salaveria

CASE NO. 1

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 159940.  February 16, 2005]

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs.CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.

Facts:    A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court seeking to set aside

                and nullify Resolution No. 030919 of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) dated August 28, 2003.

                It appears that Carandang and Clemente were in the meantime conferred with CSE  Eligibility pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 03-0665 dated June 6, 2003.Petitioner subsequently reclassified several positions by Resolution No. 02-03 dated August 18, 2003 including Graft Investigation Officer III which was reclassified to Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III.  The Ombudsman thereupon requested the approval of the proposed Qualification Standards for the reclassified positions.  With respect to the reclassified Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer III position, the Qualification Standards were the same as those for Graft Investigation Officer III.Subsequently, the CSC, by the challenged Resolution of August 28, 2003, changed the status of Carandang’s and Clemente’s appointments to permanent effective June 6, 2003, but not with respect to De Jesus on the ground that he “has not met the eligibility requirements.”

Issue:    Wether or not that there are independent offices specifically authorized by the constitution

                to appoint their officials ,does this imply that their appointment will not be subject to civil            service law and rules.

Issue:  Wether or not that there are independent offices specifically authorized by the constitution to appoint their officials ,does this imply that their appointment will not be subject to civil service law and rules?

Ruling: No, if these were the case, these independent bodies would arrogate upon themselves a power that properly belongs to the CSC. The intention of the framers of the constitution has been to Isolate and Grant full independence to CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS in the matter of APPOINTMENTS, it would have been so provided, but this not the case and since all matters pertaining to appointments are within the realm of expertise to the CSC, all laws, rules and regulations its issues on appointments must be complied.

CASE NO. 2

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 159747             April 13, 2004

GREGORIO B. HONASAN II, petitioner,
vs.
THE PANEL OF INVESTIGATING PROSECUTORS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (LEO DACERA, SUSAN F. DACANAY, EDNA A. VALENZUELA AND SEBASTIAN F. CAPONONG, JR.), CIDG-PNP- P/DIRECTOR EDUARDO MATILLANO, and HON. OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO, respondents.

Facts:              On June 4, 2003, at on or about 11 p.m., in a house located in San Juan, Metro Manila, a meeting was held and presided by Senator Honasan. Attached as Annex "B" is the affidavit of Perfecto Ragil and made an integral part of this complaint.

4.8 In the early morning of July 27, 2003, Capt. Gerardo Gambala, for and in behalf of the military rebels occupying Oakwood, made a public statement aired on nation television, stating their withdrawal of support to the chain of command of the AFP and the Government of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and they are willing to risk their lives in order to achieve the National Recovery Agenda of Sen. Honasan, which they believe is the only program that would solve the ills of society. . . . (Emphasis supplied).

The Sworn Statement of AFP Major Perfecto Ragil referred to by PNP/P Director Matillano is quoted verbatim, to wit:

1. That I am a member of the Communication –Electronics and Information Systems Services, Armed Forces of the Philippines with the rank of Major;

2. That I met a certain Captain Gary Alejano of the Presidential Security Guard (PSG) during our Very Important Person (VIP) Protection Course sometime in last week of March 2003;

3. That sometime in May 2003, Captain Alejano gave me a copy of the pamphlet of the National Recovery Program (NRP) and told me that: "KailanganngBansangtaongkagayamonawalangbahidng corruption kaya basahinmoito (referring to NRP) pamphlet. I took the pamphlet but never had the time to read it;

4. That sometime in the afternoon of June 4, 2003, Captain Alejano invited me to join him in a meeting where the NRP would be discussed and that there would be a special guest;

5. That Capt. Alejano and I arrived at the meeting at past 9 o'clock in the evening of June 4, 2003 in a house located somewhere in San Juan, Metro Manila;

6. That upon arrival we were given a document consisting of about 3-4 pages containing discussion of issues and concerns within the framework of NRP and we were likewise served with dinner;

7. That while we were still having dinner at about past 11 o'clock in the evening, Sen. Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan arrived together with another fellow who was later introduced as Capt. Turingan;

8. That after Sen. Honasan had taken his dinner, the meeting proper started presided by Sen. Honasan;

9. That Sen. Honasan discussed the NRP, the graft and corruption in the government including the military institution, the judiciary, the executive branch and the like;

10. That the discussion concluded that we must use force, violence and armed struggle to achieve the vision of NRP. At this point, I raised the argument that it is my belief that reforms will be achieved through the democratic processes and not thru force and violence and/or armed struggle. Sen. Honasan countered that "we will never achieve reforms through the democratic processes because the people who are in power will not give up their positions as they have their vested interests to protect." After a few more exchanges of views, Sen. Honasan appeared irritated and asked me directly three (3) times: "In kaba o out?" I then asked whether all those present numbering 30 people, more or less, are really committed, Sen. Honasan replied: "Kung kaya natingpumataysaatingmgakalaban, kaya din natingpumataysamgakasamahangmagtataksil." I decided not to pursue further questions;

11. That in the course of the meeting, he presented the plan of action to achieve the goals of NRP, i.e., overthrow of the government under the present leadership thru armed revolution and after which, a junta will be constituted and that junta will run the new government. He further said that some of us will resign from the military service and occupy civilian positions in the new government. He also said that there is urgency that we implement this plan and that we would be notified of the next activities.

12. That after the discussion and his presentation, he explained the rites that we were to undergo-some sort of "blood compact". He read a prayer that sounded more like a pledge and we all recited it with raised arms and clenched fists. He then took a knife and demonstrated how to make a cut on the left upper inner arm until it bleeds. The cut was in form of the letter "I" in the old alphabet but was done in a way that it actually looked like letter "H". Then, he pressed his right thumb against the blood and pressed the thumb on the lower middle portion of the copy of the Prayer. He then covered his thumb mark in blood with tape. He then pressed the cut on his left arm against the NRP flag and left mark of letter "I" on it. Everybody else followed;

13. That when my turn came, I slightly made a cut on my upper inner arm and pricked a portion of it to let it bleed and I followed what Senator HONASAN did;

14. That I did not like to participate in the rites but I had the fear for my life with what Senator HONASAN said that "…kaya natingpumatayngkasamahan";

15. That after the rites, the meeting was adjourned and we left the place;

16. That I avoided Captain Alejano after that meeting but I was extra cautious that he would not notice it for fear of my life due to the threat made by Senator HONASAN during the meeting on June 4, 2003 and the information relayed to me by Captain Alejano that their group had already deeply established their network inside the intelligence community;

17. That sometime in the first week of July 2003, Captain Alejano came to see me to return the rifle that he borrowed and told me that when the group arrives at the Malacañang Compound for "D-DAY", my task is to switch off the telephone PABX that serves the Malacañang complex. I told him that I could not do it. No further conversation ensued and he left;

18. That on Sunday, July 27, 2003, while watching the television, I saw flashed on the screen Lieutenant Antonio Trillanes, Captain Gerardo Gambala, Captain Alejano and some others who were present during the June 4^th meeting that I attended, having a press conference about their occupation of the Oakwood Hotel. I also saw that the letter "I" on the arm bands and the banner is the same letter "I" in the banner which was displayed and on which we pressed our wound to leave the imprint of the letter "I";

Issue:              Whether or not the powers of the Ombudsman is delegable.

Issue:             

Ruling :           Yes, the power to investigate or conduct preliminary investigation on any Ombudsman case may be exercised by an investigator or prosecutor of the Ofiice of the Ombudsman, or by any Provincial or City Prosecutor or their assistance, either in their regular capacities as deputized Ombudsman.

The charges laid against Senator Honasan are unfounded concoctions of fertile imaginations. The petitioner had no role in the Oakwood mutiny except the quell and pacify the angry young men fighting for a just cause. Inspiration perhaps, from his National Recovery Program, but no marching orders whatsoever."

                       

CASE NO. 3

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT

EN BANC

G.R. No. 158791 July 22, 2005

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Petitioner,
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

Facts:              The Civil Service Commission (petitioner) via the present petition for mandamus seeks to compel the Department of Budget and Management (respondent) to release the balance of its budget for fiscal year 2002. At the same time, it seeks a determination by this Court of the extent of the constitutional concept of fiscal autonomy.

By petitioner’s claim, the amount of P215,270,000.00 was appropriated for its Central Office by the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2002, while the total allocations for the same Office, if all sources of funds are considered, amount to P285,660,790.44.¹ It complains, however, that the total fund releases by respondent to its Central Office during the fiscal year 2002 was only P279,853,398.14, thereby leaving an unreleased balance of P5,807,392.30.

To petitioner, this balance was intentionally withheld by respondent on the basis of its "no report, no release" policy whereby allocations for agencies are withheld pending their submission of the documents mentioned in Sections 3.8 to 3.10 and Section 7.0 of National Budget Circular No. 478 on Guidelines on the Release of the FY 2002 Funds

Issue: Whether or not the policy of DBM “ No Report, No Release Policy “ is constitutional.      

Ruling:          

.            It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL ,The No Report, No Release ‘ Policy may not be validly enforced against offices vested with fiscal autonomy.Being ‘’ AUTOMATIC “ connotes something mechanical, spontaneous, and perfunctory. It means that no condition to fund releases to it may be imposed.

CASE NO. 4

                       

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-58327 March 22, 1991

JESUS C. BALMADRID and MILA C. BALMADRID, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent.

Emmanuel Pelaez, Jr., C.A.S. Sipin, Jr., Tomas L. Echivarre for petitioners.

Facts:             -The Superintendent and Cashier of the Government- owned Catanduanes

                        Agricultural and Industrial College ( CAIC ) were indebted to Jesus and Mila

                        Balmaldrid, suppliers of school construction materials.

                        -The Supt. and Cashier fraudulently issued 4 CAIC checks to the Balmadrids

                       

                        -Jesus and Mila Balmadridare private person.

Issue:              -Whether or not the contention of the respondents being a private citizen

                        theSandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over them.

Ruling:           -Since petitioners have been shown to have participated in the conspiracy, they

                        must be held equally liable with co-accused Binos and Alcantara under section

                        3(e) of RA 3019. In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

           

CASE NO. 5

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 95445 August 6, 1991

MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, FIDEL FABABIER MERLIN ANONUEVO, MINDA GALANG and other teacher-members so numerous similarly situated, petitioners-appellants,
vs.
HON. ISIDRO CARIÑO in his capacity as Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports

Facts:            September 17, 1990 fell on a Monday, which was also a regular school day. There is no question that the some 800 teachers who joined the mass action did not conduct their classes on that day; instead, as alleged in the petition in G.R. No. 95590, ⁴ they converged at the LiwasangBonifacio in the morning whence they proceeded to the National Office of the Department of Education, Culture and Sport (DECS) for a whole-day assembly.

Issue:          Do public teacher have the right to strike?

Ruling :      NO,THE MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ASSOCIATION HAS NO RIGHT TO STRIKE DURING CLASSES HOURS.

                   The dissenting opinions, however, would anchor their defense of the public school teachers on their right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

CASE NO. 6

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 160465             May 27, 2004

ROMEO M. ESTRELLA, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, HON. COMMISSIONER RALPH C. LANTION and ROLANDO F. SALVADOR

Facts:              In the issuance of the questioned COMELEC En Banc Status Quo Ante Order, five (5) of the then incumbent seven (7) members of the COMELEC participated: Commissioners Benjamin Abalos, Sr., LuzvimindaTangcangco, Rufino S.B. Javier, Ressureccion Z. Borra and Ralph C. Lantion.

Commissioners Abalos, Tangcangco, Javier and Lantion voted for the issuance of said order, while Commissioner Borra dissented.

           

Issue:              How many votes are needed for the  Commission on Election En Banc to reach a decision. Whether or not 3 is the majority vote of all its member.

Ruling :           For the foregoing reasons then, this Court hereby abandons the doctrine laid down in Cuaand holds that the COMELEC En Banc shall decide a case or matter brought before it by a majority vote of "all its members," and NOT majority of the members who deliberated and votedthereon.

           

CASE NO. 7

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 95346 January 18, 1991

PERFECTO V. GALIDO, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and SATURNINO R. GALEON, respondents.

Facts:            Petitioner and private respondent were candidates during the 18 January 1988 local elections for the position of mayor in the Municipality of Garcia-Hernandez, Province of Bohol. Petitioner was proclaimed duly-elected Mayor of Garcia-Hernandez, by the Municipal Board of Canvassers.

On 25 January 1988, private respondent Saturnino R. Galeon filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, 7th Judicial Region, Branch I, Tagbilaran City. After hearing, the said court upheld the proclamation of petitioner as the duly-elected Mayor of Garcia-Hernandez, by a majority of eleven (11) votes.

Issue:             Whether or not that the decision of the Comelec in contest involving municipal and barangay officials are final, executor and non-appealable preclude the right to go to the Supreme Court on certiorari will be granted.

           

Ruling:          No, subject to review of certiorari in SC only after reconsideration in a speedy and adequate remedy. 

                                   

CASE NO. 8

     

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 88435            January 16, 2002

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent

Facts:                    On May 13, 1987, after learning that the DBP had signed a contract with a private auditing firm for calendar year 1986, the new COA Chairman wrote the DBP Chairman that the COA resident auditors were under instructions to disallow any payment to the private auditor whose services were unconstitutional, illegal and unnecessary.

On July 1, 1987, the DBP Chairman sent to the COA Chairman a copy of the DBP's contract with Joaquin Cunanan& Co., signed four months earlier on March 5, 1987. The DBP Chairman's covering handwritten note sought the COA's concurrence to the contract.

During the pendency of the DBP Chairman's note-request for concurrence, the DBP paid the billings of the private auditor in the total amount of P487,321.14despite the objection of the COA. On October 30, 1987, the COA Chairman issued a Memorandum disallowing the payments, and holding the following persons personally liable for such payment:

Issue:                  Whether  or not public corporations under the jurisdiction of the COA employ private auditors.

Ruling:          Yes, The clear and unmistakable conclusion from a reading of the entire Sec. 2 is that COA’s power to examine and audit is NON-EXCLUSIVE. On the other hand, the COA’s authority to define the scope of its audit, promulgate auditing rules and regulation, and disallow unnecessary expenditures is EXCLUSIVE.

                        However, as the constitutionally mandated auditor of all government agencies, the COA’s findings and conclusions necessarily PREVAIL over those of private auditors, at least insofar as government agencies and officials are concerned.

CASE NO. 9

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 140563               July 14, 2000

DANTE M. POLLOSO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. CELSO D. GANGAN, Chairman, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HON. RAUL C. FLORES, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HON. EMMANUEL M. DALMAN, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON AUDIT.

Facts:              The facts of the case are undisputed.

In 1994, the National Power Corporation (NPC), represented by its President Dr. Francisco L. Viray entered into a service contract with Atty. Benemerito A. Satorre. Under said contract, Satorre was to perform the following services for the Leyte-Cebu and Leyte-Luzon Interconnection Projects of the NPC:

                        On 12 January 1995, Unit Auditor Alexander A. Tan, NPC-VRC, Cebu City issued Notice of Disallowance No. 95-0001-135-94 for the payment of the services rendered by Atty. Satorre for the period covering March to December 1995 in the total amount of P283,763.39. The following reasons were cited for said disallowance:

            1)....The contract for services did not have the written conformity and acquiescence of the Solicitor General or the Corporate Counsel and concurrence of the Commission on Audit as required under COA Circular No. 86-255 dated April 2, 1986.

2)....The contract was not supported with Certificate of Availability of Funds as required under Sec. 86 of P.D. 1445.

3)....The contract was not submitted to the Civil Service Commission for final review and was not forwarded to the Compensation and Position Confirmation and Classification Bureau, DBM for appropriate action as required in CSC MC # 5 Series of 1985.³

Issue :             Whether or not that the circular requiring the approval of the SOLICITOR GENERAL was  UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it restricted to practice LAW.

Ruling:           The circular was merely a safeguard to prevent irregular, unnecessary, excessive, and extravagant or unconscionable expenditures.We cannot grant the prayer of the petitioner that Atty. Satorre should be compensated based on the principle of quantum meruit, on the ground that the government will be unjustly enriched at the expense of another. We do not deny that Atty. Satorre has indeed rendered legal services to the government. However to allow the disbursement of public funds to pay for his services, despite the absence of requisite consent to his hiring from the OSG or OGCC would precisely allow circumvention of COA Circular No. 86-255.

CASE NO. 10

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 95367 May 23, 1995

COMMISSIONER JOSE T. ALMONTE, VILLAMOR C. PEREZ, NERIO ROGADO, and ELISA RIVERA, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ and CONCERNED CITIZENS, respondents

Facts:                                      This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul the subpoena ducestecumand orders issued by respondent Ombudsman, requiring petitioners NerioRogado and Elisa Rivera, as chief accountant and record custodian, respectively, of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) to produce "all documents relating to Personal Services Funds for the year 1988 and all evidence, such as vouchers (salary) for the whole plantilla of EIIB for 1988" and to enjoin him from enforcing his orders.

Issue:                                         Whether or not that the claim of CONFIDENTIALITY  will not  PREVENT the OMBUDSMAN  from demanding the production of   documents neededfor investigation .

Ruling:                                  Then Court said, the claim of confidentiality does not rest on the need to protect military, diplomatic, or other national security secrets but on general public interest in preserving confidentiality the courts have decline to find in the Constitution  an absolute privilege even for the President.

                                                Moreover, even in cases where matters are really confidential, inspection can be done in camera.