Case Digest: Sanders and Moreau, Jr. vs. Veridiano II

10 June 1988                      G.R. No. L-56930

FACTS:

Rossi and Wyer were advised that their employment had been converted from permanent full-time to permanent part-time.  Their reaction was to protest this conversion and to institute grievance proceedings conformably to the pertinent rules and regulations of the US DoD.  Moreau sent to the Chief of Naval Personnel explaining the change of employment status of the two from which Rossi and Wyer filed in the Court of First Instance of Olongapo City a complaint for damages against the herein petitioners claiming that the letters contained libellous imputations against the two.  Due to the failure to appear in the court, Moreau and Sanders were declared in default.

ISSUE: 

Whether the petitioners were performing their official duties when they did the acts for which they have been sued for damages.

RULING:

It is abundantly clear in the present case that the acts for which the petitioners are being called to account were performed by them in the discharge of their official duties.  Sanders, as director of the special services department of NAVSTA, undoubtedly had supervision over its personnel and had a hand in their employment, work assignments, discipline, dismissal and other related matters.  The same can be said for Moreau.  Given the official character of the above-described letters, it can be concluded that the petitioners were being sued as officers of the United States government.  There should be no question by now that such complaint cannot prosper unless the government sought to be held ultimately liable has given its consent to be sued.

Case Digest: Joseph Estrada vs. Aniano Disierto

G.R. No. 146710-15      02 March 2001

FACTS:

After the sharp descent from power of Chavit Singson, he went on air and accused the petitioner of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. Calls for resignation filled the air and former allies and members of the President’s administration started resigning one by one.  In a session on November 13, House Speaker Villar transmitted the Articles of Impeachment signed by 115 representatives or more than 1/3 of all the members of the House to the Senate.  The impeachment trial formally opened which is the start of the dramatic fall from power of the President, which is most evident in the EDSA Dos rally.  On January 20, the President submitted two letters – one signifying his leave from the Palace and the other signifying his inability to exercise his powers pursuant to Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution.  Thereafter, Arroyo took oath as President of the Philippines.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioner resigned as President; and
2. Whether the impeachment proceedings bar the petitioner from resigning

RULING:

1. For a resignation to be legally valid, there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment which may be oral or written, express or implied, for as long as the resignation is clear. In the press release containing his final statement, he acknowledged the oath-taking of Arroyo as President; he emphasized he was leaving the Palace without the mention of any inability and intent of reassumption; he expressed his gratitude to the people; he assured will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of the country.  This is of high grade evidence of his intent to resign.
2. Petitioner’s contention that the impeachment proceeding is an administrative investigation that, under section 12 of RA 3019, bars him from resigning is not affirmed by the Court.  The exact nature of an impeachment proceeding is debatable.  But even assuming arguendo that it is an administrative proceeding, it cannot be considered pending at the time petitioner resigned because the process already broke down when a majority of the senator-judges voted against the opening of the second envelope, the public and private prosecutors walked out, the public prosecutors filed their Manifestation of Withdrawal of Appearance, and the proceedings were postponed indefinitely.  There was, in effect, no impeachment case pending against the petitioner when he resigned.

Case Digest: Emmanuel Pelaez vs. The Auditor General

FACTS:

From September 4, 1964 to October 29, 1964 the President of the Philippines issued executive orders to create thirty-three municipalities pursuant to Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code.  Public funds thereby stood to be disbursed in the implementation of said executive orders. 

Suing as a private citizen and taxpayer, Vice President Emmanuel Pelaez filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction against the Auditor General.  It seeks to restrain from the respondent or any person acting in his behalf, from passing in audit any expenditure of public funds in implementation of the executive orders aforementioned.

ISSUE:

Whether the executive orders are null and void, upon the ground that the President does not have the authority to create municipalities as this power has been vested in the legislative department.

RULING:

Section 10(1) of Article VII of the fundamental law ordains:

“The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus or offices, exercise general supervision over all local governments as may be provided by law, and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

The power of control under this provision implies the right of the President to interfere in the exercise of such discretion as may be vested by law in the officers of the executive departments, bureaus, or offices of the national government, as well as to act in lieu of such officers.  This power is denied by the Constitution to the Executive, insofar as local governments are concerned.  Such control does not include the authority to either abolish an executive department or bureau, or to create a new one.  Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code does not merely fail to comply with the constitutional mandate above quoted, it also gives the President more power than what was vested in him by the Constitution. 

The Executive Orders in question are hereby declared null and void ab initio and the respondent permanently restrained from passing in audit any expenditure of public funds in implementation of said Executive Orders or any disbursement by the municipalities referred to.

Case Digest: Osmeña, Jr. vs. Pendatun, et. al.

G.R. No. L-17144               28 October 1960               

Ponente: Bengzon, J.

FACTS:

Congressman Osmeña took the floor on the one-hour privilege to deliver a speech, entitled ‘A Message to Garcia’ wherein said speech contained serious imputations of bribery against the President.  Being unable to produce evidence thereof, Osmeña was then found to be guilty of serious disorderly behaviour by the House of Representatives.  Osmeña argues that the Constitution gave him complete parliamentary immunity, and so, for words spoken in the House, he ought not to be questioned.

ISSUE:

Whether said disciplinary action by the House is in violation of Section 15, Article VI of the Constitution.

RULING:

Said disciplinary action is not in violation of the Constitution.  Section 15, Article VI of the Constitution provides that “for any speech or debate in Congress, the Senators or Members of the House of Representative shall not be questioned in any other place.”  Although exempt from prosecution or civil actions for their words uttered in Congress, the members of Congress may, nevertheless, be questioned in Congress itself.  Observe that “they shall not be questioned in any other place” in Congress.

Case Digest: Kilosbayan, Incorporated, et. al. vs. Teofisto Guingona, PCSO and PGMC

05 May 1994                       G.R. No. 113375

Ponente: Davide, JR., J.

FACTS:

The PCSO decided to establish an online lottery system for the purpose of increasing its revenue base and diversifying its sources of funds.  Sometime before March 1993, after learning that the PCSO was interested in operating on an online lottery system, the Berjaya Group Berhad, with its affiliate, the International Totalizator Systems, Inc. became interested to offer its services and resources to PCSO.  Considering the citizenship requirement, the PGMC claims that Berjaya Group undertook to reduce its equity stakes in PGMC to 40% by selling 35% out of the original 75% foreign stockholdings to local investors.  An open letter was sent to President Ramos strongly opposing the setting up of an online lottery system due to ethical and moral concerns, however the project pushed through.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the petitioners have locus standi (legal standing); and
2. Whether the Contract of Lease is legal and valid in light of Sec. 1 of R.A. 1169 as amended by B.P. Blg. 42.

RULING:

1. The petitioners have locus standi due to the transcendental importance to the public that the case demands.  The ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the social, economic and moral well-being of the people.  The legal standing then of the petitioners deserves recognition, and in the exercise of its sound discretion, the Court brushes aside the procedural barrier.
2. Sec. 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P. Blg. 42, prohibits the PCSO from holding and conducting lotteries “in collaboration, association or joint venture with any person, association, company, or entity, whether domestic or foreign.”  The language of the section is clear that with respect to its franchise or privilege “to hold and conduct charity sweepstakes races, lotteries and other similar activities,” the PCSO cannot exercise it “in collaboration, association or joint venture” with any other party.  This is the unequivocal meaning and import of the phrase. By the exception explicitly made, the PCSO cannot share its franchise with another by way of the methods mentioned, nor can it transfer, assign or lease such franchise.