1. Cayo Gamogamo vs.
PNOC Shipping (2002)
ISSUE:
Whether a GOCC with no original charter is
covered by the CSC
HELD:
No. GOCCs with no original charter are covered
by the Labor Code.
2. Lumanta vs. NLRC and FTI (1989)
ISSUE:
Whether FTI is covered by the CSC
HELD:
No. GOCCs with original charter are those
covered by the CSC, and those organized under
the Corporation law.
3. Ricardo Summers vs. SOJ Roman Ozaeta (1948)
ISSUE:
Whether the judge can hold two offices
HELD:
No. The judge cannot hold two offices since
his voluntary acceptance of the postition of
the judge-at-large by taking an oath of office
amounted to a waiver of his right to hold the
position of cadastral judge.
4. Roberto Flores vs. Hon. Franklin Drilon;
Richard Gordon (1993)
ISSUE:
Whether an elected official may be appointed
to another government office
HELD:
No. The provision in the law which directs the
President to appoint an elective official,
i.e., the Mayor of Olongapo City, to other
government posts (as Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer of SBMA) contravenes
Sec. 7 Art. IX-B of the 1987 Constitution
against a local elective official being
appointed to another executive government
position.
5. Mayor Rogelio Debulgado and Victoria
Debulgado vs. CSC (1994)
ISSUE:
Whether the prohibition against nepotism
includes promotional appointments or only to
original appointments
HELD:
Yes, the prohibition includes promotional
appointments. The prohibition against
nepotism refers to "all appointments" whether
original or promotional in nature.
6. Civil Liberties Union vs. Exec. Sec.
ISSUE:
Whether members of the Cabinet, their
undersecretaries and assistant secretaries
may hold other government offices or positions
in addition to their primary positions
HELD:
No. while all other appointive officials in
the civil service are allowed to hold other
office or employment in the government during
their tenure when such is allowed by law or by
the primary functions of their positions,
members of the Cabinet, their deputies and
assistants may do so only when expressly
authorized by the Constitution itself.
7. Ricardo Medalla Jr. vs. Hon. Patricia Sto.
Tomas; Armando Singson
ISSUE:
Whether the CSC-MPSB may replace an appointee
with an employee of its choice
HELD:
No. The Court has already repeatedly ruled
that the Commission has no such authority to
do so. Its only function is limited to
approving or reviewing appointments to
determine their accordance with the
requirements of the Civil Service Law.
8. THE NATIONAL APPELLATE BOARD (NAB) OF THE
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION (NAPOLCOM) vs.
P/INSP. JOHN A. MAMAUAG, SPO2 EUGENE ALMARIO,
SPO4 ERLINDA GARCIA and SPO1 VIVIAN FELIPE
ISSUE:
Whether the private complainant in an
administrative case has the legal personality
to move for reconsideration, or appeal an
adverse decision of the disciplining authority
HELD:
No. A private complainant like Judge Angeles
is not one of "either party" who can appeal
under Sections 43 and 45 of RA 6975 (Civil
Service Law). The private complainant is a
mere witness of the government which is the
real party in interest. In short, private
complainant Judge Angeles is not a party under
Sections 43 and 45 who can appeal the decision
of the disciplining authority.
9. RICARDO T. GLORIA vs. CA
ISSUE:
Whether the teachers are entitled to backwages
for the period pending their appeal if they
are subsequently exonerated?
HELD:
Yes, they are entitled to backwages.
Preventive suspension pending appeal is
actually punitive although it is in effect
subsequently considered illegal if respondent
is exonerated and the administrative decision
finding him guilty is reversed.
10. Dela Cruz et. al vs. CA; Sec. Carino of some of its functions and objects were
DECS expanded or consolidated.

ISSUE:
Whether back wages may be awarded to teachers
ordered reinstated to the service after the
dismissal orders
HELD:
No. The grant of back wages in administrative
disciplinary cases shall only be allowed if
the teachers were exonerated or unjustifiably
suspended. Since the petitioners were all
found guilty, though in a lesser, offense,
disqualifies them to be granted such back
wages.
11. In re: Gonzales
ISSUE:
Whether a Supreme Court Justice be charged
with disbarment while in office
HELD:
No. A public officer who under the
Constitution is required to be a Member of the
Philippine Bar as a qualification for the
office held by him and who may be removed from
office only by impeachment, cannot be charged
with disbarment during the incumbency of such
public officer. Article XI of the 1987
Constitution: Sec. 2 The President, the Vice-
President, the Members of the Supreme Court,
the Members of the Constitutional Commissions,
and the Ombudsman may be removed from office,
on impeachment. All other public officers and
employees may be removed from office as
provided by law, but not by impeachment.
14. WENONAH L. MARQUEZ AZARCON vs. HOUSING AND
LAND USE ARBITER CHARITO BUNAGAN
ISSUE:
Whether the HLURB Board commited grave abuse
of discretion
HELD:
Yes. We are convinced that [Azarcon] should
not be held responsible for the delay in the
release of the loan and consequently for the
non-payment of the purchase price. Sagana has
failed to convincingly refute Azarcon's
argument that the non-release of the loan was
due to its non-submission of certain
requirements.
15. PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE
ON BEHEST LOANS vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO
ISSUE: Whether or not the Ombudsman can acted
with grave abuse of discretion by ruling the
the AO. 13 was an ex post facto law
HELD: The Ombudsman had no jurisdiction in
delving into the constitutionality of the
subject administrative and memorandum orders.
However, there was no probable cause to base
the action.

12. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. GERTRUDES

MADRIAGA and ANA MARIE BERNARDO
ISSUE:
Whether the penalty imposed by the Ombudsman
is only recomendatory or advisory in nature

HELD:
No. The Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 (The
Ombudsman Act of 1989) have conferred on it
full disciplinary authority over public
officials and employees including the power to
enforce its duly-issued judgments.

13. U.P. BOARD OF REGENTS, DR. JOSE V. ABUEVA

(UP Pres.) and DR. ERNESTO O. DOMINGO (UP
Manila Chancellor and UP-PGH Director) vs.
HON. JAINAL D. RASUL; DR. FELIPE ESTRELLA, JR.

ISSUE:

Whether Dr Estrella can be rightfully removed

because of PGHs reorganization

HELD:

NO. As held in numerous cases, appointees of

the UP Board of Regents enjoy security of
tenure during their term of office. Moreover,
it is clear from the record that PGH itself
was not abolished in the reorganization plan
approved by the UP Board of Regents. The PGH
was merely renamed UP-PGH Medical Center and