SALVADOR C. FERNANDEZ and ANICIA M.

DE LIMA, petitioners,
vs. HON. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, Chairman, and HON. RAMON B. ERENETA, Commissioner,
Civil Service Commission,

FACTS:
Petitioners in the instant case, Salvador Sanchez here serving as Director of the Office of Personnel
Inspection and Audit ("OPIA") while petitioner de Lima was serving as Director of the Office of the
Personnel Relations ("OPR"), both at the Central Office of the Civil Service Commission. Petitioners
assailed the validity of the resolution promulgated by the CSC and its authority to issue such, the
Resolution No. 934710 resolves to effect changes in the organizations specifically Central Offices ( re
arranged and merged some offices. It also allocated some functions ( internal organizations). The
objective which is to improve on the delivery of services
ISSUE 1:
Whether or not the Civil Service Commission had legal authority to issue Resolution No. 94-3710 to
the extent it merged the OCSS [Office of Career Systems and Standards], the OPIA [Office of
Personnel Inspection and Audit] and the OPR [Office of Personnel Relations], to form the RDO
[Research and Development Office];
HELD:
YES.
Examination on the statutory provisions specifically The Revised Administrative Code of 1987
(Executive Order No. 292 dated 25 July 1987) sets out, in Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 3, the
internal structure and organization of the Commission Sec. 16. Offices in the Commission reveals that
the OCSS, OPIA and OPR, and as well each of the other Offices listed in Section 16 above, consist of
aggregations of Divisions, each of which Divisions is in turn a grouping of Sections. In short these
offices constitute administrative subdivisions of the CSC. Legislative Authority have validly
delegated to CSC by Sec. 17 and also Sec 1 of 1997 Revised Administrative Code.
The reorganization of offices is moved by legitimate considerations of administrative efficiency and
convenience.
ISSUE 2:
Whether the reorganization abolished offices?

HELD:
It did not abolished any public office nor terminate relationship whatsoever employees by the Civil
Service Commission Office or any of its officers and employees.

RATIONALE why CSC can validly reorganized:
Because only CSC knows the ever changing needs with the call of times or demand of times, as long
as this will not involve any reduction in rank or status or neither the salaries of such employees and it
is not amounting to removal nor constructive dismissal.





HANNAH EUNICE D. SERANA, petitioner,
vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:
Petitioner Hannah Eunice D. Serana was a senior student of the University of the Philippines-Cebu. A
student of a state university is known as a government scholar. She was appointed by then President
Joseph Estrada as a student regent of UP, to serve a one-year term. Petitioner here asked the former
president Estrada to fund th renovations of a hall in Up Diliman and president gave 15 MILLION but it
did not materialized. One of the student from another council filed a complaint alleging act of
Malversation of Public Funds and Property. The Ombudsman also after due investigation found
probable cause to indict petitioner and her brother for estafa. Petitioner moved to quash the said
complaint as she contended SB has no jurisdiction over estafa cases and that the money came from
the president and since she is just a student register and is not considered a public officer and she did
not even received any salary.
ISSUES:
(a) the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over estafa;
(b) petitioner is not a public officer with Salary Grade 27 and she paid her tuition fees;
(c) the offense charged was not committed in relation to her office;
(d) the funds in question personally came from President Estrada, not from the government.

HELD:

A. YES
The SB has jurisdiction. It is set by PD No. 1606 and not RA 3019 because Sec 4 of RA 3019 does
not deal with any jurisdiction but with prohibitions on certain individuals.

Se. 4 (B) of PD 1606- estafa is included as one of the other felonies mentioned. The two requisites
are:

1) The offense is committed by public officials
2) The offense is committed in relation to office

Including crimes committed by public officials and in conspiracy with private oersons- the crimes are
treated alike.

B.

Petitioner here as a UP student regent is considered as public officer

Private Officers are individuals invested with some portion of sovereign functions of the government to
be exercised for public benefit of public.

The right to hold public office is not a natural right. It exist by virtue of a law creating it. Petitioner
falls under trustees, or managers of educational institutions or foundations.
C. She committed offense not in private capacity but in relation to her office
D. A public office is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given
period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested
with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to be exercise by him for the benefit
of the public ([Mechem Public Offices and Officers,] Sec. 1).
The right to hold a public office under our political system is therefore not a natural right. It exists,
when it exists at all only because and by virtue of some law expressly or impliedly creating and
conferring it (Mechem Ibid., Sec. 64). There is no such thing as a vested interest or an estate in an
office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for
special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an
office or its salary.
Compensation is not essential element but only incidental to public office. Admin of UP is a sovereign
function in line with Article XIV of the constitution- it is maintained by the government and it declares
no dividends and is not a corporation created by profit.