FACTS

ISSUE

Cebu United Enterprises has import

license to purchase over issue newspaper
from the US. However, this license
expired on Dec. 16--- one day before the
date of the importation of the items.
Gallofin, the Collector of Customs,
refused to deliver the imported items on
the ground that Cebu United Enterprises
was importing goods without a valid
license.

W/N duly executed acts of a

governmental agency can
have valid effects even
beyond the life span of said
agency

Although RA 650 creating the Import Control

Commission (ICC) expired on July 31, 1953, it is
to be conceded that its duly executed acts can
have valid effects even beyond the life span of
said government agency.

W/N PD 1341 abolished the

PCC

No. PD1341 did not abolish, but only changed,

the former Philippine College of Commerce into
what is now the Polytechnic University of the
Philippines. What took place was a change in
academic status of the educational institution,
not its corporate life. Hence, the change in its
name, the expansion of its curricular offerings
and the changes in its structure and
organization.

CASE
Cebu United Enterprises v. Gallofin,
106 Phil 491 (1959)

RULING

The authority of the petitioners to import

was contained in the Import Control
Commission License No. 17225, under
Resolution 70 of the defunct commission.
The license states, among other
conditions, that--- Commodities covered
by this license must be shipped from the
country of origin before the expiry date of
the license, and are subject to sec. 13 of
Republic Act No. 650.

Crisostomo v Court of Appeals,

258 SCRA 134 (1996)

Crisostomo was appointed the President

of the Philippine College of Commerce
(PCC) by the President of the Philippines.
During his incumbency, administrative
charges were filed against him for illegal
use of government vehicles,
misappropriation of construction
materials, oppression and harassment,
grave misconduct, nepotism and
dishonesty before the Office of the
President. Likewise, he was also charged
with violation of Anti-Grant and Corrupt
Practices Act with the Tanodbayan
(Ombudsman). As such, he was
preventively suspended and Dr. Pablo T.
Mateo was designated as the officer-in-

As the petitioner correctly points out, when the

purpose is to abolish a department or an office
or an organization and to replace it with another
one, the lawmaking authority says so. Only an
express declaration to that effect by the
lawmaking authority will.

charge in his place. Meanwhile, Pres.

Marcos passed PD 1341 converting PCC
into Polytechnic University of the
Philippines with Mateo as President.

In the instant case, PD 1341 merely states that

PCC is converted into the PUP. In addition, the
law does not state that the lands, buildings and
equipment owned by the PCC were being
transferred to the PUP but only that they
stand transferred to it. Stand transferred
simply means, for example, that lands
transferred to the PCC were to be understood as
transferred to the PUP as the new name of the
institution.

The Circuit Criminal Court of Manila

acquitted Crisostomo of the charges and
ordered his reinstatement as the
President of the PCC, now known as PUP.
By virtue of said reinstatement, he is
entitled to receive the salaries and other
benefits which he failed to receive during
his suspension.
The Ombudsman likewise dismissed the
cases filed against him for being moot
and academic. The admin cases were also
dismissed for failure of the complainants
to prosecute them.
With several issues on his reinstatement,
the Court of Appeals rendered a decision
setting aside the orders and writ of
execution issued by the trial court.
Petitioner argues that PD No. 1341 which
converted the PCC into PUP did not
abolish the PCC therefore he could be
reinstated to his former position as
president.

Viola v Alunan III,

277 SCRA 409 (1997)

Viola, as a barangay chairman, filed a

petition for prohibition challenging the
validity of the Art III, Sec.1-2 of the
Revised Implementing Rules and
Guidelines for the General Elections of
the Liga ng mga Barangay Officers insofar
as they provide for the election of first,
second, and third vice presidents and for
auditors for the National Liga ng mga
Barangay and its chapters.
He contended that the questioned
positions are in excess of those provided

Whether or not Sec 1-2 of

the Implementing Rules are
valid.

Yes. The creation of additional positions is

authorized by Sec. 493 of the LGC which in fact
requires and not merely authorizes the board
of directors to create such other positions as it
may deem necessary for the management of the
chapter. To begin with, the creation of these
positions was actually made in the Constitution
and By-laws of the Liga ng mga barangay which
was adopted by the First Barangay National
Assembly.
There is no undue delegation of power by
Congress in this case. SC decisions have upheld

in the LGC Sec.493 which mentions as

elective positions only those of the
president, vice president, and five
members of the board of directors in
each chapter at the municipal, city,
provincial, metropolitan political
subdivision, and national levels and thus
the implementing rules expand the
numbers in the LGC in violation of the
principle that implementing rules and
regulations cannot add or detract from
the provisions of the law they are
designed to implement.

the validity of reorganization statutes authorizing

the President of the Philippines to create,
abolish, or merge offices in the executive
management.
While the board of directors of a local chapter
can create additional positions to provide for the
needs of the chapter, the board of directors of
the National Liga must be deemed to have the
power to create additional positions not only for
its management but also for that of all the
chapters at the municipal, city, provincial and
metropolitan political subdivision levels.
Otherwise the National Liga would be no
different from the local chapters. The fact is that
Sec. 493 grants the power to create positions not
only to the boards of the local chapters but to
the board of the Liga at the national level as well.

Larin v Executive Secretary,

280 SCRA 713 (1997)

Challenged in this petition is the validity

of petitioner Larins removal from office
as Assistant Commissioner of the Excise
Tax Service of the BIR, and the legality of
EO No. 132 issued by President Ramos
which provides for the Streamlining of
the BIR.
Petitioner was convicted by the
Sandiganbayan for violations of the
National Internal Revenue Code and
RA3019 for grave misconduct. Under the
Civil Service Laws and Rules which require
only preponderance of evidence, grave
misconduct is punishable by dismissal.
Acting by authority of the President, Sr.
Deputy Executive Secretary Leonardo A.
Quisumbing issued Memorandum Order
No. 164 which provides for the creation
of an Executive Committee to investigate
the administrative charge against herein
petitioner Aquilino T. Larin.
Meanwhile, the President issued the

Does the president have the

power to discipline the
petitioner?

Does the president have the
power to reorganize the BIR
or to issue the questioned
EO NO. 132?

At the outset, it is worthy to note that the

position of the Assistant Commissioner of the BIR
is part of the Career Executive Service.
Concededly, petitioner was appointed as
Assistant Commissioner in January, 1987 by then
President Aquino. Thus, petitioner is a
presidential appointee who belongs to career
service of the Civil Service. Being a presidential
appointee, he comes under the direct
disciplining authority of the President. This is in
line with the well-settled principle that the
power to remove is inherent in the power to
appoint conferred to the President by Section
16, Article VII of the Constitution. Thus, it is
ineluctably clear that Memorandum Order No.
164, which created a committee to investigate
the administrative charge against petitioner, was
issued pursuant to the power of removal of the
President. This power of removal, however, is
not an absolute one which accepts no
reservation. It must be pointed out that
petitioner is a career service officer. Under the
Administrative Code of 1987, career service is

challenged Executive order No. 132 dated

October 26, 1993 which mandates for the
streamlining of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue. Under said order, some
positions and functions are either
abolished, renamed, decentralized or
transferred to other offices, while other
offices are also created. The Excise Tax
Service or the Specific Tax Service, of
which petitioner was the Assistant
Commissioner, was one of those offices
that was abolished by said executive
order.
Consequently, the president, in the
assailed Administrative Order No. 101
dated December 2, 1993, found
petitioner guilty of grave misconduct in
the administrative charge and imposed
upon him the penalty of dismissal with
forfeiture of his leave credits and
retirement benefits including
disqualification for reappointment in the
government service.
Petitioner filed directly with this Court
the instant petition to question basically
his alleged unlawful removal from office.
While the instant petition is pending, this
Court set aside the conviction of the
petitioner in his criminal cases.
petitioner challenged the authority of the
President to dismiss him from office. He
argued that in so far as presidential
appointees who are Career Executive
Service Officers are concerned, the
President exercises only the power of
control not the power to remove.
Petitioner likewise claimed that he was
removed as a result of the reorganization
made by the Executive Department in the

characterized by the existence of security of

tenure, as contra-distinguished from non-career
service whose tenure is co-terminus with that of
the appointing or subject to his pleasure, or
limited to a period specified by law or to the
duration of a particular project for which
purpose the employment was made. As a career
service officer, petitioner enjoys the right to
security of tenure. No less than the 1987
Constitution guarantees the right of security of
tenure of the employees of the civil service.
Specifically, Section 36 of P.D. No. 807, as
amended, otherwise known as Civil Service
Decree of the Philippines, is emphatic that career
service officers and employees who enjoy
security of tenure may be removed only for any
of the causes enumerated in said law. In other
words, the fact that the petitioner is a
presidential appointee does not give the
appointing authority the license to remove him
at will or at his pleasure for it is an admitted fact
that he is likewise a career service officer who
under the law is the recipient of tenurial
protection, thus, may only be removed for a
cause and in accordance with procedural due
process.
EO NO. 132
Initially, it is argued that there is no law yet
which empowers the President to issue E.O. No.
132 or to reorganize the BIR.
We do not agree. Under its Preamble, E.O. No.
132 lays down the legal basis of its issuance,
namely: a) Section 48 and 62 of R.A. No. 7645, b)
Section 63 of E.O. No. 127, and c) Section 20,
Book III of E.O. No. 292.
Sec.48 RA 7645 clearly mentions the acts of
"scaling down, phasing out and abolition" of
offices only and does not cover the creation of
offices or transfer of functions. Nevertheless, the
act of creating and decentralizing is included in

BIR pursuant to Executive Order No. 132.

Thus, he assailed said Executive Order No.
132 and its implementing rules for being
ultra vires.

the subsequent provision of Section 62, which

provides that the President is authorized to
effect organizational changes including the
creation of offices in the department or agency
concerned.
Another legal basis of E.O. No. 132 is Section 20,
Book III of E.O. No. 292 which states:
"Sec.20. Residual Powers. -- Unless Congress
provides otherwise, the President shall exercise
such other powers and functions vested in the
President which are provided for under the laws
and which are not specifically enumerated above
or which are not delegated by the President in
accordance with law."
This provision speaks of such other powers
vested in the President under the law. What law
then which gives him the power to reorganize? It
is Presidential Decree No. 1772 which amended
Presidential Decree No. 1416. These decrees
expressly grant the President of the Philippines
the continuing authority to reorganize the
national government, which includes the power
to group, consolidate bureaus and agencies, to
abolish offices, to transfer functions, to create
and classify functions, services and activities and
to standardize salaries and materials. The validity
of these two decrees are unquestionable. The
1987 Constitution clearly provides that "all laws,
decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters
of instructions and other executive issuances not
inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain
operative until amended, repealed or revoked."
So far, there is yet no law amending or repealing
said decrees.
However, because of the presence of
circumstances considered as evidences of bad
faith in the reorganization of the BIR, petitioner
was reinstated to his position as Asst.
Commissioner.