University of the East – College of Law

LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATIONS

SY 2020-2021, 2nd Semester (2 Units)
LJD 322 III-A-2, 7:30pm-9:30pm Friday

Atty. Patrick DL. Maglinao, LL.M.

patrick.maglinao@ue.edu.ph

COURSE OUTLINE

PUBLIC CORPORATIONS

I. PRIMARY LAW AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

A. R.A. 7160 – The Local Government Code of 1991, and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations;
Article X, Sec. 9 AND Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution
Administrative Code of 1987, Title XII as amended

Principle of Decentralization; Purpose

Cases:

1. Sarcos v. Castillo, G.R. L-29755, 31 January 1969

2. Ferrer, Jr. Bautista, G.R. No. 210551, 30 June 2015
3. Mangune v. Ermita, G.R. 182604, 27 September 2016

B. R. A 7924 (Metropolitan Manila Development Authority)

Cases:

1. MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assn. Inc., G.R. No. 135962

2. MMDA v. Garin G.R. No. 130230 in relation to Belay v. Torres 4 SCRA
149 and Sec. 2, Rule III, In relation to Sec. 1 (d), Rule VI on the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A 10586
3. MMDA v. Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising, Vending and
Promotion, Inc. G.R. No. 179554
4. MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, GR Nos. 171947-48
and MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, 643 SCRA 90
5. MMDA v. Viron Transportation CO. Inc., GR. No. 170656
6. Francisco, Jr. v. Fernando, GR. No. 166501

C. R.A. 6734 (Organic Act for ARMM), as amended by R.A. 9054

Cases:

1. Abbas v. COMELEC, GR No. 196271

2. Chiongban v. Orbos, GR No. 96754

1
 3. Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, GR No. 196271 – MR denied in Kida
v. Senate of the Philippines, 667 SCRA 200
4. Read EO. 459 dated May 17, 1991

D. R.A 6766 (Organic Act for Cordillera Autonomous Region)

Cases:

1. Ordillo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 93054, 192 SCRA 100

2. Cordillera Broad Coalition v. COMELEC, GR No. 79956, 181 SCRA
495

E. R. A 7901 ( Creating the CARAGA Administrative Region)

1. E.O. 103 dated May 17, 2002 (creating MMROPA)

F. Local Government Unit Defined

Cases:

1. Alvarez v. Guingona, Jr., GR No. 191846, 252 SCRA 695

G. Local Autonomy explained

1. Sec. 1, Chapter 1, Title XII, E. O. 292

Cases:

2. Pimentel v. Aguirre, GR No. 132988, 336 SCRA 201

3. Province of Batangas v. Romulo, GR No. 152774, 429 SCRA 736
4. Sampiano v. Indar, 608 SCRA 597 in relation to P.D. 1741 dated
October 31, 1980
5. Pimentel, Jr. v. Ochoa, 676 SCRA 551
6. Villafuerte, Jr. v. Robredo, 744 SCRA 534
7. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Bataan v. Garcia, Jr., 804 SCRA 629

H. Public Corporations defined

I. Essential elements of a municipal corporations and its significance

J. Two-fold character of a municipal corporations and its significance

Cases:

1. Veterans Federation of the Philippines v. Reyes, 483 SCRA 526

2. Fontanilla v. Maliaman, GR No. L-55963, 194 SCRA 486
3. Boy Scouts of The Philippines v. Commission on Audit, GR No.
177131

I. What is quasi-public corporation

2
 Cases:

1. Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v.

Commission on Audit, 534 SCRA 112
2. Marilao Water Consumers Association, Inc. v. IAC, 201 SCRA 437

II. CREATION AND ABOLITION OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (Sec. 6, Local

Government Code)

A. Requisites for Creation of Local Government Units Related Laws

Art. X, Secs. 1, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 19, Constitution

LGC, Secs. Secs, 6-10, 385-386, 441-442, 449-4450, 460-461
R.A. 9009, Sec. 1 Amending Sec. 450 of the LGC – conversion requirements
Of a Municipality to a component city
R.A. 9054. Art. IV. Sec. 19

Cases:

1. Pelaez v. Auditor General, 15 SCRA 569

2. Barrameda v. Atienza, 369 SCRA 311
3. Camid V. Office of the President, 448 SCRA 711
4. Tan v. COMELEC, 142 SCRA 727
5. Paredes v. Executive Secretary, 128 SCRA 6
6. Municipality OF Candijay, Bohol v. Baz, Jr., 265 SCRA 530
7. Municipality of Jimenez v. Baz, Jr., 265 SCRA 182
8. Mendenilla v. Onandia, 5 SCRA 536
9. Samson v. Aguirre, 315 SCRA 53
10.Cawaling v. COMELEC, 368 SCRA 453
11.Central Barrio v. City Treasurer of Davao, 23 SCRA 6
12.Department of Agrarian Reform v. Sarangani Agricultural Co. Inc.,
512 SCRA 467
13.League of Cities Of the Philippines v. Commission on Elections,571
SCRA 263, 608 SCRA, 636, 628 SCRA 819, Motion for
Reconsideration denied in 643 SCRA 149 and Ad Cautelam Motion for
Consideration denied with finality in 648 SCRA 344, Motion for Leave
to File Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated April 12,
2011 denied and Motion for Entry of Judgment granted in 652 SCRA
798
14.Navarro v. Emita, 612 SCRA 131, Motion for reconsideration denied
in 620 SCRA 52 but reconsidered in 648 SCRA 400
15.Cagas v. Commisions on Elections, 708 SCRA 672

B. How are existing sub – provinces converted to provinces (Art. XVIII.

Sec. 9, Constitution and Sec. 10 AND 462, Local Government Code)

Case:

1. Grino v. COMELEC, 213 SCRA 672

3
 C. Conversion of a component city into a highly urbanized city into a
highly urbanized city (Art.12, Implementing Rules and Regulations,
LGC) and reclassification

Cases:

1. Ceniza v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 763 and Sec 3, R.A. 6646

2. Tobias v. Abalos, 239 SCRA 106
3. Miranda v. Aguirre 314 SCRA 603
4. Jadewell Parking Systems Corp. v. Commissions on Elections, 706
SCRA 724
5. Bagabuyo v. COMELEC, 573 SCRA 290
6. Aldaba v. Commission on Elections, 611 SCRA 137, Motion for
Reconsideration denied with finality in 615 SCRA 564
7. Aquino III and Robredo V. Commission on elections. 617 SCRA 623
8. Umali v. Commission on Elections, 723 SCRA 170

D. Effect of conversion of a municipality to a city on the term of the

mayor

Case:

1. Laceda. Sr. v. Limena, 571 SCRA 603

E. Abolition

Cases:

1. Sultan Usman Sarangani V. COMELEC, 334 SCRA 379

2. Salva v. Makalintal, 340 SCRA 506

F. Classification of provinces, cities and municipalities (Read E.O. 249)

E.O. 249 – New Income Classification of Provinces, Cities and Municipalities

Case:

1. Herrera v. Commission on Elections, 318 SCRA 336

G. Selection and Transfer of Local Government Site

Sec. 11 LGC
Settlement boundaries of disputes (Sec. 118, LGC, Sec, 15-19, IRR)
When is there a boundary dispute

Cases:

1. Province of Antique v. Calabocal, 793 SCRA 13

2. City of Pasig v. COMELEC , 314 SCRA 179

4
 3. Mariano, Jr. v. COMELEC, 242 SCRA 211
4. Municipality of Sta. Fe v. Municipality of Aritao, 533 SCRA 586
DILG Opinion No. 161-1994
Art 313 , Revised Penal Code
5. Municipality of Nueva Era, Ilocos Norte v. Municipality of Marcos,
Ilocos Norte, 547 SCRA 71
6. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc. v. City of Pasig, 652 SCRA 44
7. City of Taguig v. City of Makati, 793 SCRA 527

H. Naming of Local Government Units, Public Places, Streets and

Structures (Sec 13, LGC, Art. 20-23, IRR)

R.A. 1059 dated June 12, 1954

R.A. 8525 – Adopt a School Program Law

I. Rules of Interpretation (Sec 5, LGC)

J. Principle and Definition of Devolution (See. Sec. 17, [14] ( e) and (i),
Local Government Code

Cases:

1. Plaza v. Casion, 435 SCRA 294

2. Civil Service Commission v. Yu, 678 SCRA 39
3. Moncayo Integrated Small Scale Miners Association, Inc. (MISSMA) v.
South East Mindanao Gold Mining Corp., 744 SCRA 328
4. Republic v. Daclan, 754 SCRA 125
5. Badua v. Cordillera Bodong Administration, 194 SCRA 101

III. POWERS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS

A. Sources of Powers
B. Classification of Municipal Powers
C. Intent behind the powers granted local government units

Case:

1. Kulayan v. Tan, 675 SCRA 482

D. Consultation needed with LGU’s before any project of the National

Government is implemented

Case:

1. Republic v. Lazo, 737 SCRA 1

E. Kinds of Powers

5
 I. Police Power (General Welfare Clause) and the limitations on the
exercise (Sec 16, LGC)

Related Laws:

R.A. 8369, Secs 8 and 11 (Family Courts Law)

R.A. 8425, Sec. 12 (National Anti-Poverty Commission)
R.A. 8435, Secs. 90, 91, 101 (Agriculture and Fisheries
Modernization Act of 1997)
R.A. 8550 Secs, 16-25 (Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Law)
R.A. 8975, Sec. 3 (An act to ensure expeditious implementation
and completion of infrastructure projects by prohibiting lower
courts from issuing a TRO)
R.A. 9275, Sec. 20 (Comprehensive Water Quality Management
Law)

a. Definition

Case:

1. Binay v. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508

b. Nature of the Power

Cases:

1. De La Cruz v. Paras, 123 SCRA 569

2. City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., 455 SCRA 308
3. White Light Corp. v. City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416

c. Requisites

Cases:

1. Parayno v. Jovellanos, 495 SCRA 85

2. Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Assn. Inc., 800
SCRA 313

d. Test to invoke police power as a rationale

for the valid passage of an ordinance

Cases:

1. Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College, 693 SCRA 141

e. Police Power and Nuisance

1. Iloilo Cold Storage v. Mun. Council, 24 Phil. 471

2. The homeowners Association of El Deposito, Barrio Corazon de
Jesus, San Juan Rizal v. Lood, 47 SCRA 174

6
 3. Technology decelopers, Inc. v. CA, 193 SCRA 147
4. Estate of Gregoria Francisco v. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 595
5. A.C. Enterprise Inc. v. Frabelle Prop. Corp., 506 SCRA 625
6. Tayaban v. People 517 SCRA 488
7. Gancayco v. City Government of Quezon City, 658 SCRA 853
8. Legaspi v. City of Cebu, 711 SCRA 772
9. Aquino v. Municipality of Malay, Aklan, 737 SCRA 145

f. Limitation for the Exercise

Cases:

1. American Mail Line v. City of Basilan, 2 SCRA 309

2. Zoomzat Inc. v. People, 451 SCRA 226

Illustrative Case:

1. U.S. v. Pompeya, 31 Phil. 245

2. U.S v. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85
3. Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 659
4. Solicitor General v. MMA, 204 SCRA 837
6. Villanueva v. Castaneda Jr., 154 SCRA 142

II. Eminent Domain

a. definitions

Case:

1. Barangay Asindalan v. Court of Appeals, 518 SCRA 649

b. Requisites for the Exercise (Sec. 19 LGC and Art. 32 and 36,
IRR, Cf,: Rule 67, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, DILG
Opinion No. 10-1996)

Cases:

1. Jesus is Lord Christian School Foundation V. City of Pasig, 466

SCRA 235
2. Belusa v. Municipality of Panay (Capiz), 498 SCRA 113
3. National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabingkit Sangkay, 656
SCRA 60
4. City of Manila v. Alegar Corporation, 674 SCRA 378

c. Reclassification of Lands

Cases:

1. Fortich v. Corona, 289 SCRA 624, (MR denied in 298 SCRA 678 and
312 SCRA 751)

7
 2. Roxas & Co. Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 106
3. Department of Agrarian Reform v. Polo Coconut Plantation., Inc. 564
SCRA 78
4. Holy Trinity Reality & Development Corporation v. Dela Cruz, 739
SCRA 229

d. Phases or stages

Cases:

1. Municipality of Binan v. Garcia, 180 SCRA 576

2. Barangay San Roque, Talisay, Cebu v. Heirs of Francisco Pastor, 334
SCRA 127

e. Purposes of Expropriation
Cases:

1. Heirs of Juanco Ardona v. Reyes, 125 SCRA 221

2. Philippine Columbian Assn. v. Pai, 228 SCRA 668
3. City of Manila v. Te, 658 SCRA 88

f. Requisites for Immediate Entry

Cases:

1. City of Iloilo v. Legaspi, 444 SCRA 269

2. Municipality of Cordova, Province of Cebu v. Pathfinder Development
Corp., 795 SCRA 190

g. Limitations for the exercise

Case:

1. Lagcao v. Labra, 440 SCRA 279

h. Question of Necessity

Cases:

1. Masikip v. City of Pasig, 479 SCRA 391

2. City of Manila v. Chinese Community, 40 Phil. 349
3. Moday v. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 586

i. Effect of non-payment of just compensation

Case:

1. Republic v. Lim, 462 SCRA 270

j. Other illustrative Cases

8
 1. National Power Corporation v. C.A. 254 SCRA 577
2. City Government of Q.C. v. ARB Construction Co. Inc., 516 SCRA
176
3. Province of Camarines Sur. CA, 2122 SCRA 173
4. Provincial Government of Sorsogon v. Vda de Villaroya, 153 SCRA
291

III. Taxation

a. Five requisites for the exercise, publication requirements

and public hearing

b. Procedure for Approving a Tax Ordinance

Case:

1. City of Olongapo v. Stallholders of the East Bajac- Bajac Public

Market of Olongapo City, 343 SCRA 70

c. Source of Taxing Power of LGU’s

Cases:

1. Tamane v. BA Lepanto Condo. Corp. 474 SCRA 258

2. City Government of Quezon City v. Bayan
3. Telecommunications, Inc., 484 SCRA 169
4. Lucman v. Malawi, 511 SCRA 268
5. Ongsuco v. Malones , 604 SCRA 499

d. Limitations on municipal taxing power (Sec. 133. LGC)

Cases:

1. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. v. City of Butuan 24

2. SCRA 789 contra Swedish Match Philippines, Inc., v. Treasurer of the
City Manila, 700 SCRA 428
3. Province of Bulacan v. CA, 299 SCRA 442
4. Palma Development Corp. v. Municipality of Malangas, Zamboanga
del Sur, 413 SCRA 572
5. MERALCO v. Province of Laguna, 306 SRA 750
6. Ericsson Telecommunication, Inc, v. City of Pasig 538 SCRA 99
7. Petron Corporation v. Tiangco, 551 SCRA 484

e. Franchise Taxes (See Sections 137, 193 and 534 LGC)

Definition of Requisites of a Franchise Tax

Cases:

9
 1. City of Iriga v. Camarines Sur III Cooperative, Inc., 680 SCRA 236
2. RCPI v. Prov. Assessor of South Cotabato, 456 SCRA I
3. PLDT v. City of Bacolod , 463 SCRA 528
4. NAPOCOR v. Province of Isabela, 491 SCRA 169
5. Digital Telecommunication Philippines, Inc., v. City Government of
Batangas, 573 SCRA 605
6. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co. Inc. v. City of Cagayan De Oro,
685 SCRA 609

f. Payment of Taxes under Protest

Cases:

1. Olivares v. Marquez, 438 CSRA 679

2. Camp John Hay Development Corporation v. Quezon City
Government 502 SCRA 113
3. San Juan v. Castro, 541 SCRA 526

g. Local Government Units cannot Tax a Government

Instrumentality

Cases:

1. Basco v. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52

2. Mactan Cebu International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals, 495
SCRA 591
3. Manila International Airport Authority v. City of Pasay, 583 SCRA
234
4. City Of Manila Coca-Cola, 595 SCRA 299
5. Republic v. City of Paranaque, 677 SCRA 246

h. Tax Exemptions

Cases:

1. Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Associations, Inc., v. Secretary

DILG 403 SCRA 558
2. City of Iloilo v. Smart Communications, 580 SCRA 332

Other cases:

1. PLDT v. Province of Laguna , 467 SCRA 93

2. City of Davao v. RTC, Branch XII, Davao City, 467 SCRA 280
3. Mun. Of San Fernardo v. Sta. Romana, 149 SCRA 27
4. Compania General de Tabacos v. City of Manila, 8 SCRA 367
5. Ty v. Trampe, 250 SCRA 500

i. Power to Open and Close Roads (SEC 21, LGC, Art 34-35,
IRR)

10
 a. Who controls and Regulates the use of roads

1. Figuracion v. Libi, 539 SCRA 50

b. Factors to consider in vacating a street

1. Favis v. City of Baguio, 27 SCRA 106

c. Who controls parkings in local streets

1. City of Ozamis v. Lumpas, 65 SCRA 33

d. Guidelines to be followed by local officials in

granting permit to stage a public rally

1. Ruiz v. Gordon, 126 SCRA 233

Other Illustrative Cases:

1. Cabrera v. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 314

2. Dacanay v. Asistio, 208 SCRA 404
3. Macasiano v. Diokno, 212 SCRA 464
4. Sangalag v. IAC, 176 SCRA 719 and its sequel in 177 SCRA 87
5. Cebu oxygen v. Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481
6. Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 153 SCRA 142
7. Pilapil v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 33
8. Albon v. Fernando, 494 SCRA 141
9. New Sun Valley Homeowners’ Association, Inc. v.Sangguniang
Barangay, Barangay Sun Valley, Paranaque City, 654 SCRA 438

j. Corporate Powers (sec.22 LGC, Art 46, IRR)

Municipality Liability

A. General Rule
B. Exemptions

1. As provided by law

a) Art. 2189, New Civil Code

Cases:

1. City of Manila v. Teotico, 22 SCRA 267

2. Jimenez v. City of Manila, 150 SCRA 510
3. Q.C Government v. Dacara, 460 SCRA 243
4. Municipality of San Juan v. Court Of Appeals,
466 SCRA 78
5. Dumlao v. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA 247
6. PLDT v. Court Of Appeals, 178 SCRA 94

11
 b) Art 2180, New Civil Code

Case:

1. Palofox v. Province of Ilocos Norte, 102 Phil. 1186

2. Liability for Torts, if engaged in proprietary functions

Cases:

1. Torio v. Fontanilla, 85 SCRA 599

2. Mun. of San Fernando La Union v. Firme, 195
SCRA 692, reiterated in Jayme v. Apostol,572
scra 41

Liability for Contract

Cases:

1. Quisumbing v. Garcia, 573 SCRA 266

2. City of Manila v. IAC, 179 SCRA 428

Doctrine of Implied Municipal Liability

Contra personal liability

Cases:

1. Inciong v. Domingo, 211 SCRA 139

2. Province of Cebu v. IAC., 147 SCRA 477
3. Pilar v. SanguniangBayan ng Dasol, Pangasinan,
128 SCRA 173
4. Rama v. Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA 498
5. Laganapan v. Asedillio, 154 SCRA 377

6. Maderazo v. People, 503 SCRA 234

Liability of Mayor if driver assigned to him commits negligence

Case:

1. Jaymee v. Apostol, 572 SCRA 42

Legislative Powers

Six requisites of a valid ordinance

Case:

1. Solicitor General v. MMA, 204 SCRA 837

12
 Distinction between an Ordinance from a Resolution
Rules Governing the enactment of ordinances and
resolutions (Art. 107, Arts. 108 to 114, IRR, LGC)

Case:

1. Roble Arraste, Inc. v. Villaflor, 499 SCRA 434

Meaning of Quorum

Case:

1. Zamora v. Caballero, 419 SCRA 384

Sangguniang Panglungsod has no contempt powers

Case:

1. Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative , Inc. v.

Sanguniang Panglungsod of Dumaguete, 155 SCRA
421

Other Illustrative cases:

1. Habagat Grill v. DMC-Urban Property Developer,

Inc., 454 SCRA 653
2. Batangas CATV v. CA, 439 SCRA 326

IV. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OF PUBLIC CORPORATIONS (Art. 59,

62 IRR)

A. Between the national government and local governments

Cases:

1. Hebron v. Reyes, 104 Phil. 175

2. Ganzon v. Court of Appeals , 200 SCRA 271

B. With Philippine National Police

Case:

1. Angeles v. Mamauag, 570 SCRA 63

C. With component cities and municipalities

Case:

1. Bangus Fry Fisherfolk v. Lanzanas, 405 SCRA 530

13
 D. With People’s and Non-Governmental Organization (Sec 26 to 36, LGC)

V. SPECIFIC OFFICES

A. Duty of a City Accountant

Case:

1. Altres v. Empleo, 573 SCRA 583

B. The Legal Officer vis-à-vis private representation

Cases:

1. Asean Pacific Planners v. City of Urdaneta, 566 SCRA 219

2. Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 108 SCRA 728

C. The Provincial Administrator

Case:

1. The Provincial Government of Camarines Norte v. Gonzales, 701 SCRA

635

VI. REQUIREMENTSAND PROHIBITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL LOCAL

OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES (Sections 90, 94, 95, LGC, and Art.
177, 179, IRR)

Supreme Court Circular No. 12 DATED June 30, 1988

R.A. 6636
R.A. 7166
R.A. 7887
R.A. 8553

Cases:

1. Ranosa v. Garcia, 62 SCRA 406

2. Javellana v. DILG, 212 SCRA 475
3. Villegas v. Legaspi, 113 SCRA 39
4. Noriega v. Sison, 125 SCRA 293
5. Teves v. Sandiganbaya, 447 SCRA 309
6. Social Justice Society v. Lina, 574 SCRA 462
7. People v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), 559 SCRA 449

ELECTIVE OFFICIALS

I. QUALIFICATION AND ELECTION

14
 R.A. 9164, Sec. 6-7 (Synchronized Barangay and SK Elections)
R.A. 8171 (Repatriation Law)
R.A 916, Sec 36 (g) – (Mandatory drug test for all appointive and elective
candidates for public office, local and national)

Cases:

1. Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 727 (See collateral and related case in
2. Hermo v. De la Rosa, 299 SCRA 68 and 232 SCRA 785)
3. Salomon v. NEA, 169 SCRA 507
4. Bautista v. COMELEC, 414 SCRA 299
5. Fr. Cayat v. COMELEC, 522 SCRA 23
6. Rivera III v. COMELEC, 523 SCRA 41
7. Jalosjos v. COMELEC, 670 SCRA 572
8. Jalover v. Osmen, 736 SCRA 267

II. DISQUALIFICATION

Related Laws:

R.A. 8295, Sec. 4-5

R.A 916, Sec. 27-28, (drug trafficking – absolute perpetual disqualification from
holding public offices)
R.A. 9225 – Citizenship Retention Act
Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude

Cases:

1. Labo, Jr. v. Commissions on Elections, 176 SCRA 1 sequel in 211 SCRA

297
2. Dela Torre v. COMELEC, 258 SCRA 483
3. Mercado v. Manzano , 307 SCRA 630. Sequel case in 669 SCRA 209
4. Maquilig v. COMELEC, 700 SCRA367
5. Jacot v. Dal, 572 SCRA 295
6. De Guzman v. COMELEC , 590 SRA 149
7. Valles v. COMELEC. 337 SCRA 543
8. Coquilla v. COMELEC, 385 SCRA 607
9. Justimbaste v. COMELEC, 572 SCRA 736
10.Amora v. COMELEC, 640 SCRA 473
11.People v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division) 559 SCRA 449

III. TERM OF OFFICE (SEC. 43, LGC)

Art X, Sec. 8, Constitution

R.A. 8524
R.A. 9006, Sec, 14
R.A. 9164, Sec, 2 (Term of office of Barangay Officials)

Cases:

15
 1. Borja v. COMELEC, 295 SCRA 157
2. Lonzanida v. COMELEC, 311SCRA 602 and its sequel cases, Lonzanida
v. Sandiganbayan, 507 SCRA 59, Lonzanida v. People, 593 SCRA 273
and Aratea v. Commission on Elections, 683 SCRA 105
3. Monteban v. Commission on Elections. 551 SCRA 50
4. Dizon v. Commissions on Elections, 577 SCRA 589
5. Bolos Jr. v. COMELEC, 581 SCRA 786
6. Adormco v. COMELEC, 376 SCRA 90
7. Latasa v. COMELEC, 417 SCRA 601
8. Aldovino, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 609 SCRA 234
9. Abundo, Sr. v. Commission on Elections, 688 SCRA 149
10.Naval v. Commission on Elections, 79 SCRA 299

IV. VACANCIES AND SUCCESSION

A. Permanent vacancies
B. Temporary vacancies
C. Resignation

Cases:

1. Panis v. Civil Service Commission, 229 SCRA 589

2. Menzon v. Petilla, 197 SCRA 251
3. Sangguniang Bayan of San Andres, Catanduanes v. Court of Appeals,
284 SCRA 276
4. Gamboa, Jr. v. Aguirre, Jr., et, al., 310 SCRA 867
5. Farinas v. Barba, 256 SCRA 396
6. Navarro v. Court of Appeals, 355 SCRA 672
7. Miranda v. Carreon, 401 SCRA 303
8. Doccna v. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Eastern Samar, 198 SCRA 493
9. Limbona c. COMELEC. 555 SCRA 391

V. RECALL (Sec. 69 – 75 , LGXC and Art . 154 to 162, IRR)

A. Requisites
B. Who may be recalled
C. Grounds for recall
D. When recall may not be held
E. Procedure for recall
F. Effectivity of recall

Cases:

1. Garcia v. COMELEC , 227 SCRA 100

2. Everdone v. COMELEC, 204 SCRA 464
3. Paras v. COMELEC, 264 SCRA 49
4. Mercado v. Board of Election Supervisors of Ibaan,
5. Batangas 243 SCRA 422 abandoned in Marquez v. COMELEC, 313
5SCRA 103
6. Angobung v. COMELEC, 269 SCRA 245

16
 7. Claudio v. COMELEC, 331 SCRA 388
8. Afiado v. COMELEC, 340 SCRA 600
9. Ong v. Alegre, 479 SCRA 473
10.Socrates v. COMELEC, 391 SCRA 457
11.Goh v. Byron, 742 SCRA 303

VI. LOCAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM ( Sec 120-127, Art 133 to 153
IRR)

Cases:

1. Garcia v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 279

2. Subic bay Metropolitan Authority v. COMELEC, 262 SCRA 492
3. Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160

R.A. 6735. Sec. 13-17 Initiative and Referendum Act

VII. DISCIPLINARY ACTION (Art 124, IRR)

A. Grounds for administrative disciplinary action (Sec. 1 Rule X, Rules

Implementing the Code of
B. Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A.
6713)
C. Grounds for suspension and removal (Sec. 60 LGC)

Cases:

1. Espiritu v. Melgar, 206 SCRA 256

2. Llmas v. Orbos, 202 SCRA 844
3. Aguinaldo v. Santos, 212 SCRA 768
4. People v. Ofiana, 135 SCRA 372
5. Garcia v. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207
6. Carpio Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division), 774 SCRA 431
7. Giron v. Ochoa, Jr., 819 SCRA 103
8. People v. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689
9. Salumbides Jr., v. Office of the Ombudsman, 619 SCRA 313
10.Yulo v. Civil Service Commission, 219 SCRA 470
11.Grego v. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 481
12.Flores c. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga, 452 SCRA 278

D. Procedure (Sec 84, LGC)

E. Preventive Suspension: kinds (Sec. 63-34, 85-87, LGC, Art. 127, IRR)
Read also Sec. 42, P.D. 807 (now Sec. 52, 1987 Revised Administrative Code)

Cases:
1. Garcia v. Mojica, 314 SCRA 207
2. Gonzaga v. Sandiganbayan, 201 SCRA 417
3. Gloria v. Court of Appeals, 306 SCRA 287
4. Calingin v. Court of Appeals 434 SCRA 173
5. Rios v. Sandiganbayan, 279 SCRA 581

17
 F. Rights of Respondent (Art. 129, IRR)
G. Administrative Investigation and Appeals (Art. 131, IRR)

Cases:

1. Joson v. Torres, 290 SCRA 279

2. Lupo v. Administrative Action Board, 190 SCRA 69

H. Distinction between preventive suspension handed by the Ombudsman and

those imposed by the executive officials

Case:

1. Miranda v. Sandiganbayan, 464 SCRA 165

I. R.A. 6770 – The Ombudsman Act of 1989

Cases:

1. Lapid v. Court of Appeals, 334 SCRA 738

2. Constantino v. Desierto, 288 SCRA 654

J. The Courts

Cases:

1. Miranda v. Sandiganbayan, 464 SCRA 165

2. Esquivel v. Ombudsman, 389 SCRA 143

18