DON MARIANO MARCOS MEMORIAL STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
Mid-La Union Campus
City of San Fernando

ADMINISTRATIVE AND ELECTION LAWS

Quiz

Answer each of the following briefly but comprehensively. Support your answer with legal
basis.

1. Who has the power to abolish a public office? Is there any exception to this principle?
(10 points)

The power to abolish a public office is lodged with the legislature. This proceeds
from the legal precept that the power to create includes the power to destroy.
Except where the office was created by the Constitution itself, it may be abolished
by the same legislature that brought it into existence.

The exception, however, is that as far as bureaus, agencies or offices in the

executive department are concerned, the President's power of control may justify
him to inactivate the functions of a particular office,or certain laws may grant him
the broad authority to carry out reorganization measures.(Bukolod ng Kawaning
EIIB vs Zamora citing Eugenio v. Civil Service Commission)

2. Under the three-fold-liability rule, state whether each of the following is true or false. If
false, explain your answer. (20 points)

a. The dismissal of an administrative case does not bar the filing of a criminal
prosecution for the same or similar acts subject of the administrative complaint.
True

b. The disposition in one case inevitably governs the resolution of the other case/s
and vice versa. False

One basic principle in the law of public officers is the three-fold liability rule,
which states that the wrongful acts or omissions of a public officer may give
rise to civil, criminal and administrative liability. An action for each can
proceed independently of the others. [Domingo v. Rayala, G.R. Nos.
155831, 155840 and 158700, 18 February 2008, 546 SCRA 90, 112 cited in
Ampil vs Ombudsman, 2006]

Therefore, the disposition of one case does not govern the disposition of the
other cases.

c. Generally, the dismissal of the criminal case cannot be pleaded to abate the
administrative proceedings. True

d. The dismissal of the administrative case may be invoked to abate the criminal
case if the criminal case will be prosecuted based on
the same facts and evidence as that in the administrative case. True

e. Administrative liability is separate and distinct from penal and civil liability. True

3. Define misconduct. When is misconduct considered grave? (10 points)

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more

particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. (Estarija v.
Ranada, 525 Phil. 718, 728 (2006); Bureau of Internal Revenue v. Organo, 468 Phil.
111, 118 (2004) cited in Ampil vs Ombudsman, 2013]
 In Grave Misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or
flagrant disregard of established rules, must be manifest 49 and established by
substantial evidence. [Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 528 Phil. 432, 442 (2006); Civil
Service Commission v. Lucas, 361 Phil. 486, 490-491 (1999) cited in Ampil vs
Ombudsman, 2013]

4. Can the performance of a ministerial duty be compelled by mandamus? Why or why

not? (5 points) – BONUS QUESTION

A ministerial act or duty, in contradistinction to a discretionary act, is one which an

officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of
his own judgment, upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done.[Symaco v.
Aquino, 106 Phil. 1130 (1960) cited in Heirs of Venturillo vs Quitain, 2006]

The remedy of mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty.

[Carpo v. Chua, G.R. No. 150773, September 30, 2005 cited in Heirs of Venturillo vs
Quitain, 2006]

5. Congressman AB used a portion of his Countryside Development Fund (CDF) to

purchase one unit of Toyota Tamaraw FX and six units of Kawasaki motorcycles. All
vehicles were registered in the name of the Municipality of Angels and were turned
over to the municipality through its mayor, CD.

On May 17, 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Angels passed
Resolution No. 95-27 which authorized the transfer without cost of the aforesaid
vehicles to the EF Water District (EFWD) to ensure the success of the implementation of
the CDF-funded waterworks projects of the Province of Demons. Pursuant thereto,
Mayor CD executed on June 19, 1995, a Deed of Transfer relative to the
aforementioned vehicles in favor of the EFWD represented by its General Manager GH.

On July 27, 1995, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Demons passed
Resolution No. 183 disapproving Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 95-27 for being
violative of Section 381 of RA 7160 or the Local Government Code. On August 17, 1995,
it passed Resolution No. 246 canceling and declaring the Deed of Transfer as null and
void for being highly irregular and grossly violative of Section 381 of RA 7160.

On May 23, 1996, a complaint for Violation of Section 3 ( e) of Republic Act No. 3019,
was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman charging Mayor CD, Vice-Mayor IJ,
and Sangguniang Bayan members KL, MN, OP, and QR, with violation of Section 3(e)
of RA 3019. Also included in the complaint were EFWD General Manager GH and
Board Secretary ST.

Decide with reasons. (30 points)

The elements of the offense under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 are as follows:

(1) that the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy
with them;

(2) that said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of
their official duties or in relation to their public positions;

(3) that they caused undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a
private party;

(4) that such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or

preference to such parties; and

(5) that the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence.25
In this case, the first element was proven. At the time material to this case, all the
petitioners are public officers, namely as Municipal Mayor, Vice Mayor, and
members of the Sangguniang Bayan.

All the other elements were not present.

The act of passing Resolution No. 95-27 which authorized the transfer without cost
of the aforesaid vehicles to the EF Water District (EFWD) by the Sangguniang Bayan
is not a prohibited act.

No undue injury was caused to the government or to a private entity.

The vehicles were donated to EFWD not because it was given any preference,
unwarranted benefits or undue advantage.

There is no evidence which would show that Respondents were motivated by bad
faith when they transferred the vehicles to EFWD. The Mayor, is authorized by law
to enter into contracts for and in behalf of the local government unit and he had
the authority conferred by the Sanggunian by virtue of SB Resolution No. 95-27. The
act of passing the resolution was within the power and duty of the Sanggunian.

In sum, the petitioners have in their favor the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties which prevails until it is overcome by no less than
clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. There is nothing in the given set of
facts to rebut this presumption, Thus, unless the presumption in rebutted, it becomes
conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the
presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer’s act being lawful or unlawful,
construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.

Therefore, the case should be dismissed.