouse, with the presence of our colleagues who have come to attend the session todamove to call the names of the new comers in order for them to cast their votes on the previous motion to declare the position of the Speaker vacant. -u

!efore doing so, I move also that the designation of the Speaker Pro emporeas the Presiding fficer and *r. ;ohnn 3vangelists as 'cting Secretar

the session last 9ovem!er ", 1$%+ !e reconfirmed in todaCs session.

49. S'(I '(I: I second the motions.

PR3SI2I9) ==I3R: 'n comment or o!Fections on the two motions presentedH *e chair hears none and the said motions are approved. ...

Twelve /1"0 mem!ers voted in favor of the motion to declare the seat of the Speaker vacant one a!stained and none voted against. 1

'ccordingl, the petitioner pras for Fudgment as follows:

B43R3=R3, petitioner respectfull pras thatE

/a0 This Petition !e given due course

/!0 Pending hearing, a restraining order or writ of preliminar inFunction !e issued enFoining respondents from proceeding with their session to !e held

9ovem!er , 1$%+, and on an da thereafter

/c0 'fter hearing, Fudgment !e rendered declaring the proceedings held ! respondents of their session on 9ovem!er ", 1$%+ as null and void

/d0 4olding the election of petitioner as Speaker of said (egislative 'ssem!l or -atasan Pampook, Region XII held on *arch 1", 1$%+ valid andsu!sisting, and

/e0 *aking the inFunction permanent.

Petitioner likewise pras for such other relief as ma !e Fust and e8uita!le. 2

Pending further proceedings, this ourt, on ;anuar 1$, 1$%%, received a resolution filed ! the Sangguniang Pampook, 9I'9) P'*P@ '>T9*>S R3)I9 XII,< 3on the grounds, among other things, that the petitioner


3/27

Be therefore order reinstatement, with the caution that should the past acts of the petitioner indeed warrant his removal, the 'ssem!l is enFoined, should it still !e so minde

commence proper proceedings therefor in line with the most elementar re8uirements of due process. 'nd while it is within the discretion of the mem!ers of the Sanggunian

punish their erring colleagues, their acts are nonetheless su!Fect to the moderating !and of this ourt in the event that such discretion is eGercised with grave a!use.

It is, to !e sure, said that precisel !ecause the Sangguniang Pampook/s0 are


4/27

/+0 *aintenance, operation and administration of schools esta!lished ! the 'utonomous Region

/%0 3sta!lishment, operation and maintenance of health, welfare and other social services, programs and facilities

/$0 Preservation and development of customs, traditions, languages and culture indigenous to the 'utonomous Region and/1D0 Such other matters as ma !e authori5ed ! law,including the enactment of such measures as ma !e necessar for the promotion of the general

welfare of the people in the 'utonomous Region.

The President shall eGercise such powers as ma !e necessar to assure that enactment and acts of the Sangguniang Pampook and the (upong

Tagapagpaganap ng Pook are in compliance with this 2ecree, national legislation, policies, plans and programs.

The Sangguniang Pampook shall maintain liaison with the -atasang Pam!ansa. 3(

4ence, we assume Furisdiction. 'nd if we can make an in8uir in the validit of the eGpulsion in 8uestion, with more reason can we review the petitionerCs removal as Speak

-riefl, the petitioner assails the legalit of his ouster as Speaker on the grounds that: /10 the Sanggunian, in convening on 9ovem!er " and , 1$%+ /for the sole purpose of

declaring the office of the Speaker vacant0, did so in violation of the Rules of the Sangguniang Pampook since the 'ssem!l was then on recess and /"0 assuming that it wa

valid, his ouster was ineffective nevertheless for lack of 8uorum.

>pon the facts presented, we hold that the 9ovem!er " and , 1$%+ sessions were invalid. It is true that under Section 1 of the Region XII Sanggunian Rules,


5/27

).R. No. 89*)1 Noe-ber 10, 1989

!ATU FIR!AUSI I.#. ABBAS, !ATU BLO UMPAR A!IONG, !ATU MACALIMPO"AC !LANGALN, CLSO PALMA, ALI MONTANA BABAO,

$ULMUNIR $ANNARAL, RASI! SABR, a&' !ATU $AMAL ASL# ABBAS, re/ree&& 4e o4er a5/ayer o6 M&'a&ao,petitioners,

vs.COMMISSION ONLCTIONS, a&' ONORABL GUILLRMO C. CARAGU, !PARTMNT SCRTAR# OF BU!GT AN!

MANAGMNT, respondents.

G.R. No. 899*) Noe-ber 10, 1989

ATT#. AB!ULLA !. MAMA7O,petitioner,

vs.

ON. GUILLRMO CARAGU, & 4 a/ay a 4e Sereary o6 4e Bu'e, a&' 4e COMMISSION ON LCTIONS, respondents.

Abbas, Abbas, Amora, Ale"andro#Abbas & Associates for petitioners in $.R. %os. '()* and ''().

Abd+lla! . Mama#o for and in !is own be!alf in ''().

CORTS,J.:

The present controvers relates to the ple!iscite in thirteen /10 provinces and nine /$0 cities in *indanao and Palawan, 1scheduled for 9ovem!er 1$, 1$%$, in implementatiof Repu!lic 'ct 9o. &+#, entitled


6/27

/0 Regional ur!an and rural planning development

/&0 3conomic, social and tourism development

/+0 3ducational policies/%0 Preservation and development of the cultural heritage and

/$0 Such other matters as ma !e authori5ed ! law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the region.

Sec. "1. The preservation of peace and order within the regions shall !e the responsi!ilit of the local police agencies which shall !e organi5ed,

maintained, supervised, and utili5ed in accordance with applica!le laws. The defense and securit of the region shall !e the responsi!ilit of the 9atio

)overnment.

Pursuant to the constitutional mandate, R.'. 9o. &+# was enacted and signed into law on 'ugust 1, 1$%$.

1. The ourt shall dispose first of the second categor of arguments raised ! petitioners, i.e. that certain provisions of R.'. 9o. &+# conflict with the provisions of the Trip

'greement.

Petitioners premise their arguments on the assumption that the Tripoli 'greement is part of the law of the land, !eing a !inding international agreement . The Solicitor )ener

asserts that the Tripoli 'greement is neither a !inding treat, not having !een entered into ! the Repu!lic of the Philippines with a sovereign state and ratified according to

provisions of the 1$+ or 1$%+ onstitutions, nor a !inding international agreement.

Be find it neither necessar nor determinative of the case to rule on the nature of the Tripoli 'greement and its !inding effect on the Philippine )overnment whether under

pu!lic international or internal Philippine law. In the first place, it is now the onstitution itself that provides for the creation of an autonomous region in *uslim *indanaostandard for an in8uir into the validit of R.'. 9o. &+# would therefore !e what is so provided in the onstitution. Thus, an conflict !etween the provisions of R.'. 9o

&+# and the provisions of the Tripoli 'greement will not have the effect of enFoining the implementation of the rganic 'ct. 'ssuming for the sake of argument that the Tr

'greement is a !inding treat or international agreement, it would then constitute part of the law of the land. -ut as internal law it would not !e superior to R.'. 9o. &+#, a

enactment of the ongress of the Philippines, rather it would !e in the same class as the latter JS'(9)', P>-(I I9T3R9'TI9'( ('B "D /#th ed., 1$+#0, citing 4

*one ases, 11" >.S. %D /1%%#0 and =oster v. 9elson, " Pet. " /1%"$0K. Thus, if at all, R.'. 9o. &+# would !e amendator of the Tripoli 'greement, !eing a su!se8uelaw. nl a determination ! this ourt that R.'. 9o. &+# contravened the onstitution would result in the granting of the reliefs sought. 3

". The ourt shall therefore onl pass upon the constitutional 8uestions which have !een raised ! petitioners.

Petitioner '!!as argues that R.'. 9o. &+# unconditionall creates an autonomous region in *indanao, contrar to the afore8uoted provisions of the onstitution on the

autonomous region which make the creation of such region dependent upon the outcome of the ple!iscite .

In support of his argument, petitioner cites 'rticle II, section 1/10 of R.'. 9o. &+# which declares that TI9'( **ISSI9 #%"E#$" /1$%&0K.

's provided in the onstitution, the creation of the 'utonomous region in *uslim *indanao is made effective upon the approval

"+, it is provided that


7/27

simpl adopted the same phraseolog as that used for the ratification of the onstitution, i.e.


8/27

It is asserted ! petitioners that such provisions are unconstitutional !ecause while the onstitution states that the creation of the autonomous region shall take effect upon

approval in a ple!iscite, the re8uirement of organi5ing an versight committee tasked with supervising the transfer of powers and properties to the regional government wou

effect dela the creation of the autonomous region.

>nder the onstitution, the creation of the autonomous region hinges onl on the result of the ple!iscite. if the rganic 'ct is approved ! maForit of the votes cast !constituent units in the scheduled ple!iscite, the creation of the autonomous region immediatel takes effect dela the creation of the autonomous region.

>nder the constitution, the creation of the autonomous region hinges onl on the result of the ple!iscite. if the rganic 'ct is approved ! maForit of the votes cast !

constituent units in the scheduled ple!iscite, the creation of the autonomous region immediatel takes effect. The 8uestioned provisions in R.'. 9o. &+# re8uiring an oversi

ommittee to supervise the transfer do not provide for a different date of effectivit. *uch less would the organi5ation of the versight ommittee cause an impediment to

operation of the rganic 'ct, for such is evidentl aimed at effecting a smooth transition period for the regional government. The constitutional o!Fection on this point thuscannot !e sustained as there is no !ases therefor.

3ver law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionalit J7u ong 3ng v. Trinidad, #+ Phil. %+ /1$"0 Salas v. ;arencio, ).R. 9o. (E"$+%%, 'ugust D, 1$+$, #& S

+# *orfe v. *utuc,s+pra0 Peralta v. *3(3, ).R. 9o. (E#+++1, *arch 11, 1$+%, %" SR' DK. Those who petition this ourt to declare a law, or parts thereof,

unconstitutional must clearl esta!lish the !asis for such a declaration. otherwise, their petition must fail. -ased on the grounds raised ! petitioners to challenge the

constitutionalit of R.'. 9o. &+#, the ourt finds that petitioners have failed to overcome the presumption. The dismissal of these two petitions is, therefore, inevita!le.

B43R3=R3, the petitions are 2IS*ISS32 for lack of merit.

S R23R32.


9/27

G.R. No. 930)( : !ee-ber (, 1990.;

192 SCRA 100

Cor'


10/27

=rom these sections, it can !e gleaned that ongress never intended that a single province ma constitute the autonomous region. therwise, we would !e faced with the a!

situation of having two sets of officials, a set of provincial officials and another set of regional officials eGercising their eGecutive and legislative powers over eGactl the s

small area.

'rticle ?, Sections 1 and # of Repu!lic 'ct &+&& vest the legislative power in the ordillera 'ssem!l whose mem!ers shall !e elected from regional assem!l disapportioned among provinces and the cities composing the 'utonomous Region. chanro!les virtual law li!rar

If we follow the respondentCs position, the mem!ers of such ordillera 'ssem!l shall then !e elected onl from the province of Ifugao creating an awkward predicame

having two legislative !odies M the ordillera 'ssem!l and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan M eGercising their legislative powers over the province of Ifugao. 'nd since If

is one of the smallest provinces in the Philippines, populationEwise, it would have too man government officials for so few people.:Ecralaw

'rticle XII, Section 1D of the law creates a Regional Planning and 2evelopment -oard composed of the ordillera )overnor, all the provincial governors and cit mao

their representatives, two mem!ers of the ordillera 'ssem!l, and mem!ers representing the private sector. The -oard has a counterpart in the provincial level calle

Provincial Planning and 2evelopment oordinator. The -oardCs functions /'rticle XII, Section 1D, par. ", Repu!lic 'ct 9o. &+&&0 are almost similar to those of the ProvioordinatorCs /Title =our, hapter , 'rticle 1D, Section ""D /#0, -atas Pam!ansa -lg. + M (ocal )overnment ode0. If it takes onl one person in the provincial lev

perform such functions while on the other hand it takes an entire -oard to perform almost the same tasks in the regional level, it could onl mean that a larger area mucovered at the regional level. The respondentCs theor of the 'utonomous Region !eing made up of a single province must, therefore, fail.

'rticle XXI, Section 1 /-0 /c0 alloting the huge amount of Ten *illion Pesos /P1D,DDD,DDD.DD0 to the Regional )overnment for its initial organi5ational re8uirements cann

construed as funding onl a lone and small province.

These sections of Repu!lic 'ct 9o. &+&& show that a one province ordillera 'utonomous Region was never contemplated ! the law creating it.

The province of Ifugao makes up onl 11O of the total population of the areas enumerated in 'rticle I, Section " /!0 of Repu!lic 'ct 9o. &+&& which include -enguet, *ou

Province, '!ra, @alingaE'paao and -aguio it. It has the second smallest num!er of inha!itants from among the provinces and cit a!ove mentioned. The ordpopulation is distri!uted in round figures as follows: '!ra, 1%,DDD -enguet, #%&,DDD Ifugao, 1#$,DDD @alingaE'paao, "1#,DDD *ountain Province, 11&,DDD and -a

it, 1%,DDD Total population of these five provinces and one cit 1,",DDD according to the 1$$D ensus /*anila Standard, Septem!er D, 1$$D, p. 1#0.

There are other provisions of Repu!lic 'ct 9o. &+&& which are either violated or which cannot !e complied with. Section 1& of 'rticle ? calls for a Regional ommissio

'ppointments with the Speaker as hairman and are /&0 mem!ers coming from different provinces and cities in the Region. >nder the respondentsC view, the ommission w

have a hairman and onl one mem!er. It would never have a 8uorum. Section of 'rticle ?I calls for ca!inet mem!ers, as far as practica!le, to come from various prov

and cities of the Region. Section 1 of 'rticle ?II creates a sstem of tri!al courts for the various indigenous cultural communities of the Region. Section $ of 'rticle X? re8the development of a common regional language !ased upon the various languages and dialects in the region which regional language in turn is eGpected to enrich the nati

language.

The entiret of Repu!lic 'ct 9o. &+&& creating the ordillera 'utonomous Region is infused with provisions which rule against the sole province of Ifugao constitutin

Region.:Ecralaw

To contemplate the situation envisioned ! the respondent would not onl violate the letter and intent of the onstitution and Repu!lic 'ct 9o. &+&& !ut would als

impractical and illogical.

ur decision in '!!as, et al. v. *3(3, /).R. 9o. %$&1, 9ovem!er 1D, 1$&$0, is not applica!le in the case at !ar contrar to the view of the Secretar of ;ustice.

The '!!as case laid down the rate on the meaning of maForit in the phrase

onstitution, 'rticle X, Section 1%. It stated:

G G G


11/27

G.R. No. 100+10 Se/e-ber 3, 1991

BN$AMIN P. ABLLA,petitioner,

vs.

COMMISSION ON LCTIONS a&' A!LINA #. LARRA%ABAL, respondents.

G.R. No. 100+39 Se/e-ber 3, 1991

A!LINA #. LARRA%ABAL,petitioner,

vs.

COMMSSION ON LCTIONS a&' SIL@STR ! LA CRU%, respondents.

Si1to S. Brillantes, 2r. for petitioner in *3345'.

esar A. Se-illa for petitioner in *334*3.

Panganiban, Benite6, Baninaga & Ba+tista for pri-ate respondent S. de la r+6.

GUTIRR%, $R.,J.:p

The main issue in these consolidated petitions centers on who is the rightful governor of the province of (ete 10 petitioner 'delina (arra5a!al /).R. 9o. 1DD+$0 who o!ta

the highest num!er of votes in the local elections of =e!ruar 1, 1$%% and was proclaimed as the dul elected governor !ut who was later declared ! the ommission on

3lections /*3(30 6, petitioners v. '23(I9' ('RR'6'-'( and **ISSI9 9 3(3TI9S, respondents /). R. 9o. %%DD#0 1%D SR' D$ J1$%$K0, to

The ourt has ordered the consolidation of ).R. 9os %++"1ED and ).R. 9o. %%DD# involving the same parties and the same election in 1$%% for the o

of provincial governor of (ete. hallenged in the petitions for certiorari are the resolutions of the respondent ommission on 3lections dismissing th

preEproclamation and dis8ualification cases filed ! the herein petitioners against private respondent 'delina (arra5a!al.

Petitioner -enFamin P. '!ella was the official candidate of the (i!eral Part for provincial governor of (ete in the local election held on =e!ruar 1,

1$%%. The private respondent is the wife of 3meterio ?. (arra5a!al, the original candidate of the (akas ng -ansaEP2PE(a!an who was dis8ualified !ommission on 3lections on ;anuar 1%, 1$%%, for lack of residence. /).R. 9o. %%DD#, Rollo, pp. 1D"E1D#0 /4e filed a petition for certiorari to challen

this resolution. 4e, however, filed an urgent eGEparte motion to withdraw petition which was granted in a resolution dated ;anuar "1, 1$%% and the ca

was dismissed. J).R. 9o. %11K0 n ;anuar 1, 1$%%, the da !efore the election, she filed her own certificate of candidac in su!stitution of her

hus!and. /7bid., p. #%0 The following da, at a!out $:D oCclock in the morning, Silvestre de la ru5, a registered voter of Taclo!an it, filed a petitiowith the provincial election supervisor of (ete to dis8ualif her for alleged false statements in her certificate of candidac regarding her residence. /7

pp. 11E11%0 This was immediatel transmitted to the main office of the ommission on 3lections, which could not function, however, !ecause all !u

of its mem!ers had not et !een confirmed ! the ommission on 'ppointments. 2e la ru5 then came to this ourt, which issued a temporar restra

order on =e!ruar #, 1$%%, enFoining the provincial !oard of canvassers of (ete Cfrom proclaiming 'delina (arra5a!al as the winning candidate for th

ffice of the )overnor in the province of (ete, in the event that she o!tains the winning margin of votes in the canvass of election returns of said

province.C /7d., p. 1+$0 n *arch 1, 1$%%, the ommission on 3lections having !een full constituted, we remanded the petition thereto for appropriataction, including maintenance or lifting of the ourtCs temporar restraining order of =e!ruar #, 1$%%. /7d. pp. 1%"E1%#0

In the meantime, petitioner '!ella, after raising various ver!al o!Fections /later dul reduced to writing0 during the canvass of the election returns,

seasona!l elevated them to the ommission on 3lections in ten separate appeals docketed as SP 9os. %%E&"+ to %%&"+EI. Pending resolution of thes

cases, '!ella intervened on *arch +, 1$%% in the dis8ualification case, docketed as SP 9o. %%E#&, and the following da filed a complaint, with the

(aw 2epartment of the *3(3 charging the private respondent with falsification and misrepresentation of her residence in her certificate of

candidac. n *arch "", 1$%%, the pu!lic respondent consolidated the preEproclamation and dis8ualification cases with the Second 2ivision.

n =e!ruar , 1$%$, this 2ivision unanimousl upheld virtuall all the challenged rulings of the provincial !oard of canvassers, mostl on the ground

that the o!Fection raised were merel formal and did not affect the validit of the returns or the !allots, and ordered the proclamation of the winner aftecompletion of the canvass. /).R. 9os. %++"1ED, Rollo, pp. 1%ED0 n that same date, the dis8ualification case was also dismissed ! a "E1 decision, a

the matter was referred to the (aw 2epartment for Cpreliminar investigation for possi!le violation of Section +# of the mni!us 3lection ode. C /).R

9os. %%DD#, Rollo, pp. "&E#D0

The motion for reconsideration of the resolution on the preEproclamation cases was denied ! the *3(3 en banc on 'pril 1, 1$%$, with nodissenting vote. /).R. 9os. %++"1ED, Rollo, pp. 1E&0 These cases are the su!Fect of ).R. 9os. %++"1ED, where we issued on 'pril 1%, 1$%$, anoth

temporar restraining order to the provincial !oard of canvassers of (ete to 3'S3 and 23SIST from resuming the canvass of the contested returns

andLor from proclaiming private respondent 'delina (arra5a!al )overnor of (ete.

The motion for reconsideration of the resolution on the 8ualification case was also denied ! the *3(3 en banc on *a #, 1$%$, !ut with three

commissioners dissenting. /).R. 9o. %%DD#, Rollo, pp #+E&1 penned ! ommissioner '!ueg, ;r., with ommissioners 'frica Rama, and 7orac,

dissenting0 The dismissal of this case is the su!Fect of ).R. 9o. %%DD#. /at pp. 11E10

2isposing of the consolidated petitions, this ourt rendered Fudgment as follows:


12/27

1. In ).R.9os. %++"1ED, the decision dated =e!ruar , 1$%$, the resolution dated 'pril 1, 1$%$, are affirmed and the petition is 2IS*ISS32.

". In ).R. 9o. %%DD#, the decision dated =e!ruar ,1$%$, and the resolution dated *a #, 1$%$, are R3?3RS32 and S3T 'SI23. Respondent

ommission on 3lections is R23R32 to directl hear and decide SP ase 9o. %%E#& under Section +% of the mni!us 3lection ode, with autho

to maintain or lift our temporar restraining order of 'pril 1%, 1$%$, according to its own assessment of the evidence against the private respondent.

The parties are enFoined to resolve this case with all possi!le speed, to the end that the )overnor of (ete ma !e ascertained and installed without furdela. /p. "D0

In view of these rulings, the *3(3, upon motion of (arra5a!al, lifted its temporar restraining order against her proclamation paving (arra5a!alCs proclamation and he

assumption to the ffice of )overnor of (ete while the hearings in the dis8ualification case /SP 9o. %%E#&0 continued.

n =e!ruar 1#, 1$$1, the second division in a "E1 vote rendered a decision dis8ualifing (arra5a!al as governor.

n ;ul 1%, 1$$1, the ommission en banc issued a resolution which denied (arra5a!alCs motion to declare decision void andLor motion for reconsideration and affirmed the

second divisionCs decision. In the same resolution, the ommission disallowed '!ellaCs proclamation as governor of (ete.

4ence, these petitions.

Be treat the various omments as 'nswers and decide the petitions on their merits.

'cting on a most urgent petition /motion0 for the issuance of a restraining order filed ! petitioner (arra5a!al, this ourt issued a temporar restraining order on 'ugust 1, 1

GGG GGG GGG

... J3Kffective immediatel and continuing until further orders from this ourt, ordering the respondent on on 3lections to 3'S3 and 23SIST fromenforcing, implementing and eGecuting the decision and resolution, respectivel dated =e!ruar 1#, 1$$1 and ;ul 1%, 1$$1.

It appearing that despite the filing of this petition !efore this ourt and during its pendenc, the incum!ent ?iceE)overnor of (ete 4on. (eopoldo 3.

Petilla, took his oath as Provincial )overnor of (ete and assumed the governorship as contained in his telegraphic message, pursuant to *3(3

resolution SP 9o. %%E#&, promulgated on ;ul 1%, 1$$1, the ourt further Resolved to R23R 4on. (eopoldo 3. Petilla to *'I9T'I9 the status

ante then prevailing andLor eGisting !efore the filing of this petition and to 23SIST from assuming the office of the )overnor and from discharging th

duties and functions thereof. /RolloE1DD+$, p. "D#0

In ).R. 9o. 1DD+$, petitioner (arra5a!al professes that the *3(3 completel disregarded our pronouncement in ).R. 9o. %%DD# in that instead of acting on SP as9o. %%E#& under section +% of the 3lection ode, the *3(3 proceeded with a dis8ualification case not contemplated in ).R. 9o. %%DD#.

The argument is not meritorious.

The 8uestioned decision and resolution of the *3(3 conform with this ourtCs decision in ).R. 9o. %%DD#.

Initiall, herein respondent Silvestre T. de la ru5 /-enFamin P. '!ella, petitioner in ).R. 9o. 1DD+1D was allowed to intervene in the case0 filed a petition with the *3(

to dis8ualif petitioner (arra5a!al from running as governor of (ete on the ground that she misrepresented her residence in her certificate of candidac as @ananga, (ete.

was alleged that she was in fact a resident of rmoc it like her hus!and who was earlier dis8ualified from running for the same office. The *3(3 dismissed the peti

and referred the case to its (aw 2epartment for proper action on the ground that the petition was a violation of Section +# of the 3lection ode and, pursuant to it rules, shou!e prosecuted as an election offense under Section "&" of the ode.

This ourt reversed and set aside the *3(3Cs ruling, to wit:

The ourt holds that the dismissal was improper. The issue of residence having !een s8uarel raised !efore it, it should not have !een shunted aside to

(aw 2epartment for a rounda!out investigation of the private respondentCs 8ualification through the filing of a criminal prosecution, if found to !e

warranted, with resultant dis8ualification of the accused in case of conviction. The *3(3 should have opted for a more direct and speed proces

availa!le under the law, considering the vital pu!lic interest involved and the necessit of resolving the 8uestion of the earliest possi!le time for the !e

of the inha!itants of (ete.

In the view of the ourt, the pertinent provision is Section +% in relation to Section & of R.'. 9o. &&.

Sec. +%.Petition to deny d+e co+rse to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. M ' verified petition seeking to den due course or to cancel a certificate candidac ma !e filed ! an person eGclusivel on the ground that an material representation contained therein as re8uired under Section +# hereo

false. The petition ma !e filed at an time not later than twentEfive das from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidac and shall !e decide

after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen das !efore the election.

Section & of R.'. && states as follows:

/ffect of is8+alification ase. M 'n candidate who has !een declared ! final Fudgment to !e dis8ualified shall not !e voted for, and the votes cast

him shall not !e counted. If for an reason a candidate is not declared ! final Fudgment !efore an election to !e dis8ualified and he is voted in suchelection, the ourt or ommission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, in8uir, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or an

intervenor, ma during the pendenc thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong. .


13/27

GGG GGG GGG

The a!oveEstressed circumstances should eGplain the necessit for continuing the investigation of the private respondentCs challenged dis8ualification

after the election notwithstanding that such matter is usuall resolved !efore the election. Independentl of these circumstances, such proceedings are

allowed ! Section & of R'. && if for an reason a candidate is not declared ! final Fudgment !efore an election to !e dis8ualified ...

In fine, the ourt directed the *3(3 to determine the residence 8ualification of petitioner (arra5a!al in SP ase 9o. %%E#&. oncomitant with this directive would !the dis8ualification of petitioner (arra5a!al in the event that su!stantial evidence is adduced that she reall lacks the residence provided ! law to 8ualif her to run for the

position of governor in (ete.

In line with the ourtCs directive, the *3(3 conducted hearings in SP ase 9o. %%E#& to resolve the 8ualification of (arra5a!al on the !asis of two /"0 legal issues r

! Silvestre T. de la ru5 namel, (arra5a!alCs lack of legal residence in the province of (ete and her not !eing a registered voter in the province, as re8uired ! Title II,

hapter I, Section #", -.P. -lg. +, in relation to 'rticle X, Section 1" of the onstitution, to wit:

Sec. #". 9+alification. M /10 'n elective local official must !e a citi5en of the Philippines, at least twentEthree ears of age on election da, a 8ualifievoter registered as such in the !aranga, municipalit, cit or province where he proposes to !e elected, a resident therein for at least one ear at the tim

of the filing of his certificate of candidac, and a!le to read and write 3nglish, Pilipino, or an other local language or dialect.

GGG GGG GGG

Sec. 1". ities that are highl ur!ani5ed, as determined ! law, and component cities whose charters prohi!it their voters from voting for provincial

elective officials, shall !e independent of the province. The voters of component cities within a province, whose charters contain no such prohi!ition,

not !e deprived of their right to vote for elective provincial officials.

The position of petitioners 2e la ru5 and '!ena was that respondent (arra5a!al is neither a resident nor a registered voter of @ananga, (ete as she claimed !ut a resident a

registered voter of rmoc it, a component cit of the province of (ete !ut independent of the province pursuant to Section 1", 'rticle X of the onstitution there!dis8ualifing her for the position of governor of (ete. The presented testimonial as well as documentar evidence to prove their stance.

n the other hand, respondent (arra5a!al maintained that she was a resident and a registered voter of @ananga, (ete. She, too presented testimonial as well as documentar

evidence to prove her stand.

The *3(3 ruled against the respondent, now petitioner (arra5a!al.

In its 8uestioned decision and resolution, the *3(3 found that petitioner (arra5a!al was neither a resident of @ananga, (ete nor a registered voter thereat. Bith these

findings, the *3(3 dis8ualified the petitioner as governor of the province of (ete.

The petitioner, however, avers that the *3(3 decision is erroneous when it relied on the provisions of the =amil ode to rule that the petitioner lacks the re8uired

residence to 8ualif her to run for the position of governor of (ete. She opines that under


14/27

The acknowledgment also indicates that 3meterio ?. (arra5a!al presented his Residence ertificate 9o. 1++#$1# issued in rmoc it.

The testimon of 'dolfo (arra5a!al reenforces this conclusion. It admits, as of the second or third week of 9ovem!er, that the residence of 3meterio

(arra5a!al was rmoc it and that Inda (arra5a!al was going to transfer her registration so she ma !e a!le to vote for him.

=or the purpose of running for pu!lic office, the residence re8uirement should !e read as legal residence or domicile, not an place where a part ma

have properties and ma visit from time to time.

The ivil ode is clear that CJ=Kor the eGercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil o!ligations, the domicile of natural persons is the place of thei

ha!itual residence.

'rts. &% and &$ of the =amil ode, 3.. 9o. "D$ also provide as follows:

'rt. &%. The hus!and and wife are o!liged to live together, o!serve mutual love, respect and fidelit, and render mutual help an

support.

'rt. &$. The hus!and and wife shall fiG the famil domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide. The court ma eGem

one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live a!road or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the

eGemption. 4owever, such eGemption shall not appl if the same is not compati!le with the solidarit of the famil.

4us!and and wife as a matter of principle live together in one legal residence which is their usual place of a!ode. /*3(3 decision, pp. "1E" Ro 1DD+1D, pp. &+E&$ 3mphsis supplied0

's regards the principle of '9I*>S R3?3RT392I we ruled in the case of


15/27

/0 The voterCs affidavit was delivered ! itself without an endorsement or covering letter from the 3lection Registrar or an!od else

/#0 The election clerk delivered the application for cancellation onl towards the last hour of the revision da, allegedl at #:D P.*., ;anuar $, 1$%%

/0 'll the mem!ers of the -oard of 3lection Inspectors had alread signed the *inutes indicating that no revision of the voterCs list was made as of :

P*

/&0 The poll clerk and the third mem!er prepared another minutes stating that the election clerk had delivered the application for cancellation at #:D Pwithout an reference to the minutes the had previousl signed

/+0 3meterio (arra5a!al, who was supposed to have registered in Precinct 1+, *ahawan, @ananga, was supposed to have filled up an application for

cancellation of his registration in Precinct 9o. 1, rmoc it at Precinct 1+ concurrent with his registration. 4is application for cancellation was nev

su!mitted in evidence.

/%0 The serial num!er of the voterCs affidavits of the spouses (arra5a!al in Precinct 9o. 1+ are far removed from the serial num!ers of the other new

registrants in 9ovem!er "%, 1$%+ in the same precinct.

The most telling evidence is the list of voters /=orm "E'0, 3Gh.


16/27

=ailing in her contention that she is a resident and registered voter of @ananga, (ete, the petitioner poses an alternative position that her !eing a registered voter in rmoc

was no impediment to her candidac for the position of governor of the province of (ete.

Section 1", 'rticle X of the onstitution provides:

ities that are highl ur!ani5ed, as determined ! law, and component cities whose charters prohi!it their voters from voting for provincial elective

officials, shall !e independent of the province. The voters of component cities within a province, whose charters contain no such prohi!ition, shall notdeprived of their right to vote for elective provincial officials.

Section %$ of Repu!lic 'ct 9o. 1+$ creating the it of rmoc provides:

3lection of provincial governor and mem!ers of the Provincial -oard of the mem!ers of the Provincial -oard of the Province of (ete M The 8ualifie

voters of rmoc it shall not !e 8ualified and entitled to vote in the election of the provincial governor and the mem!ers of the provincial !oard of th

Province of (ete.

Relating therefore, section %$ of R.'. 1+$ to section 1", 'rticle X of the onstitution one comes up with the following conclusion: that rmoc it when organi5ed was not

a highlEur!anned cit !ut is, nevertheless, considered independent of the province of (ete to which it is geographicall attached !ecause its charter prohi!its its voters fromvoting for the provincial elective officials. The 8uestion now is whether or not the prohi!ition against the CcitCs registered votersC electing the provincial officials necessaril

mean, a prohi!ition of the registered voters to !e elected as provincial officials.

The petitioner citing section #, 'rticle X of the onstitution, to wit:

Sec. #. The President of the Philippines shall eGercise general supervision over local governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and

municipalities and cities and municipalities with respect to component !arangas, shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the sco

of their prescri!ed powers and functions.

su!mits that


17/27

=inall, the petitioner contends that the =e!ruar 1#, 1$$1 decision of the *3(3Cs second division is null and void on the ground that on that date, the term of

ommissioner 'ndres =lores, one of the signatories of the maForit opinion /vote was "E10 had alread eGpired on =e!ruar ", 1$$1. /ommissioner =lores was nominated !

the President on ;anuar D, 1$%% and was confirmed ! the ommission on 'ppointments on =e!ruar 1, 1$%%. 4is term of office was fiGed ! the President for three eafrom =e!ruar 1, 1$%% to =e!ruar 1, 1$$1.0

The petitioner postulates that the President has no power to fiG the terms of office of the ommissioners of the *3(3 !ecause the onstitution impliedl fiGes such ter

of office. Bith regards to ommissioner =lores, the petitioner professes that =loresC term of three /0 ears eGpired on =e!ruar ", 1$$1 !ased in section 1/"0, 'rticle IX, ,

the onstitution, to wit:

GGG GGG GGG

/"0 The hairman and the ommissioners shall !e appointed ! the President with the consent of the ommission on 'ppointments for a term of seve

ears without reappointment. f those first appointed, three *em!ers shall hold office for seven ears, two *em!ers for five ears, and the last *emfor three ears, without reappointment. 'n appointment to an vacanc shall !e onl for the uneGpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall an

*em!er !e appointed or designated in a temporar or acting capacit. In relation to the Transitor Provision of the 1$%+ onstitution /'rticle X?III0

particularl Section 1 thereof, to wit:

GGG GGG GGG

The incum!ent *em!ers of the ivil Service ommission, the ommission on 3lections, and the ommission on 'udit shall continue in office for on

ear after the ratification of this onstitution, unless the are sooner removed for cause or !ecome incapacitated to discharge The duties of their office

appointed to a new term thereunder. In no case shall an *em!er serve longer than seven ears including service !efore the ratification of thisonstitution.

There is no need to pass upon this constitutional issue raised ! the petitioner. The ourt ruled in the case ofAlger /lectric, 7nc. -. o+rt of Appeals /1 SR' + J1$%K0:

GGG GGG GGG

... This ourt does not decide 8uestions of a constitutional nature unless a!solutel necessar to a decision of the case. If there eGists some other groun

!ased on statute or general law or other grounds of construction, we decide the case on a nonEconstitutional determination. /See -urton v. >nited State

1$& >.S. "% Siler v. (ouisville N 9ashville R. o. "1 >.S. 1+ -erea ollege v. @entuck "11 >.S. #.0 /at p. #0

3ven if we concede that ommissioner =loresC term eGpired on =e!ruar ", 1$$1, we fail to see how this could validate the holding of an elective office ! one who is clearl

dis8ualified from running for that position and the continued eGercise of government powers ! one without legal authorit to do so. The powers of this ourt are !road enoto enFoin the violation of constitutional and statutor provisions ! pu!lic officers especiall where, as in this case, we merel affirm the decision of the *3(3 en

bancpromulgated at a time when ommissioner =lores was no longer a mem!er.

*oreover, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the decision of the second division of *3(3 would still !e valid under the de factodoctrine.

ommissioner =lores was appointed for a threeEear term from =e!ruar 1, 1$%% to =e!ruar 1, 1$$1. In these three ears he eGercised his duties and functions as

ommissioner. )ranting in the a!sence of a statute eGpressl stating when the terms of the *3(3 hairman and mem!ers commence and eGpire, that his term eGpired

=e!ruar ", 1$$1 to ena!le a faithful compliance with the constitutional provision that the terms of office in the *3(3 are on a staggered !asis commencing and endinfiGed intervals, his continuance in office until =e!ruar 1, 1$$1 has a color of validit. Therefore, all his official acts from =e!ruar , 1$$1 to =e!ruar 1, 1$$1, areconsidered valid. The ourt ruled in the case ofLeyte Acting ;ice#$o-ernor A+relio . Men6on -. Leyte Acting $o-ernor Leopoldo /. Perilla, et al. ).R. 9o. $D+&", *a "

1$$1:

'nd finall, even granting that the President, acting through the Secretar of (ocal )overnment, possesses no power to appoint the petitioner, at the v

least, the petitioner is a de facto officer entitled to compensation.

There is no dening that the petitioner assumed the ffice of the ?iceE)overnor under color of a known appointment. 's revealed ! the records, the

petitioner was appointed ! no less than the alter ego of the President, the Secretar of (ocal )overnment, after which he took his oath of office !eforSenator 'l!erto Romulo in the ffice of 2epartment of (ocal )overnment Regional 2irector Res Salvatierra. oncededl, the appointment has the co

of validit.

Petitioner -enFamin P. '!ella in ).R. 9o. 1DD+1D o!tained the second highest num!er of votes, neGt to (arra5a!al in the local elections of =e!ruar 1, 1$%% in the province

(ete. The *3(3 en !anc, after affirming the =e!ruar 1#, 1$$1 decision of its second division dis8ualifing arra5a!al as governor disallowed '!ella from assuming

position of governor in accordance with section &, Repu!lic 'ct 9o. && and the rulings in the cases of


18/27


19/27

G.R. No. 103+02 !ee-ber *, 199(

MUNICIPALIT# OF SAN NARCISO, DU%ON MA#OR $UAN . U# COUNCILORS: !OGRACIAS R. ARGOSINO III, BNITO T. CAPIO, MMANU

R. CORT%, NORMAN!O MONTILLA, LONAR!O C. U#, FI!L C. AURLLANA, P!RO C. CARABIT, LONAR!O !. AURLLANA, FABIAN M.

M!NILLA, TRINI!A! F. CORT%, SAL@A!OR M. M!NILLA, CRLITO B. AURA!A a&' FRANCISCA A. BAMBA,petitioners,vs.

ON. ANTONIO @. MN!%, SR., Pre'& $u'e, Reo&a< Tra< Cour, Bra&4 *2, (4 $u'a< Reo&, Gu-aa, DueEo& MUNICIPALIT# OF SAN AN!R

DU%ON MA#OR FRANCISCO ! LON COUNCILORS: F LUPINAC, TOMAS A@RIA, MANUL O. OSAS, "ILFR!O O. FONTANIL, NRICO U

NA!RS, RO!LITO LU%OIR, LNAC, $OS L. CARABOT, !OMING AUSA, @I!AL BANDULS a&' CORA%ON M. MA=IMO, respondents.

Man+el Laserna, 2r. for petitioners.


20/27

The special civil action of 8+o warranto is a nder this administrative order, the *unicipalit of San 'ndres had !een covered ! the 1Dth *unicipal ircuit ourt of San =ranciscoESan

'ndres for the province of Aue5on.

't the present time, all dou!ts on the de "+re standing of the municipalit must !e dispelled. >nder the rdinance /adopted on 1 cto!er 1$%&0 apportioning the seats of the4ouse of Representatives, appended to the 1$%+ onstitution, the *unicipalit of San 'ndres has !een considered to !e one of the twelve /1"0 municipalities composing the

Third 2istrict of the province of Aue5on. 38uall significant is Section ##"/d0 of the (ocal )overnment ode to the effect that municipal districts


21/27

G.R. No. 11*+02 !ee-ber 28, 199)

T MUNICIPALIT# OF CAN!I$A#, BOOL, a& 4rou4 Sa&u&a& Baya& a&' Mayor,petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPALS a&' T MUNICIPALIT# OF ALICIA, BOOL, respondents.

R 3 S ( > T I 9

PANGANIBAN,J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorariof the 2ecision of the ourt of 'ppeals 1promulgated on ;une "%, 1$$#,re-ersing the Fudgment2of the Regional Trial ourt /-ran

of the it of Tag!ilaran, -ohol.

The lower courtCs decision, among other things, declared

said !arrio forms part and parcel of its territor, therefore, !elonging to said plaintiff municipalit

Septem!er 1&, 1$#$ /which created the municipalit of 'licia from out of certain !arrios of the municipalit of *a!ini0, and 'ct 9o. $&% of the Philippine ommission date

cto!er 1, 1$D /which set forth the respective component territories of the municipalities of *a!ini and andiFa0, concluded that


22/27

n the second issue, we noted that petitioner commenced its collateral attack on the Furidical personalit of respondent municipalit on 1$ ;anuar 1$%# /or some thirt five

ears after respondent municipalit first came into eGistence in 1$#$0 during the proceedings in the court a 8+o. It appears that, after presentation of its evidence, herein

petitioner asked the trial court to !ar respondent municipalit from presenting its evidence on the ground that it had no Furidical personalit. Petitioner contended that 3Gec.rder 9o. "& issued ! President Auirino on Septem!er 1&, 1$#$ creating respondent municipalit is null and void ab initio, inasmuch as Section &% of the Revised

'dministrative ode, on which said 3Gecutive rder was !ased, constituted an undue delegation of legislative powers to the President of the Philippines, and was therefore

declared unconstitutional, per this ourtCs ruling inPelae6 -s.A+ditor $eneral.3

In this regard, we call to mind the ruling of this ourt inM+nicipality of San %arciso, 9+e6on -s.Mende6, Sr.(, which will !e found ver instructive in the case at !ench.

Therein we stated:

Bhile petitioners would grant that the enactment of Repu!lic 'ct 9o. +1&D J(ocal )overnment ode of 1$$1K ma have converted the *unicipalit oSan 'ndres into a de factomunicipalit, the, however, contend that since the petition for 8+o warranto had !een filed prior to the passage of said law

petitioner municipalit had ac8uired a vested right to seek the nullification of 3Gecutive rder 9o. , and an attempt to appl Section ##" of Repu

'ct +1&D to the petition would perforce !e violative of due process and the e8ual protection clause of the onstitution.

PetitionerCs theor might perhaps !e a point to consider had the case !een seasona!l !rought. 3Gecutive rder 9o. creating the municipal district

San 'ndres was issued on "D 'ugust 1$$ !ut i t was onl after almost t!irty =53> years, or on D ;une 1$%$, that the municipalit of San 9arciso fina

decided to challenge the legalit of the eGecutive order. In the meantime, the *unicipal district, and later the *unicipalit of San 'ndres, !egan andcontinued to eGercise the powers and authorit of a dul created local government unit. In the same manner that the failure of a pu!lic officer to 8uesti

his ouster or the right of another to hold a position within a oneEear period can a!rogate an action !elatedl file, so also, if not indeed with greatest

imperativeness, must a 8+o warrantoproceeding assailing the lawful authorit of a political su!division !e timel raised. Pu!lic interest demands it.

)ranting that 3Gecutive rder 9o. was a complete nullit for !eing the result of an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, the peculiar

circumstances o!taining in this case hardl could offer a choice other than to consider the *unicipalit of San 'ndres to have at least attained a status

uni8uel of its own closel approGimating, if not in fact attaining, that of a de factomunicipal corporation. onventional wisdom cannot allow it to !eotherwise. reated in 1$$ ! virtue of 3Gecutive rder 9o. , the *unicipalit of San 'ndres had !een in eGistence for more than siG ears when,

"# 2ecem!er 1$&,Pelae6 -s.A+ditor $eneral was promulgated. The ruling could have sounded the call for a similar declaration of the

unconstitutionalit of 3Gecutive rder 9o. !ut it was not to !e the case. n the contrar, certain governmental acts all pointed to the StateCs

recognition of the continued eGistence of the *unicipalit of San 'ndres. Thus, after more than five ears as a municipal district, 3Gecutive rder 9o1+# classified the *unicipalit of San 'ndres as a fifth class municipalit after having surpassed the income re8uirement laid out in Repu!lic 'ct 9o.11. Section 1 of -atas Pam!ansa -lg. 1"$, otherwise known as the ;udiciar Reorgani5ation 'ct of 1$%D, constituted as municipal circuits, in the

esta!lishment of *unicipal ircuit Trial ourts in the countr, certain municipalities that comprised the municipal circuits organi5ed under 'dministr

rder 9o. , dated 1 ;une 1$+%, issued ! this court pursuant to Presidential 2ecree 9o. +. >nder this administrative order, the *unicipalit of S

'ndres had !een covered ! the 1Dth *unicipal ircuit ourt of San =ranciscoESan 'ndres for the province of Aue5on.

't the present time, all dou!ts on the de "+re standing of the municipalit must !e dispelled. >nder the rdinance /adopted on 1 cto!er 1$%&0

apportioning the seats of the 4ouse of Representatives, appended to the 1$%+ onstitution, the *unicipalit of San 'ndres has !een considered to !e of the twelve /1"0 municipalities composing the Third 2istrict of the province of Aue5on. 38uall significant is Section ##" /d0 of the (ocal )overnm

ode to the effect that municipal districts


23/27

G.R. No. 10)+(* !ee-ber 2, 199*

MUNICIPALIT# OF $IMN%, 4rou4 MA#OR LUTRIO A. DUIMBO, @IC7MA#OR ROBINSON B. LOMO, COUNCILORS TOFILO GALORI

CASIANO A!ORABL, MARIO APAO, ANTONIO BINS, @! SULLANO, MARITO TAN, SR., RMINIO SRINO, BN$AMIN !ANO, a&'

CRISPULO MUNAR, a&' LUTRIO A. DUIMBO, ROBINSON B. LOMO, TOFILO GALORIO, CASIANO A!ORABL, MARIO APAO, ANTONIO

BINS, @! SULLANO, MARITO TAN, SR., RMINIO SRINO, BN$AMIN !ANO, a&' CRISPULO MUNAR, & 4er /rae a/ae a a5/ayer

4e Pro&e o6 Ma- O'e&a< a&' & 4e Mu&/a&o ON. FRANLIN !RILON?, =CUTI@ SCRTAR# OFFIC OF T PRSI!NT, respondents.

MN!O%A,J.:p

This is a petition for review of the decision dated *arch #, 1$$" of the Regional Trial ourt, -ranch 1# of ro8uieta it, 1affirming the legal eGistence of the *unicipalit

Sinaca!an in *isamis ccidental and ordering the relocation of its !oundar for the purpose of determining whether certain areas claimed ! it !elong to it.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

The *unicipalit of Sinaca!an was created ! 3Gecutive rder 9o. "% of then President 3lpidio Auirino, pursuant to Q&% of the Revised 'dministrative ode of 1$1+. TheteGt of the rder reads:

3X3>TI?3 R23R 9. "%

R3'TI9) T43 *>9IIP'(IT7 = SI9''-'9,

I9 T43 PR?I93 = *IS'*IS I239T'(

>pon the recommendation of the Secretar of the Interior, and pursuant to the provisions of Section &% of the Revised 'dministrative ode, there is

here! created, in the Province of *isamis ccidental, a municipalit to !e known as the municipalit of Sinaca!an, which shall consist of the southe

portion of the municipalit of ;imene5, *isamis ccidental, more particularl descri!ed and !ounded as follows:

n the north ! a line starting from point 1, the center of the lighthouse on the Ta!oEo point S. %# DCB., +,"D meters to point " which is on the !anPalilan River !ranch thence following Palilan River !ranch ",#DD meters southwesterl to point , thence a straight line S %+ DDC B, "",D meters to

point #, where this intersects the *isamis ccidentalE6am!oanga !oundar on the west, ! the present *isamis ccidentalE6am!oanga !oundar anthe south ! the present ;imene5ETudela !oundar and on the east, ! the limits of the municipal waters which the municipalit of Sinaca!an shall ha

pursuant to section ""1 of the Revised 'dministrative ode, /2escription !ased on data shown in 3nlarged *ap of Po!lacion of ;imene5, Scale 1:%:

The municipalit of Sinaca!an contains the !arrios of Sinaca!an, which shall !e the seat of the municipal government, Sinonoc, (i!ertad, the southern

portion of the !arrio of *aca!aao, and the sitios of Tipan, @atipunan, 3strella, =lores, Senior, 'dora!le, San Isidro, agaanon, @amanse, @ulupan (i!ertad 'lto.

The municipalit of ;imene5 shall have its present territor, minus the portion thereof included in the municipalit of Sinaca!an.

The municipalit of Sinaca!an shall !egin to eGist upon the appointment and 8ualification of the maor, viceEmaor, and a maForit of the councilors

thereof. The new municipalit shall, however, assume pament of a proportionate share of the loan of the municipalit of ;imene5 with the Reha!ilita

=inance orporation as ma !e outstanding on the date of its organi5ation, the proportion of such pament to !e determined ! the 2epartment of =in

2one in the it of *anila, this Dth da of 'ugust, in the ear of ur (ord, nineteen hundred and fortEnine, and of the Independence of the Philippithe fourth.

/S)2.0 3(PI2I A>IRI9President of the Philippines

- the President:

/S)2.0 T32R 3?'9)3(IST'

3Gecutive Secretar

- virtue of *unicipal ouncil Resolution 9o 1+1, 2dated 9ovem!er "", 1$%%, Sinaca!an laid claim to a portion of -arrio Ta!oEo and to -arrios *aca!aao, 'dora!le, Sin

-aFa, and Sinara 'lto,3!ased on the technical description in 3.. 9o. "%. The claim was filed with the Provincial -oard of *isamis ccidental against the *unicipalit of

;imene5.


24/27

In its answer, the *unicipalit of ;imene5, while conceding that under 3.. 9o. "% the disputed area is part of Sinaca!an, nonetheless asserted Furisdiction on the !asis of a

agreement it had with the *unicipalit of Sinaca!an. This agreement was approved ! the Provincial -oard of *isamis ccidental, in its Resolution 9o. ++, dated =e!ruar

1$D, which fiGed the common !oundar of Sinaca!an and ;imene5 as follows: (

=rom a point at agaanon -each follow *aca!aao Road until it intersects Ta!angag reek at the !ack of the *aca!aao 3lementar School. =ollowthe Ta!angag reek until it intersect the *aca!aao River at upper 'dora!le. =ollow the *aca!aao River such that t!e barrio of Macabayao, Sitio

Adorable and site will be a part of 2imene6 down and the sitios of San ?icente, 2onan, 3strella, *apula will !e a part of Sinaca!an. /3mphasis added0

In its decision dated cto!er 11, 1$%$, )the Provincial -oard declared the disputed area to !e part of Sinaca!an. It held that the previous resolution approving the agreement

!etween the municipalities was void !ecause the -oard had no power to alter the !oundaries of Sinaca!an as fiGed in 3.. 9o. "%, that power !eing vested in ongress

pursuant to the onstitution and the (ocal )overnment ode of 1$% /-.P. -lg. +0, Q1#. *The Provincial -oard denied in its Resolution 9o. 1E$D dated ;anuar D, 1$$the motion of ;imene5 seeking reconsideration. +

n *arch "D, 1$$D, ;imene5 filed a petition for certiorari, prohi!ition, and mandam+sin the Regional Trial ourt of ro8uieta it, -ranch 1#. The suit was filed against

Sinaca!an, the Province of *isamis ccidental and its Provincial -oard, the ommission on 'udit, the 2epartments of (ocal )overnment, -udget and *anagement, and th

3Gecutive Secretar. ;imene5 alleged that, in accordance with the decision in Pelae6 -.A+ditor $eneral, 8the power to create municipalities is essentiall legislative and

conse8uentl Sinaca!an, which was created ! an eGecutive order, had no legal personalit and no right to assert a territorial claim -is#a#-is;imene5, of which it remains pa

;imene5 praed that Sinaca!an !e enFoined from assuming control and supervision over the disputed !arrios that the Provincial -oard !e enFoined from assuming Furisdictioover the claim of Sinaca!an that 3.. 9o. "% !e declared null and void that the decision dated cto!er 11, 1$%$ and Resolution 9o. 1E$D of the Provincial -oard !e set a

for having !een rendered without Furisdiction that the ommission on 'udit !e enFoined from passing in audit an eGpenditure of pu!lic funds ! Sinaca!an that the

2epartment of -udget and *anagement !e enFoined from allotting pu!lic funds to Sinaca!an and that the 3Gecutive Secretar !e enFoined from eGercising control and

supervision over said municipalit.

2uring preEtrial, the parties agreed to limit the issues to the following:

'. Bhether the *unicipalit of Sinaca!an is a legal Furidical entit, dul created in accordance with law

-. If not, whether it is a de factoFuridical entit. Bhether the validit of the eGistence of the *unicipalit can !e properl 8uestioned in this action on certiorari

2. Bhether the *unicipalit of ;imene5 which had recogni5ed the eGistence of the municipalit for more than #D ears is estopped to 8uestion itseGistence

3. Bhether the eGistence of the municipalit has !een recogni5ed ! the laws of the land and

=. Bhether the decision of the Provincial -oard had ac8uired finalit.

n =e!ruar 1D, 1$$", the RT rendered its decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

B43R3=R3, premises considered, it is the finding of this ourt that the petition must !e denied and Fudgment is here! rendered declaring a SA

9:O, that is, the municipalit of Sinaca!an shall continue to eGist and operate as a regular municipalit declaring the decision dated cto!er 11, 1$%

rendered ! the Sangguniang Panlalawigan fiGing the !oundaries !etween Sinaca!an and ;imene5, *isamis cci. as null and void, the same not !eing

accordance with the !oundaries provided for in 3Gecutive rder 9o. "% creating the municipalit of Sinaca!an dismissing the petition for lack of mewithout pronouncement as to costs and damages. Bith respect to the counterclaim, the same is here! ordered dismissed.

The ommissioners are here! ordered to conduct the relocation surve of the !oundar of Sinaca!an within &D das from the time the decision shall

!ecome final and eGecutor and another &D das within which to su!mit their report from the completion of the said relocation surve.

S R23R32.

The RT, inter alia, held that Sinaca!an is a de facto corporation since it had completel organi5ed itself even prior to thePelae6 case and eGercised corporate

powers for fort ears !efore its eGistence was 8uestioned that ;imene5 did not have the legal standing to 8uestion the eGistence of Sinaca!an, the same !eing

reserved to the State as represented ! the ffice of the Solicitor )eneral in a 8+o warrantoproceeding that ;imene5 was estopped from 8uestioning the legaleGistence of Sinaca!an ! entering into an agreement with it concerning their common !oundar and that an 8uestion as to the legal eGistence of Sinaca!an had

!een rendered moot ! Q##"/d0 of the (ocal )overnment ode of 1$$1 /R.'. 9o. +1&D0, which provides:

*unicipalities eGisting as of the date of the effectivit of this ode shall continue to eGist and operate as such. 3Gisting municipal districts organi5ed

pursuant to presidential issuances or eGecutive orders and which have their respective set of elective municipal officials holding office at the time of th

effectivit of this ode shall henceforth !e considered as regular municipalities.

n *arch 1+, 1$$D, petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the decision !ut its motion was denied ! the RT. 4ence this petition raising the following issues: /10 whethe

Sinaca!an has legal personalit to file a claim, and /"0 if it has, whether it is the !oundar provided for in 3.. 9o. "% or in Resolution 9o. ++ of the Provincial -oard of

*isamis ccidental which should !e used as the !asis for adFudicating Sinaca!anCs territorial claim.


25/27

4ere, the same factors are present so as to confer on Sinaca!an the status of at least a de facto municipal corporation in the sense that its legal eGistence has !een recogni5ed

ac8uiesced pu!licl and officiall. Sinaca!an had !een in eGistence for siGteen ears whenPelae6 -.A+ditor $eneral was decided on 2ecem!er "#, 1$&. 7et the validit o

3.. 9o. "% creating it had never !een 8uestioned. reated in 1$#$, it was onl #D ears later that its eGistence was 8uestioned and onl !ecause it had laid claim to an areaapparentl is desired for its revenue. This fact must !e underscored !ecause under Rule &&, Q1& of the Rules of ourt, a8+o warranto suit against a corporation for forfeitur

its charter must !e commenced within five /0 ears from the time the act complained of was done or committed. n the contrar, the State and even the *unicipalit of

;imene5 itself have recogni5ed Sinaca!anCs corporate eGistence. >nder 'dministrative rder 9o. dated ;une 1, 1$+% of this ourt, as reiterated ! Q1 of the ;udiciar

Reorgani5ation 'ct of 1$%D /-. P. -lg. 1"$0, Sinaca!an is constituted part of a municipal circuit for purposes of the esta!lishment of *unicipal ircuit Trial ourts in the

countr. =or its part, ;imene5 had earlier recogni5ed Sinaca!an in 1$D ! entering into an agreement with it regarding their common !oundar. The agreement was em!odiResolution 9o. ++ of the Provincial -oard of *isamis ccidental.

Indeed Sinaca!an has attained de "+re status ! virtue of the rdinance appended to the 1$%+ onstitution, apportioning legislative districts throughout the countr, which

considered Sinaca!an part of the Second 2istrict of *isamis ccidental. *oreover, following the ruling inM+nicipality of San %arciso, 9+e6on -.Mende6, Sr., Q##"/d0 of t

(ocal )overnment ode of 1$$1 must !e deemed to have cured an defect in the creation of Sinaca!an. This provision states:

*unicipalities eGisting as of the date of the effectivit of this ode shall continue to eGist and operate as such. 3Gisting municipal districts organi5ed

pursuant to presidential issuances or eGecutive orders and which have their respective set of elective municipal officials holding office at the time of theffectivit of the ode shall henceforth !e considered as regular municipalities.

Second. ;imene5 claims, however, that R.'. 9o. +1&D, Q##"/d0 is invalid, since it does not conform to the constitutional and statutor re8uirements for the holding of ple!isc

in the creation of new

municipalities. 11

This contention will not !ear analsis. Since, as previousl eGplained, Sinaca!an had attained de facto status at the time the 1$%+ onstitution took effect on =e!ruar ", 1$%

is not su!Fect to the ple!iscite re8uirement. This re8uirement applies onl to new municipalities created for the first time under the onstitution. 'ctuall, the re8uirement of

ple!iscite was originall contained in 'rt. XI, Q of the previous onstitution which took effect on ;anuar 1+, 1$+. It cannot, therefore, !e applied to municipal corporatiocreated !efore, such as the *unicipalit of Sinaca!an in the case at !ar.

!ird. =inall, ;imene5 argues that the RT erred in ordering a relocation surve of the !oundar of Sinaca!an !ecause the !arangas which Sinaca!an are claiming are not

enumerated in 3.. 9o. "% and that in an event in 1$D the parties entered into an agreement where! the !arangas in 8uestion were considered part of the territor of;imene5.

3.. 9o. "% does not sa that Sinaca!an comprises onl the !arrios /now called !arangas0 therein mentioned. Bhat it sas is that


26/27

G.R. No. L73820( Se/e-ber 2(, 1991

T MUNICIPALIT# OF SOGO!,petitioner,

vs.

ON. A@LINO S. ROSAL, a $u'e o6 4e Cour o6 Fr &a&e o6 Sou4er& Leye, Bra&4 III, T PRO@INCIAL BOAR! OF SOUTRN L#T, ON

SAL@ACION O. #NIGU%, & 4er a/ay a Goer&or o6 Sou4er& Leye a&' 4e MUNICIPALIT# OF BONTOC, respondents.

G.R. No. 3820) Se/e-ber 2(, 1991

T MUNICIPALIT# OF SOGO!,petitioner,

vs.

ON. A@LINO S. ROSAL, a $u'e o6 4e Cour o6 Fr I&a&e o6 Sou4er& Leye, Bra&4 III a&' 4e Mu&/a


27/27

n 2ecem!er +, 1$+D, the municipalit of Sogod filed ivil ase 9o. RE1+D+ with the ourt of =irst Instance of Southern (ete /now Regional Trial ourt0 for recover of

taGes with receivership against the municipalit of -ontoc. The complaint alleged that the municipalit of -ontoc, without an legal !asis, eGercised Furisdiction not onl ov

the !arrios enumerated in Repu!lic 'ct 9o. "" !ut also over ten /1D0 !arrios !elonging to the complainant municipalit of Sogod. The complaint praed that the municipal-ontoc !e ordered to pa Sogod onehalf of the total amount of taGes collected ! the former from the inha!itants of the aforesaid !arrios during the period from 1$D to 1$

n 'ugust 1, 1$+, the trial court issued an order dismissing ivil ase 9o. RE1+D+ on the ground that the right to collect taGes would ultimatel depend on ivil ase 9o

1+D&, which was alread dismissed for lack of Furisdiction and that the issue as to !oundar dispute have not et !een decided in a ple!iscite for that purpose.

4ence this petition for certiorari under Rule & seeking to annul the a!ove order of the Fudge.

The common issue to !e resolved in these petitions is whether or not the trial court gravel erred in dismissing the two cases for lack of Furisdiction.

;urisdiction has !een defined as the power and authorit to hear and determine a cause or the right to act in a case /4errera v. -arrette and ;oa8uin, " Phil. "# onchada v

2irector of Prisons, 1 Phil. #0. ;urisdiction is conferred onl ! the onstitution or ! law. It cannot !e fiGed ! the will of the parties nor can it !e ac8uired or diminished !

an act of the parties. In determining whether a case lies within or outside the Furisdiction of a court, reference to the applica!le statute on the matter is indispensa!le. It is asettled rule that Furisdiction of a court is determined ! the statute in force at the time of commencement of action /Tolentino v. Social Securit ommission, (E"%%+D,

Septem!er &, 1$%, 1% SR' #"% (ee v. *unicipal Trial ourt of (egaspi it -r. 1, 9o. &%+%$, 9ovem!er 1D, 1$%&, 1# SR' #D% 2ela ru5 v. *oa, 9o. &1$", 'p

"+, 1$%%, 1&D SR' %%0.

't the time the civil actions were filed with the trial court ! petitioner municipalit in 1$+D, the applica!le laws necessar for the determination of the 8uestion of whether t

trial court has the authorit to decide on the municipal !oundar dispute are the following: 10 Repu!lic 'ct 9o. "", creating the municipalit of -ontoc "0 Repu!lic 'ct 9

$D, the Revised -arrio harter, revising Repu!lic 'ct 9o. "+D and 0 Section "1&+ of the Revised 'dministrative ode of 1$1+.

Repu!lic 'ct 9o. "" defines the Furisdiction of the municipalit of -ontoc. It clearl enumerates the !arrios which shag compose the municipalit of -ontoc, to wit: -onto2ivisoria, nion, Pacu, -eniton, atmon, 4ilaan, Taa Sta. ru5, *ahaaha and their corresponding sitios. This means that all the other !arrios in Southern (ete which ar

included in the law creating the municipalit of -ontoc are deemed to remain under the Furisdiction of the municipalit of Sogod. 'lthough the said law is clear as to which

territories shall !elong to each municipalit, the law is silent however, as to the specifications of the !oundar line which will separate the two municipalities.

Bith the passage of Repu!lic 'ct 9o. "+D which took effect on ;anuar 1, 1$&D as revised ! Repu!lic 'ct 9o. $D on ;une "", 1$&, known as the Revised -arrio hart

!arrios ma !e created and their !oundaries altered onl ! 'ct of ongress or ! the corresponding provincial !oard upon petition of the maForit of the voters in the area

affected and the recommendation of the municipalit in which the proposed !arrios are situated. Thus, the provincial !oard was empowered under the Id law to determine analter !oundaries of municipalities and !arrios.

=urther, the law then vested the right to settle !oundar disputes !etween municipalities on the provincial !oard pursuant to Section "1&+ of the Revised 'dministrative od

which reads:

S3. "1&+.M+nicipal bo+ndary disp+tes. M?ow settled 2isputes as to Furisdiction of municipal governments over places or !arrios shall !e decid

! the province !oards of the provinces in which such municipalities are situated, after an investigation at which the municipalities concerned shall !e

dul heard. =rom the decision of the provincial !oard appeal ma !e taken ! the municipalit aggrieved to the Secretar of the Interior /now the ffithe 3Gecutive Secretar0, whose decision shall !e final. Bhere the places or !arrios in dispute are claimed ! municipalities situated in different provi

the provincial !oards of the provinces concerned shall come to an agreement if possi!le, !ut, in the event of their failing to agree, an appeal shall !e ha

the Secretar of Interior /3Gecutive Secretar0, whose decision shall !e final. /*unicipalit of 4ina!angan v. *unicipalit of Bright, 1D+ Phil. $#0.

It is clear from the aforestated legal provision that the authorit to hear and resolve municipal !oundar disputes !elongs to the provincial !oards and not to the trial courts. T

decisions of the !oards are then appeala!le to the 3Gecutive Secretar. Records in the instant case show that when petitioner municipalit filed the civil actions in 1$+D !efor

the trial court, the provincial !oard of Southern (ete had not et conducted a ple!iscite as ordered ! the 3Gecutive 2epartment in 1$&D or rendered an order settling thedispute. Petitioner municipalit should have elevated the matter of dela to the then Secretar of Interior /now 3Gecutive Secretar0 for action instead of !ringing it to the tri

court. 'lthough eGisting laws then vested on the provincial !oard the power to determine or even alter municipal !oundaries, the Secretar of Interior or the 3Gecutive

2epartment for that matter, was not precluded during that time from taking necessar steps for the speed settlement of the !oundar dispute. InPelae6 -. A+ditor $eneral,9

(E"%", 2ecem!er "#, 1$&, 1 SR' &$, which applied Repu!lic 'ct 9o. "+D, known as the -arrio harter, Be held that the power to fiG common !oundaries in orde

avoid or settle conflicts of Furisdiction !etween adFoining municipalities ma also partake of an administrative nature that can !e decided ! the administrative department,involving as it does, the adoption of means and was to carr into effect the laws creating said municipalities.

onsidering the foregoing, Be find that the trial court acted correctl in dismissing the cases for want of Furisdiction and in allowing the provincial !oard to continue with th

pending investigation and proceedings on the !oundar dispute.

It is worth to note however, that up to this time, the controvers !etween these two municipalities has not !een settled. 4owever, this dispute has alread !een overtaken !

events, namel, the enactment of the 1$%+ onstitution and the 9ew (ocal )overnment ode on =e!ruar 1D, 1$%, which imposed new mandator re8uirements andprocedures on the fiGing of !oundaries !etween municipalities. The 1$%+ onstitution now mandates that no province, cit, municipalit or !aranga ma !e created, dividemerged, a!olished or its !oundar su!stantiall altered eGcept in accordance with the criteria esta!lished in the local government code and su!Fect to approval ! a maForit

the votes cast in a ple!iscite in the political units directl affected. 4ence, an alteration or modification of the !oundaries of the municipalities shall onl !e ! a law to !e

enacted ! ongress su!Fect to the approval ! a maForit of the votes cast in a ple!iscite in the !arrios affected /Section 1#, (ocal )overnment ode0. Thus, under present

laws, the function of the provincial !oard to fiG the municipal !oundaries are now strictl limited to the factual determination of the !oundar lines !etween municipalities, t

specified ! natural !oundaries or ! metes and !ounds in accordance with the laws creating said municipalities.

In view of the length of time that this municipal !oundar dispute had remained unresolved, due to the possi!ilit that Repu!lic 'ct 9o. "" has lost its practica!ilit or has!ecome o!solete considering the geographical location of !arrios in Southern (ete, especiall those enumerated in Repu!lic 'ct 9o. "", which apparentl, are much near

Sogod than to -ontoc, this ourt finds that this matter should !e referred to the ongress of the Philippines for whatever legislative action that ma !e necessar under the

circumstances.

Public Officers Muncor

Documents

Transcript of Public Officers Muncor