Santos vs CA

Facts
Petitioner was appointed Judge of the MeTC of Quezon city, and he thereafter assumed office. After the
military-backed EDSA revolt, petitioner was appointed to the same position. Petitioner optionally retired
from the Judiciary under RA# 910 and received his retirement gratuity under the law for his entire years
in the government service. Petitioner re-entered the government service. He was appointed Director III
of the Traffic Operation of the MMA. His appointment was approved by the CSC. Congress enacted RA#
7924 which reorganized the MMA and renamed it as MMDA. It issued Res.# 16 authorized the payment
of separation benefits to the officials and employees of the former MMA who would be separated as a
result of the implementation of RA# 7924. Petitioner submitted a position paper wherein he asserted
that since the retirement pay gratuity he received under RA# 910 is not an additional or double
compensation, all the years of his government service, including those years in the Judiciary, should be
credited in the computation of his separation benefits?

Issue
WON

Held
No, for the purpose of computing or determining petitioner’s separation pay under sec 11 of RA# 7924,
his years of service in the Judiciary should be excluded and his separation pay should be solely confined
to his services in the MMA. The is settled that Congress may abolish public offices. Such power is a
consequent prerogative of its power to create public offices. The separation partook of the nature of a
disturbance of compensation; hence, the separation pay must relate only to the employment thus
affected.

Oracio vs COA

Facts
Accident occurred at the Malaya Thermal Plant of the NCP. When the plug from the leaking tube gave
way, thereby releasing steam and hot water which hit two of the employees working on the tube leak.
The NCP initially advanced this amount by setting it up as an account receivable from the latter’s billings
against NPC until the same was fully satisfied. OPLGS requested for a refund of the total amount deducted
from their billings representing payment of the advances made by the NPC. The refund of the
hospitalization expenses for Domingo Abodizo was disallowed because there is no employer-employee
relationship that exist. Petitioner alleged that he prepared the questioned legal opinion in the
performance oh his duty as mandated by law. He also alleged that he cannot be made personally liable for
the amount disallowed.

Issue
WON COA has the power to examine the expenditure of NPC?

Held
Yes, the NPC, as GOCC is under the COA’s audit power. It had the power to examine, audit, and settle, in
accordance with law and regulations, all accounts pertaining to the revenues and receipts of and
expenditure or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government,
or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including GOCCs, and promulgate accounting and
auditing rules and regulations including those for the prevention of irregular, unnecessary, excessive or
extravagant expenditures or uses of funds and property.
Guevara vs Comelec

Facts
Petitioner was ordered by the Comelec to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for
having published in the Sunday Times an article entitled” Ballot Boxes Contract Hit”, which tended to
interfere with and influence the Comelec and its members in the adjudication of a controversy then
pending investigation and determination before said body arising from the third petition for
reconsideration by Acme Steel Mfg. Co., Inc. praying for reconsideration of resolutions of the commissions
for awarding the contracts for the manufacture and supply of ballot boxes to NASSCO and ASIATIC.

Issue
WON the comelec has the power and jurisdiction to conduct contempt proceedings against petitioner

Held
Yes, Comelec not only has the duty to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections
but the power to try, hear and decide any controversy that may be submitted to it in connection with the
elections. And as an incident of this power, it may also punish for contempt in those cases provided for in
Rule 64 of the Rules of Court under the same procedure and with the same penalties provided therein.

Javier vs Comelec

Facts

Petitioner and private respondent were candidates in Antique for the Batasang Pambansa elections. The
former appeared to enjoy more popular support but the latter had the advantage of being the nominee of
the KBL with all its prerequisites of power. The petitioner went to comelec to question the canvass of the
election returns. His complaints were dismissed and the private respondent was proclaimed winner by
the Second Division of the said body. The petitioner alleged that the proclamation was void because it
was made only by a division and not by the comelec.

Issue
WON the comelec should be the one to resolve proclamation controversy?

Held
Yes, The comelec en banc and not a mere division must hear and resolve a pre-proclamation controversy
of Batasan members. In making the comelec the sole judge of all contests involving the election, returns
and qualifications of the members of the Batasang Pambansa and elective provincial and city officials, the
constitution intended to give it full authority to hear and decide theses cases from beginning to end and
on all matters related thereto, including those arising before the proclamation of the winners.

Cayetano vs Monsod

Facts
Respondent was nominated by the President Aquino to the position of Chairman of the Comelec.
Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification
of having been engaged in the practice of law for ten years. The comelec confirmed the nomination of
Monsod as chairman of the comelec. He took his oath of office. Challenging the validity of the
confirmation by the comelec of Monsod’s nomination, petitioner filed an instant for certiorari and
prohibition praying that said confirmation and consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the
Commission on Elections be declared null and void.
Issue
WON Atty. Monsod possess the required qualification?

Held
Yes, Atty. Monsod past work experiences as lawyer- economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur,
lawyer-negotiator of contracts and others verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement that he
has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. There is no occasion for the exercise of the
Courts corrective power, since no abuse of discretion that would amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction
and would warrant the issuance of the writs prayed, for as been clearly shown.

Brillantes, Jr. vs. Yorac

Facts
The petitioner is challenging the designation by the President of the Philippines of Associate
Commissioner Haydee Yorac as Acting Chairman of the comelec, in place of Chairman Hilario Davide, who
had been named chairman of the fact-finding commission to investigate the December coup d’etat
attempt. It is also alleged that the respondent is not even the senior member of the comelec, being
outranked by Associate Commission Alfredo Abuag, Jr. The petitioner contends that the choice of the
Acting Chairman of the comelec is an internal matter that should be resolved by the members themselves
and that the intrusion of the President of the Philippines violates their independence.

Issue
WON

Held
Art IX-A, Section 1, of the Constitution expressly describes all the Constitutional Commissions as “
independent”. Although essentially executive in nature, they are not under the control of the President in
the discharge of their respective functions. Each of these Commissions conducts its own proceedings
under the applicable laws and its own rules and in the exercise of its own discretion. Its decisions, orders
and rulings are subject only to review on certiorari by this Court as provided by the Constitution in Art
IX-A, section 7.

Gallardo vs Tabamo, Jr.

Facts
Private respondent filed his petition before the court’a quo against petitioners Gallardo, Arevalo, Echaves,
Aranas and Sia to prohibit and retrain them from pursuing or prosecuting certain public works project;
from releasing, disbursing and spending any public funds for such projects; and from issuing, using or
availing of treasury warrants or any device for the future delivery of money, goods and other things of
value chargeable against public funds in connection with the said projects. Petitioners likewise seek to
prohibit the enforcement of the TRO, issued by the respondent Judge, on the ground that the latter acted
whimsically, capriciously and without jurisdiction when he took cognizance of the case and issued the
said order.

Issue
WON the trial court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Special Civil Action# 465

Held
No, the comelec is vested by the constitution with exclusive charge of the enforcement and
administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections, the assumption of jurisdiction by the trial
court over a case involving the enforcement of the Election Code.
Cawasa vs Comelec

Facts
Petitioner Jun Cawasa and private respondent Adbulmalik Manamparan were among the candidates for
mayor in the Municipality of Nunungan, Lanao Del Norte. Out of the 40 precincts only 36 functioned, as
there was a failure of election in the remaining 4 precints. After canvassing the election returns from the
36 precincts, the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Nunungan deferred the proclamation of all winning
candidates due to the failure of the said precincts to function. Special elections were made considering
that the number of registered voters in the remaining 4 precincts would affect the election results.
Petitoner was proclaimed mayor of Nunungan and his co-petitioners were also proclaimed as councilors.
Private respondent filed an appeal and petition to annul the proclamation of petitioner. The comelec en
banc promulgated a resolution annulling the results of the special elections in the 4 precincts.

Issue
WON the transfer of the polling place to the adjacent municipalities is legal?

Held
No, the transfer was made not only in blatant disregard of the Comelec Resolution# 4360 but also
sections 153 and 154 of the Election Code. As clearly provided by the law, the location of the polling
places shall be the same as that of the preceding regular election. However, changers may be initiated by
written petition of the majority of the voters of the precinct or agreement of all the political parties or by
resolution of the comelec after notice and hearing. But ultimately, it is the comelec, which determines
whether a change is necessary after notice and hearing.

LDP vs Comelec

Facts
The general counsel of LDP informed the comelec by way of manifestation that only the Party Chairman,
Sen. Angara, or his authorized representative may endorse the certificate of candidacy of the party’s
official candidates. The same manifestation stated that Sen. Angara had placed the LDP Secretary General,
Pre. Aquino on indefinite forced leave. Rep. Aquino filed his comment, contenting that the Party-
Chairman does not have the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions on the Secretary General. As the
Manifestation has no basis, Rep Aquino asked the comelec to disregard the same.

Issue
WON the Party Chairman or the Secretary General has the authority to sign certificates of candidacy of
the official candidates of the party.

Held
Party president, chairman or secretary-general has been duly authorized by the party to sign the
certificate of candidacy. Comelec Resolution# 6453 cannot grant a party official greater authority that
what the party itself grants, lest such Resolution amount to a violation of party’s freedom of association.
The ascertainment of the identity of a political party and its legitimate officers is a matter that is well
within the authority of the comelec.

De Jesus vs People

Facts
Ananias Hibo defeated candidate of the Nacionalista Party for the office of mayor of the Municipality of
Casiguran, Sorsogon filed with the comelec a complaint charging petitioner Rogelio de Jesus, them
comelec with violation of the Election Code. Ass. Fiscals Manuel Genova and Delfin Tarog, in their
capacity as deputized Tanodbayan prosecutors, conducted an investigation. Thereafter Fiscal Genova
issued a resolution, finding the existence of a prima facie case against petitioner for violation of sec 89
and sec 178 of the Election Code. Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information, contending that
neither the Tanodbayan nor the Sandiganbayan has the authority to investigate, prosecute and try the
offense charged in the information, the same being an election offense over which the power to
investigate, prosecute and try is lodged by law in the comelec and court of first instance. While the
prosecution contend that the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction.

Issue
WON the comelec has the jurisdiction to try the case?

Held
Yes, the grant of comelec of the power, among others, to enforce and administer all laws relative to the
conduct of election and the concomitant authority to investigate and prosecute election offenses is not
without compelling reason. The evident constitutional intendment in bestowing this power to comelec is
to insure free, orderly and honest conduct of elections.

Comelec vs Silva, Jr.

Facts
The comelec charged private respondents Erasto Tanciongco and Norma Castillo with violations of sec 27
of RA# 6646, together with Zenon Uy, in 12 separate information filed with the RTC. Uy, who is assistant
regional director of elections, was chairman of the board. In each information, the three were accused of
having tampered, in conspiracy with one another, with the certificates of canvass by increasing the votes
received by then senatorial candidate Juan Ponce Enrile in certain municipalities of Bataan. The comelec
sought to appeal of the cases to CA, but the judges denied due course to its appeal. The sole basis for the
denials was the fact that the prosecutor, whom the comelec had deputized to prosecute the cases, had
earlier taken a contrary stand against the comelec.

Issue
WON the comelec or its designated prosector has the authority to decide on the appeal

Held
The comelec has the authority. Art IX-C sec 2 of the constitution expressly vests in it the power and
function in investigate and where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including
acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.

Loong vs Comelec

Facts
The petition was one for certiorari seeking to nullify two resolutions of the comelec filed by petitioner
who prayed that the proceedings of the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Talipao, Sulu bet set aside. On
the ground that the certificates of canvass were manufactured, fictitious and falsified. Petitioner Tupay
Loong and private respondent Abdusakur Tan ran for the position of Governor. After the canvass of the
election returns of 16 of 18 municipalities of Sulu, respondent PBC recommended to the comelec a
recanvass of the election returns of Parang and Talopao. Comelec, accordingly, relieved all the regular
members of the MBC and ordered such re-canvass by senior lawyers from the comelec. During the re-
canvass, private respondents objected to the inclusion in the canvass of the election returns of Parang.
The reconstituted MBC, however, merely noted said objections and forwarded the same to respondent
PBC for resolution.
Issue
WON

Held
The comelec is restricted, in pre-proclamation cases, to an examination of the election returns on their
face and is without jurisdiction to go beyond or behind them and investigate election irregularities, the
comelec is duty bound to investigate to investigate allegations of fraud, terrorism, violence and other
analogous causes in action for annulment of election results or for declaration of failure of elections, as
the Omnibus Election Code denominates the same.

Sambarani vs Comelec

Facts
In the Synchronized Barangay and SK elections, petitioners ran for re-election as punong barangay in
their respective barangays. Due to a failure of elections in 11 barangays in Lanao Del Sur, the comelec
issued Resolution# 5479 setting special elections in the affected barangays in Lanao del Sur including five
barangays. Acting Election officer Esmael Maulay issued a certification that there were no special
elections held. Consequently joint petitioners filed a joint petition seeking to declare a failure of elections
in the 5 barangays and holding of another special elections to EO Maulay’s non-compliance with comelec
commissioner Sadain’s directive.

Issue
WON

Held
Sec 2(1) of art IX of the Constitution gives the comelec the broad power to enforce and administer all
laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.
Indisputable, the text and intent of the constitutional provision is to give comelec all the necessary and
incidental powers for it to achieve its primordial objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful and
credible elections.

Gonzales vs Provincial Auditor of Iloilo

Facts
The petitioner Ramon Gonzales was appointed Assistant on Complaint and Investigation, Office of the
Governor, by Govt. Jose Zulueta of Iloilo. At the time of his appointment the petitioner was holding the
office of Municipal Councilor of Lambunao, Iloilo, and he had not resigned from said office to accept the
appointment in the Office of the Governor. The petitioner presented a voucher covering his salary as
Assistant on Complaints and Investigation to the respondent but respondent refused to pass in audit the
said voucher for the reason that the petitioner continued to hold office as Councilor of Lambunao and so
he may not be legally appointed Assistant in the Office of the Governor with compensation payable from
the provincial funds. The respondent reasoned out that said appointment was in violation of the
provisions of sec 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code as construed by the Secretary of Justice.
Petitioner alleged that respondent unlawfully neglecting the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from his office.

Issue
WON the courts has jurisdiction?
Held
The decision of the Auditor General on the claim for salaries by a local government official is appealable
to the President and not to the Courts. No recourse to courts can be had until all administrative remedies
have been exhausted, and special civil actions against administrative officers should not be entertained if
superior administrative officers can grant relief.

Guevara vs Gimenez

Facts
Miguel Cuaderno, the then Governor of the Central Bank of the Philippines, asked petitioner to cooperate
with the legal counsel of Central Bank in defending the same and its Monetary Board. An action for
certiorari, mandamus, quo warranto and damages in the amount of Php574,000 filed against them by one
Marino Corpus. Accordingly, petitioner entered his appearance as counsel for the respodents in said case
and argued therein, verbally and in writing. The bank auditor sought advise thereon from the Auditor
General, who in a communication stated that he would not object said retainer’s fee provided that its
payment was made not in lump sum as causes or circumstances may arise which may prevent Judge
Guevara from proceeding or continuing as counsel of the Bank in the aforesaid case before it is finally
terminated. Respondent alleged that the sum of 6k has already been paid on account of said retainer fee
and impugned the legality of petitioners contract with the Central Bank, upon the ground that the latter
has no authority to enter into said contract, and that its Monetary Board has no power to confirm it,
because both can be and were represented in a case by the legal staff of the Central Bank.

Issue
WON

Held
The auditor generals function in auditing expenditures of funds or property pertaining to or held in trust
by the government or provinces or municipalities thereof is limited to a determinate of whether is a law
appropriating funds for a given purpose. It is the ministerial duty of the auditor general to approve and
pass in audit the voucher and treasure warrant for said payment.

Feliciano vs COA

Facts
A Special Audit Team from COA Regional Office No. VIII audited the accounts of LMWD, Subsequently,
LMWD received a letter form COA requesting payment of auditing fees. As General Manager of LMWD,
petitioner sent a reply informing COAs Regional Director that the water district could not pay the
auditing fee. Petitioner wrote COA through the Regional Director asking for refund of all auditing fees
LMWD previously paid to COA. His petition was denied.

Issue
WON a LWD, a GOCC, is subject to the audit jurisdiction of COA?

Held
Yes, The constitution and existing laws mandate COA to audit all government agencies, including GOCCs
with original charters. The COAs audit jurisdiction extents not only to the government agencies or
instrumentalities but also to GOCC with original charters as well as other GOCC without charter.