LAW ON PUBLIC

OFFICERS
By
Asst. Omb. Rodolfo M. Elman,
CESO lll
Ateneo de Davao Law School
 Public Office

Definition

Distinguished from contract

Elements of a public office

Basic precept underlying public

office:
Art. Xl, Sec. 1, 1987 Constitution
Meaning of principle
 Cases
Determining whether a position is a public
office or not (Laurel vs. Desierto, 381
SCRA 48)
Constitutionality of a law (RA 9335)
providing for a system of rewards and
incentives for BIR and BOC officials and
employees (Abakada Guro Party List vs.
Purisima, 562 SCRA 251)
Membership in the market committee
(Figueroa vs. People, 498 SCRA 298)
Private sector membership in NBDB under
RA 8047 (Javier vs. Sandiganbayan, 599
SCRA 325)
 Creationof the Phil. Truth
Commission under EO 1 is
unconstitutional as it violates the
equal protection clause (Lagman vs.
Ochoa & Biraogo vs. PTC, December
7, 2010), although the President has
the power to create the PTC as an
ad-hoc body to investigate reports of
graft pursuant to Art. Vll Sec. 17.
 Classifying Public Officers of GOCCs
under RA 3019
PNCC Assistant Manager (Macalino vs.
Sandiganbayan, 376 SCRA 452)
President and COO of Phil. Postal
Savings Bank (People vs.
Sandiganbayan, 16 February 2005)
Philhealth Manager (Geduspan vs.
People, 451 SCRA 187)
VPs and AVP of AFP RSBS (Alzaga vs.
Sandiganbayan, 505 SCRA 849)
 `
Characteristics of Public Office
No express provision depriving
incumbent of his office (Segovia vs.
Noel, 47 Phil. 543)
Public office not a property which
passes to heirs; exception (Abeja vs.
Tanada & Mayor Radovan, 236 SCRA
62)
Election protest continues despite death
of public officer; VM a real party in
interest (De Castro vs. Comelec &
Jamilla, 267 SCRA 806)
 Oath of Office
A qualifying requirement for public
office; a prerequisite to full investiture
w/ the office; right to enter into office
becomes plenary and complete
(Mendoza vs. Laxina, Sr. 406 SCRA 156)
In taking oath, he binds to perform
faithfully and act primarily for benefit of
public (Ombudsman vs. Jurado, 561
SCRA 137)
 General rule: Individual cannot be
forced to accept public office
Exceptions:

1. Sec. 4, Art. ll, 1987 Constitution

2. Art. 234, RPC

3. Posse comitatus
 De Facto Officer
Definition

Requisites

Distinguish from a de jure officer and a

usurper
Can an officer de jure recover from the
government salary paid to de facto
officer?
Can a de jure officer recover the salary
from the de facto officer?
 Cases
Arimao vs. Taher, 498 SCRA 76
Menzon vs. Petilla, 197 SCRA 251

Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive

Secretary, 194 SCRA 317
Malaluan vs. Comelec, 254 SCRA 400
(2000 BQ)
Tarrosa vs. Singson, 232 SCRA 553

Mendoza vs. Allas, 302 SCRA 623

 Since they do not claim to be entitled
to the Senate office of Gordon,
petitioners have no legal standing to
file the quo warranto petition to
declare him as having forfeited his
seat in the Senate (Liban vs. Gordon,
593 SCRA 68).
 Cases

Engano vs. CA, 493 SCRA 324

Gaminde vs. COA, 13 December
2000
National Amnesty Commission vs.
COA, 437 SCRA 670
 Civil Service
Art. lX-B, Sec. 2(3) Const.; Sec. 36,
PD807; Sec. 46, EO 292 (1999 BQ)
Purpose of the civil service system
*Meram vs. Edralin, 154 SCRA 238)
Scope: Art. lX-B, Sec. 2(1) Const.
Civil Service Commission is the sole
arbiter of controversies relating to the civil
service; exercises exclusive jurisdiction
over all cases involving personnel actions
xxx
*Corsiga vs. Defensor, 391 SCRA 267
 The case involves personnel action, i.e.,
petitioner is questioning the summary
reallocation and demotion directed by the DBM
w/c resulted in the diminution of his benefits.
His proper remedy is not before the OP but to
question the DBM denial of his protest before
the CSC w/c has exclusive jurisdiction over
cases involving personnel action. In turn, the
CSC resolution may be elevated to the CA
under Rule 43 and finally, before the Supreme
Court (Go vs. CA, 626 SCRA 180).
 Law on Administrative Jurisdiction
vs. public school teachers
Sec. 9 of the Magna Carta for Public
School Teachers (RA 4670)
Coverage of term teacher: all
persons engaged in classroom
teaching on full time basis including
guidance counselors, school librarians,
industrial arts or vocational instructors
and all other persons performing
supervisory or administrative functions
 Exclusions to the term teacher

Publicschool teacher in the

professional staff of state colleges or
universities
School nurses, physicians, dentists
and other school employees in the
category of medical and dental
personnel
 Cases
CSC does not have original administrative
jurisdiction vs. a public school teacher
(Emin vs. De Leon, 378 SCRA 143)
Admin supervision over court employee
belongs to S.C. whether offense was
committed before or after employment in
judiciary, but estoppel applies (Ampong
vs. CSC, 563 SCRA 293)
Jurisdiction not lost upon instance of
parties (Omb vs. Estandarte, 13 April
2007)
 While the Ombudsman has concurrent
administrative disciplinary authority with
the DECS over public school teachers, the
Ombudsman may refer a complaint to the
proper disciplinary authority under Sec. 23
of RA 6770. Respondent is a public school
teacher covered by RA 4670, hence the
proceedings before the DECS would have
been the more appropriate venue to
resolve the dispute (Ombudsman vs.
Delijero, 10 October 2010).
 Higher Education Modernization Act
of 1997 (RA 8282)

Power of universitys Board of Regents

under RA 8282 to discipline its officials
and employees not exclusive but
concurrent with CSC.
Academic freedom cannot be invoked
where there are allegations of CS law
and rules violations (CSC vs. Sojor, 22
May 2008)
 GOCCs not covered by
Civil Service Law
a. PNOC-EDC vs. Leogardo, 175 SCRA 26
b. Bliss Development Corp. Employees
Union
vs. Calleja, 237 SCRA 271 (EO 180 not
applicable to BDC)
c. Food Terminal Inc. (1999 BQ), Lumanta
vs. NLRC, 170 SCRA 79
d. PVBEU vs. PVB, 24 August 1990
~PVB (RA 3518)
e. Phil. National Construction Corp.,
Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan, 376 SCRA
452
 Q. What is the status of PNRC? Did Gordon
automatically forfeit his Senate seat in holding
the post of PNRC Chair?
*The Phil. National Red Cross is not a GOCC but a
privately owned, privately funded and privately
run charitable organization. The vast majority of
thousands of its members are private individuals,
including students.
*PNRC Board of Governors, w/c exercises all
corporate powers of PNRC, elects the Chair.
*Unlike water districts, the elements of gov't
ownership and control are lacking in PNRC.
*Chairman is not an official or employee of the
Government, hence no violation of Sec. 16, Art.
Vll of the Constitution.
*The PNRC Charter is void insofar as it creates the
PNRC as a private corporation.
(Liban vs. Gordon 593 SCRA 68)
 GOCCs covered by
Civil Service Law

a. BSP vs. NLRC, 22 April 1991

b. Baluyot vs. Holganza, 9 Feb 2000
*PNRC under RA 95
c. DFP vs. Mojica, 471 SCRA 776
*Duty Free Phil. under EO 46
d. Alzaga vs. Sandiganbayan, 505
SCRA 848
*AFP-RSBS under RA 9182 (Special
Purpose Vehicle Act of 02)
 PD 198 as amended
by PD 1479 and RA 9286
Local water districts subject to Civil
Service Law. Sec. 25 of PD 198
already removed by PD 1479
(Hagonoy Water District vs. NLRC,
165 SCRA 272)
Local Sanggunian resolution,
although necessary for final creation
of WD, is not its charter (DCWD vs.
CSC, 201 SCRA 605)
 COA Audit of GOCCs
Constitution mandates COA to audit
GOCCs with original charter like water
districts (De Jesus vs. COA, 403 SCRA
666).
01 BQ: Effect of privatization of PNB on
audit jurisdiction of COA
BSP is a public corporation or a
government agency or instrumentality
with juridical personality under CA 111 as
amended by RA 7278 (BSP vs. COA, June
7, 2011)
 An employee of a GOCC, even if
organized under the general law,
considered resigned upon filing
certificate of candidacy (PNOC-EDC vs.
NLRC, 222 SCRA 831)
Hiring and firing of employees of
GOCCs with original charter governed
by CS law
*ZCWD vs. Buat, 232 SCRA 587
*DOH Dr. Rodriguez Hospital vs.
NLRC, 251 SCRA 700)
 Civil Service Law applies to Philippine
Postal Corp. as regards personnel matters,
but its BoD is authorized under RA 7354 to
formulate its own compensation structure
and position classification (Intia, Jr. vs.
COA, 306 SCRA 610)
DBM has sole power/discretion to
administer CPCS of national government
Compensation and benefits received by
PRA officials w/o DBM approval are
unauthorized and irregular (PRA vs.
Bunag, 397 SCRA 27)
 GOCC Governance Act
of 2011 (RA 10149)
Promotes financial viability & fiscal
discipline in GOCCs thru the Governance
Commission for GOCCs
Evaluates performance & relevance of
GOCCs, monitors their operations
Repeals GOCCs charters w/c fix the
directors term by reducing it to 1 yr.
Incumbents up to 6/30/11
Per diems for actual attendance
incentives as authorized by GCG
 Abolition of Career Executive Service
Board (CESB) by CSC is an ultra vires act
(Eugenio vs. CSC, 31 March 1995)
Abolition of Merit System and Protection
Board (MSPB as created under PD 1409)
by CSC is valid; CSC authority under Sec.
17, Book V, EO 292 (Rubenicia vs. CSC,
31 May 1995)
CSC could rule on administrative decisions
on appeal before MSPB (Fernando vs. Sto.
Tomas, 234 SCRA 548)
 Classification of Civil Service
I. Under PD 807 and EO 292
a. Career service
b. Non-career service
~meaning & importance of security of
tenure (BQ)
al. Under Art. lX-B, Sec. 2(2), 1987
Constitution
a. Competitive positions
b. Non-competitive positions
 Career Service
What characterizes the career service?
(99 BQ)
What is included in the career service?
(99 BQ)
1. Open career
2. Closed Career
3. Positions in CES
4. Career officers other than CES
5. Commissioned officers/enlisted men in
AFP
6. Personnel of GOCC
Importance of security of tenure
 Three major levels/classes of positions in
the Career Service
1) First level includes clerical, trades,
crafts and custodial services positions
2) Second level includes professional,
technical and scientific positions up to
Division Chief level
3) Third level covers positions in the
Career Executive Service
(EO 1 creating the PTC)
 Qualification in an appropriate exam is
required for appointment to positions in the
first and second levels in the career service;
provided that whenever there is a civil service
eligible actually available for appointment, no
person who is not an eligible shall be
appointed even in a temporary capacity xxx
Exceptions: when immediate filling of vacancy
is urgently required or when vacancy is not
permanent
 Cases on Career Service
Illegaldismissal of a career officer
(Palmera vs. CSC, 235 SCRA 87)
Astraquillo vs. Manglapus & Melchor
vs. Saez, 190 SCRA 281
Proximity rule: Salas position as
Internal Security Staff was remote
from the appointing authority
(Pagcor vs. Salas, 274 SCRA 414)
 Non-Career Service
What characterizes the non-career service?
What is included in the non-career service?
1. Elective officials and their personal or
confidential staff
2. Department heads and other officials of
Cabinet rank xxx
3. Chairman and members of commissions
and boards with fixed terms of office and
their personal or confidential staff
4. Contractual personnel
5. Emergency and casual personnel
 Cases on non-career service
A non-career service employee is
protected from removal without just
cause (Jocom vs. Robredo, 201 SCRA 73)
Chair of the Commission on Filipino
Language is a non-career official whose
tenure of 7 years is fixed by RA 7104;
her removal is not at pleasure of
appointing authority (Office of President
vs. Buenaobra, 501 SCRA 303)
 Art. lX-B, Sec. 2 (2)
Competitive positions: appointments made
according to merit and fitness
Non-competitive positions

1. Primarily confidential
2. Policy determining
3. Highly technical
Nature and not label that makes it
competitive. Executive has power to
declare classification of non-competitive
position (Sec. 12, Bk. V, EO 292)
 Term of office vs. Tenure of
Incumbent
Term the time during w/c officer may
claim to hold office as of right and fixes
the interval after w/c the incumbents shall
succeed one another.
Tenure the term during which the
incumbent actually holds office.
Importance of distinction: Constitutional
principle of non-removal without due
process of law would be negated if
Congress could legally make tenure of
officials dependent on pleasure of the
President.
 Cases
Term of office Chair & Members of CHR under EO
163 to comply with Sec. 17(2), Art. Xlll (Bautista
vs. Salonga, 172 SCRA 164); EO 163-A is
unconstitutional
Members of HRET have security of tenure;
disloyalty to party not a valid ground for
expulsion (Bondoc vs. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792)
Requisites for effective operation of rotational
scheme for Constitutional Commissioners
(Republic vs. Imperial, 96 Phil. 770; 99BQ;
10BQ)
Start and end of 7-year term of office of CSC
Commissioner (Gaminde vs. COA, 13 Dec. 2000)
Primarily Confidential Positions
Rule: Tenure of officials holding primarily
confidential positions ends upon loss of
confidence xxx cessation not a removal
but expiration of term.
City Legal Officer (Cadiente vs. Santos,
142 SCRA 280)
Provl Attorney (Grino vs. CSC, 26 Feb.
1991)
Permanent Representative to UN (De Perio
Santos vs. Macaraig, 10 April 1992)
 Eligibility to Public Office
Qualifications generally required of public
officers
* Citizenship, residence, age, education
and civil service qualifications
Qualification Standards
Religious qualifications prohibited (Sec.
5, Art. lll, Constitution)
Ruling in Pamil vs. Teleron on basis of
Sec. 2175 of old Admin. Code (20 Nov.
1978) superseded by 87 Const.
 Property qualifications may not be
imposed for the exercise of right to run for
public office. Law requiring candidates for
public office to post surety bond of P20T
held unconstitutional (Maquera vs. Borra,
07 Sept. 1965)
Qualifications of local elective officials
(Sec. 39, RA 7160)
Loss of any of the qualifications during
incumbency a ground for termination
(Labo vs COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1)
 Disqualifications for local elective
position (Sec. 40, RA 7160; 99BQ)
Those sentenced by final judgment for an
offense involving moral turpitude
Those removed from office as a result of
an administrative case
Those convicted by final judgment for
violating oath of allegiance
Those with dual citizenship
Fugitives from justice
Permanent residents in a foreign country
The insane or feeble-minded
 Cases
Punong Barangay convicted of arbitrary
detention but has not served his sentence
because of the grant of probation is not
disqualified to seek 02 local elective office
(Moreno vs. Comelec, 498 SCRA 49)
Petitioners conviction of fencing which is a
crime of moral turpitude (Anti-Fencing Law) &
thus falling squarely under the disqualification
in Sec. 40 (a) subsists & remains unaffected
even if he was granted probation; perfection of
an appeal is relinquishment of alternative
remedy of availing of Probation Law (Dela
Torre vs. Comelec, 258 SCRA 483).
 A local elective official who is removed before
the expiration of his term is disqualified from
being a candidate for local elective position
(Reyes vs. Comelec, 254 SCRA 514)
Where the decision has not become final by
reason of his filing a MR, respondent local
elective official is not disqualified to run
(Lingating vs. Sulong, 391 SCRA 629)
Dual citizenship refers to dual allegiance;
dual citizenship not a disqualification (Mercado
vs. Manzano, 26 May 1999)(note: ruling now
modified by RA 9225)
 Dual Citizenship Act (RA 9225)
Those who retain or re-acquire Phil.
citizenship under this Act and seek elective
public office shall meet the qualifications xxx
and at the time of the filing of the certificate
of candidacy, make a personal & sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before public officer authorized to
administer an oath [Sec. 5 (2)].
Affiant must state in clear and unequivocal
terms that he is renouncing all foreign
citizenship for it to be effective (Eusebio Lopez
vs. Comelec, 23 July 2008)
 Candidate Merito Miguel who is a
green card holder must waive his
status as a permanent resident or
immigrant of a foreign country, as
manifested by some act(s)
independent of and done prior to
filing his candidacy for elective office
of Mayor of Bolinao, Quezon (Caasi
vs. CA, 191 SCRA 229)
 Under Sec. 2 of RA 8171, repatriation is effected
by taking the necessary oath of allegiance to RP
and registration of Certificate of Repatriation in
proper civil registry and the Immigration Bureau.
Petitioner, a candidate for post of Mayor of San
Jacinto, Masbate in May 04 elections, took his
oath in Dec. 97 but registered his Certificate
w/the Civil Registry and the Immigration Bureau
only after 6 years. He completed all
requirements for repatriation only after he filed
his cert. of candidacy, hence he is disqualified
(Alterejos vs. Comelec, 441 SCRA 655).
 Repatriation results in the recovery
of the original nationality. Since the
candidate for elective office was a
natural born Filipino before he
became a naturalized American
citizen, he was restored to his former
status as a natural born Filipino upon
repatriation (Bengson vs. HRET, 357
SCRA 545)
 Designation
Distinguished from appointment
Cases:

*National Amnesty Commission vs.

COA, 437 SCRA 657
*Binamira vs. Garrucho, 188 SCRA
154
 Appointment
Kinds of appointment: permanent and
temporary
Different steps in process of appointment

Acceptance of appointment not essential to

its validity but necessary to the full
possession of the office
One who holds a temporary appointment
has no fixed tenure of office (Achacoso vs.
Macaraig, 195 SCRA 237)
 Acceptance of a temporary appointment
without intention to abandon permanent
position (Palmera vs. CSC, 235 SCRA 87)
Acceptance of a temporary appointment
on his own volition and in exchange of a
permanent appointment (Romualdez vs.
CSC, 197 SCRA 168)
Resident physician position is not
permanent (Felix vs. Buenaseda, 240
SCRA 139)
 Power to Appoint
An exercise of discretion (Patagoc vs.
CSC & Despalo, 14 May 1990)
next-in-rank rule (Umoso vs. CSC
& Caronon, 234 SCRA 819)
Appointment required to be
submitted to CSC (Tomali vs. CSC,
238 SCRA 572)
 Power of CSC to approve or disapprove
(Orbos vs. CSC & Madarang, 189 SCRA 459)
Even an appointment initially approved by
CSC may be subsequently recalled when
found to be invalid. RA 6850 (a law granting
CS eligibility to employees efficiently serving
for at least 7 yrs.) does not cure a void
appointment for being based on petitioners
false representation of eligibility (Maniebo
vs. CA, 627 SCRA 571).
 Nepotism rule
Sec. 59, EO 292: prohibition within 3rd
degree of consanguinity or affinity
Sec. 67, EO 292: penalty of fine of not more
than P1,000 or not more than 6 years
imprisonment or both
Sec. 79, RA 7160: prohibition within 4th
degree of consanguinity or affinity
A promotional appointment violative of
nepotism rule is null and void (Debulgado
vs. CSC, 237 SCRA 184).
Exceptions to the rule
 Although what was extended by petitioner
Governor to Benjamin, who had been holding a
promotional appointment as Civil Security Officer,
was merely a designation and not an
appointment to the position of Provincial
Administrator, the prohibition vs. nepotism would
include designation, because what cannot be done
directly cannot be done indirectly (Laurel V vs.
CSC, 203 SCRA 195).
Purpose of the rule vs. nepotism: take out of the
discretion of the appointing or recommending
authority.
 Where CSC disapproves appointment,
appointee need not be previously heard
(Debulgado vs. CSC, 237 SCRA 186)
Passage of CS exam does not transform
temporary appointment to permanent
(Camarines Prov. vs. CA, 246 SCRA 283)
Respondents success in the CS exam upon
end of her temporary appointment as Bd. Sec.
did not legally oblige PSCA to reappoint her.
There are other considerations like confidence
& trust (Gloria vs. Rosario Cerillo, 249 SCRA
133).
 Appointing authority & appointee are real parties
to challenge CSC disapproval (Abella vs. CSC, 442
SCRA 507).
No violation of CSC resolution prohibiting
midnight appointment where the filling up
resulted from deliberate action and careful
consideration of qualifications (Quirog vs.
Aumentado, 570 SCRA 582).
Prohibition on midnight appointments under Art.
Vll, Sec. 15 of Constitution applies only to
presidential appointments and not to local chief
executives (De Rama vs. CA, 353 SCRA 94).
 Art. Vll, Sec. 15 Constitution
Two months immediately before the
next presidential elections and up to
the end of his term, the President or
Acting President shall not make
appointments, except temporary
appointments to executive
positions when continued vacancies
therein will prejudice public service
or endanger public safety.
 When appointee may be
reassigned/transferred
Where appointment indicates no specific
station, employee may be transferred or
reassigned provided no substantial
change in title, rank or salary.
5 year term Dean of College of Education
(Sta. Maria vs. Lopez, 31 SCRA 637)
Reassignment of Gloria Navarro as
Principal in Division of City Schools,
Quezon City (DECS vs. CA, 183 SCRA 555)
 Reassignment that is indefinite violates security of
tenure and is in effect constructive dismissal
(Gloria vs. CA & Icasiano, 338 SCRA 10).
Appointments to staff of CSC are not
appointments to a specified public office but
appointments to particular positions or ranks.
Petitioners were each appointed to the position of
Director lV without specification of any particular
office or station. Also, EO 292 authorizes the
Commission to carry out changes in the
organization as the need arises (Fernandez vs.
Sto. Tomas, 242 SCRA 193).
 A reassignment which removes from the
officer power of supervision over
employees is a diminution of her status
(Padolina vs. Fernandez, 343 SCRA 442).
Mayor has power to reconstitute CSSDO
and devolve national DSWD employees to
CSSDO in line w/ devolution under RA
7160 (Plaza vs. Cassion, 435 SCRA 295).
BIR Commissioner is authorized to assign
or reassign revenue officers (Vinzons-
Chato vs. Martinez, 344 SCRA 18).
 Bad faith is evident by the fact that the
reassignment was issued days after the
reassigned officials filed a graft case vs.
petitioner and that the authority to
reassign officers of the LWUA lies with the
Board and not with petitioner. Presumption
of regularity does not apply when
petitioners acts are not within his duties
specified by law but pertain to the Board
(Reyes, Jr. vs. Belisario, 596 SCRA 35).
Career Executive Service (CES)
Security of tenure in CES is acquired
w/respect to rank and not to position; within
CES, personnel can be shifted to another
position w/o violating their rights to security
of tenure because their status & salaries are
based on their ranks & not on their jobs.
Petitioners appointment is not permanent as
she does not have the rank appropriate for
position of Chief Public Attorney (Cuevas vs.
Bacal, 347 SCRA 339).
 2 requisites must concur in order that an
employee in the CES may attain security of
tenure, to wit: a) CES eligibility; and b)
appointment to the appropriate CES rank.
Passing CES exam entitles examinee to
conferment of CES eligibility. Upon conferment,
incumbent of CES position may qualify for
appointment to a CES rank. W/o CES eligibility,
his appointment may be withdrawn anytime
w/o violating right to security of tenure
(Caringal vs. PCSO, 472 SCRA 577).
 Although the law allows the appointment of a
non-CES eligible to CES positions in the
government in the absence of appropriate
eligibles & in the interest of public service,
however, in all cases the appointment is at
best temporary conditioned on the
subsequent acquisition of the required CES
eligibility. Petitioners separation from the
service w/o cause as Dep. Director for
Hospital Support Services is valid as her
position belongs to the CES (Amores vs.
CSC, 29 April 09).
 Unless and until an employee in the CES is appointed
to the appropriate CES rank, he acquires no security of
tenure even if he is a CES eligible. Respondent, though
a CES eligible, does not possess the appropriate CES
rank, w/c is CES rank level V, for the position of RD of
LTO- Reg. V. He could thus be reassigned to other
positions in the CES as he did not have security of
tenure (General vs. LTO RD Roco, 350 SCRA 528).
Justification of transfer/reassignment of CESO to other
positions: mobility and flexibility. The Integrated
Reorganization Plan (PD 1) allows the appointment of
non-CES eligibles, like Montesa as Ministry Legal
Counsel, provided they subsequently acquire the
eligibility (De Leon vs. Montesa, 371 SCRA 413).
 There is a distinction between position and rank. A
CESO may be transferred or reassigned from one
position to another without losing his rank, but there
can be no distinction between resigning from a
position and resigning from a rank. Rank of a CESO is
deactivated upon resignation from the govt service,
which includes the resignation of a CESO from his
position. Petitioners claim that his relief as
Undersecretary for Civil Relations of DND violated his
security of tenure as CESO is untenable because, by
his own deliberate deed, he resigned. Any express
promise of another position is void (Collantes vs. CA,
517 SCRA 561).
 Positions Excluded from CES
(CESB Res. 799,May 09)
1. Managerial and executive positions w/fixed term
of office as provided in charter or law
2. Managerial and executive positions in non-career
service w/c include the ff:
a. Elective officials & their personal/confi staff
b. Secretaries and other officials of cabinet rank
and their personal/confi staff
c. Chairman and members of commissions and
boards with fixed terms of office & their
personal/confi staff
d. Contractual personnel & emergency/seasonal
staff
 Positions excluded from CES
3. Managerial and executive positions in the
national government belonging to the
closed career systems w/c are
administered by special bodies such as
the Foreign Service, PNP, State colleges
and universities unless provided in their
respective charters, the Scientific Career
Service and the like
4. Position of Head Executive Assistant
 Presidential Appointments
ad interim and regular (Art. Vll, Sec.
16 Const.); Distinction
Distinction between ad interim
appointments from appointments in
an acting capacity; Presidents
issuance of appointments in an
acting capacity not impairment of
power of Congress (Pimentel vs.
Ermita, 472 SCRA 589)
 Ad interim appointment is permanent,
and not a temporary appointment that
can be withdrawn or revoked anytime;
President can renew ad interim
appointment of a by-passed appointee
(Matibag vs. Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49)
Appointments solely for President to
make cannot be ad interim appointments
(Bautista vs. Salonga, 172 SCRA 160).
 3 stages in regular appointments
4 groups of officers whom the
President shall appoint
The other officers referred to
whose appointments are vested in
the President under the Const.
 Cases
Quintos Deles vs. Commission on
Appointments, 177 SCRA 259
(Art. XVlll, Sec. 7 on Sectoral Rep.)
Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549

Tarrosa vs. Singson, 232 SCRA 555

Calderon vs. Carale, 208 SCRA 254

Manalo vs. Sistoza, 312 SCRA 239

(02 BQ)
 Prohibition on midnight appointment in
Sec. 15, Art. Vll does not apply to
appointment of members of the Supreme
Court. Had the framers intended to, they
could have easily and surely written that
the prohibition in Sec. 15, Art. Vll is
equally applicable to appointment of SC
members, most likely in Sec. 4, Art. Vlll.
The express intent of the framers is
enshrined in Sec. 4, Art. Vlll which is a
command to the President to fill up any
vacancy within 90 days from its
occurrence (De Castro vs. JBC, 3/17/10).
 Appointments of fourth group of lower-
ranked officers may by law be vested in the
head of board. The Chair of CCP is vested
with power under PD 15 to appoint lower-
ranked officers but not the co-trustees of the
board. Sec. 6 of PD 15, insofar CCP Board to
elect their co-trustees is unconstitutional as it
violates Sec. 16, Art. Vll. Although CCP
enjoys autonomy of policy & operation, thus
giving the Board authority to initiate &
formulate policies & undertake activities,
these are all subject to the Presidents power
of control (Rufino vs. Endriga, 496 SCRA 16).
Modes of Terminating Official Relations
Abolition is neither removal or separation.
Reorganization is valid when done in good faith. A
reorganization is in good faith if it is for purpose of
economy or make bureaucracy more efficient. If so,
there is no dismissal since the position itself ceases
to exist. But if the abolition is for political reason or
to defeat security of tenure, or there is mere change
of nomenclature of positions, the abolition is void.
Here, no actual reorganization took place, i.e.
reduction of personnel , consolidation of offices or
abolition for the purpose of economy, or redundancy
of functions, but a simple revamp of personnel. He
separated 394 personnel but replaced them w/ 522.
(Dario vs. Mison, 176 SCRA 84)
 The municipalitys pretended abolition of petitioners
position of dentist on ground of lack of funds is void as
the municipality approved salary & budget increases and
issued new appointments at the time of her dismissal.
Considering the lapse of 20 yrs., she was awarded back
salaries equivalent to 5 yrs. (Gingson vs. Murcia, 08 Feb.
1988)
Where abolished office (Science Promotion Inst.) and the
two new offices created have similar functions, abolition
lacks good faith (Guerrero vs. Arizabal, 186 SCRA 109).
RA 6715 which declared vacant NLRC positions &
provided for the removal of incumbents upon qualification
of their successors is unconstitutional. It did not
expressly or impliedly abolish petitioners offices (Mayor
vs. Macaraeg, 194 SCRA 672).
*Sec. 8 of RA 8551 which provides that the
terms of the current Commissioners are
deemed expired is unconstitutional, being in
violation of petitioners security of tenure
guarantee. The revisions in the new law do not
constitute essential changes in the nature of
NAPOLCOM as to result in the implied abolition
of such office. Its organizational structure,
powers & duties remain the same. RA 8551
effected a reorganization of the PNP and not
the NAPOLCOM. All acts done pursuant to Sec.
8 are null & void. There can be no valid
appointments to non-vacant positions.
(Canonizado vs. Aguirre, 323 SCRA 313)
 Incompatibility of offices
Acceptance of another office incompatible w/
the first office ipso facto vacates the first
office.
When is there incompatibility of offices? Not
mere physical impossibility of one person
performing but contrariety arises from
nature & relations
Positions of Inspector General of IAS and
NAPOLCOM Commissioner are incompatible.
NAPOLCOM has power of control over PNP.
Also, RA 8551 prohibits an IAS personnel
from sitting in a committee
 The crucial test to determine
incompatibility: whether one office is
subordinate to the other, i.e. one office has
right to intervene w/ the other. The
positions of PCGG Chair and Chief
Presidential Legal Counsel are incompatible
(PICI vs. Elma, 494 SCRA 54).
Sec. 13, Art. Vl of Constitution was not
violated when respondent Senator got
elected as PNRC Chair. PNRC was created
by RA 95 to comply w/Geneva Convention
(Liban vs. Gordon, 593 SCRA 68).
 Abandonment of an office is the voluntary
& total relinquishment of an office by the
holder, w/intention to terminate his
possession & control
No abandonment if office is vacated in
deference to requirement of law & despite
acceptance of IAS position (Canonizado case).
Antonios failure to take steps to reassume
office constitute abandonment (SB of San
Andres vs. CA, 284 SCRA 276; 00BQ).
 Resignation expression of incumbent of
an intention to relinquish his office and
acceptance by competent & lawful authority
(Ortiz vs. Comelec, 28 June 88).
Abandonment of office before acceptance of
resignation is punishable under Art. 238 RPC
Submission of resignation of SB Member to
the Mayor is not a valid resignation. Sec. 82
of LGC provides its submission to the
Sanggunian (SB of San Andres case).
 Acceptance of courtesy resignation does not does
not mean express or implied promise of another
position (Collantes vs. DND, 517 SCRA 561).
Resignation cannot be used as an escape to
evade administrative liability. Respondent Clerk
of Courts resignation before investigation is
indicative of his guilt(Gonzales vs. Escalona, 566
SCRA 4).
Jurisdiction of the tribunal is acquired at the time
of filing of complaint; it is not lost by resignation
of respondent from his office during the
pendency of the case.
 Hasty filing by petitioner cashier of her certificate
of candidacy is a ploy to avoid administrative
charge. Other penalties may still be imposed
(Pagano vs. Nazarro, 533 SCRA 622).
Whether resigned or not is to be determined by
totality test; non-issue as Congress has declared
GMA de jure President. Inability to discharge
duties of Presidency is political & addressed solely
to Congress. Sec. 12 of RA 3019 prohibiting
resignation of officer during pendency of charges
cannot be invoked by petitioner (Estrada vs.
Desierto, 3/02/01).
 Cause for removal must be as provided by law. Failure
to make a courtesy call to ones superior or to submit
her appointment papers is not an offense. (Adiong vs.
CA, 371 SCRA 374)
Summary dismissal has been repealed by RA 6654.
Illegally dismissed officer is entitled to reinstatement
and payment of back salaries & other monetary benefits
from time of dismissal up to reinstatement. An illegally
dismissed employee who is reinstated is considered not
having left her office & should be given the
corresponding compensation at time of reinstatement
(not limited to 5 yrs.) [Batangas Univ. vs. Bonifacio,
478 SCRA 152]
 Official cannot be removed for misconduct
during a prior term (Aguinaldo vs. Comelec, 212
SCRA 768).
Aguinaldo inapplicable to criminal case.
Reelection to the post of Congressman is not a
reasonable classification in criminal
enforcement. Functions & duties of his office are
not substantial distinctions w/c lift him from
the class of prisoners interrupted in their
freedom (Pp vs. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 692).
*Prisoners cannot hold office while in
detention. No disenfranchisement as
peoples mandate yields to Constitution
(Trillanes vs. Judge Pimentel, 27 June 08)
*As a necessary consequence of arrest and
detention, all prisoners cannot practice
their profession nor engage in business or
occupation or hold office, elective or
appointive, while in detention (Pp vs. Hon.
Maceda, 380 Phil. 1)
 Disloyalty is not a ground for expulsion from HRET
(Bondoc vs. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792; 02 BQ)
2 categories of administrative actions vs.
government employees
To warrant removal from office of an officer, the
misconduct, misfeasance or malfeasance must be
directly related to performance of official duties
Rule: Where crime is not office related, officer
may not be charged administratively based
thereon until a final judgment of conviction of the
crime involving moral turpitude or disqualification
to hold office.
 Exception: when the act or offense also constitutes
violation of administrative rules, no conviction is
required.
In grave misconduct as distinguished from simple
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear
intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of
established rule, are manifest.
Respondents act(s) of stealing a kiss and
demanding for a date, as an unlawful consideration
for issuance of a permit, constitute grave
misconduct (CSC vs. Belagan, 440 SCRA 578).
 To warrant dismissal, dishonesty need not be duty-
connected.
Willful failure to pay just debts: claims adjudicated
by a court or claims the existence & justness of
w/c are admitted by the debtor.
If respondent is found guilty of 2 or more charges,
penalty to be imposed is that corresponding to
most serious charge and the rest are aggravating.
Effects of dismissal
Entitlement of dismissed employee to leave credits.
 Action dropping public officer from the rolls is non-
disciplinary (CSC Circular No. 12, s. 1994).
Mental incapacity due to immoral or vicious habits
under Sec. 46 EO 292 is different from mental
incapacity under Sec. 26 EO 292. The first carries
admin. disabilities, while the second does not. But
both result in loss of employment a property right
protected under due process clause. While petitioner
at time of dropping from the rolls was suffering from
protracted mental disorder, same did not render her
incapable of performing her work. There was
incomplete cause to drop her. She is reinstated
w/payment of back salaries up to reinstatement
(Romagos vs. Metro Cebu Water, 533 SCRA 50).
 The mayor has right to contest reversal by the
CSC or the Court of Appeals of his order
suspending or dismissing a mun. employee.
Reasons: a) His right to appeal flows from the fact
that his power to appoint carries w/it power to
remove; b) Salaries of respondent are drawn from
municipal funds. He has real & substantial interest.
Here, the Mayor & the CSC are real parties in
interest to contest the CA reversal of their decision
suspending respondents for 2 months &
subsequently dropping them from the rolls (Mayor
Dagadag vs.Tongnawa, 450 SCRA 446).
 Impeachment under Sec. 2, Art. Xl
Observance of fundamental procedural requirement
(Cuenco vs. Fernan, 2/17/88)
Cronyism is a legal ground for impeachment of the
President. This refers to betrayal of public trust and
includes cronyism w/c involves unduly favoring a
crony to the prejudice of public interest (00BQ).
Once impeachable officer retires, Court may
proceed vs. him and impose sanction for
misconduct during his tenure (Re: Justice Ruben
Reyes, 580 SCRA 106).
 Deputy Ombudsman not impeachable officer (OMB
vs. Mojica, 452 SCRA 714).
An impeachable officer who is a member of the Bar
cannot be disbarred without first being impeached.
But here, since the grounds for the disbarment
complaint vs. Borra w/c are supposed errors of
judgment or grave abuse of discretion in
appreciation of facts, are proper for an appeal,
complainants remedy is judicial (Marcoleta vs.
Borra, 582 SCRA 474).
Whether offenses in the impeachment complaint
constitute valid impeachable offenses is a non-
justiciable political question. A determination of
what constitutes an impeachable offense is purely
political (Francisco vs. NMMP, 425 SCRA 44).
 Recall: formal withdrawal by electorate of their trust
in elective officials ability to discharge his office.
Loss of confidence as ground for recall is a political
question where only the people are the judge
(Evardone vs. Comelec, 204 SCRA 464).
Elective local official sought to be recalled shall not
be allowed to resign while recall process is in
progress (Sec. 73 RA 7160).
No recall within 1 yr. from date of officials
assumption to office or 1 yr.
immediately preceding a regular local election (Sec.
74 RA 7160).
 Preventive Suspension
2 kinds of preventive suspension
Teachers exonerated of the original
charges and found guilty only of violation
of reasonable office rules are entitled to
compensation xxx
(Gloria vs. CA, 306 SCRA 287; 01BQ)
Postmaster originally dismissed from
service but penalty reduced to 6 mos.
suspension on appeal (Sales vs. Mathay,
129 SCRA 321)
 Modification on appeal of penalty of
dismissal from service for gross neglect to
3 mos. suspension for simple neglect is
not exoneration; reinstatement but no
payment of backwages (CSC vs. Rabang,
14 March 08)
Grounds for preventive suspension under
Sec. 51 EO 292
Preventive suspension under Secs. 63 &
64, LGC
 Sec. 24 RA 6770
Sec. 13 RA 3019

Cases:

*Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan, 128 SCRA 383

*Deloso vs. Sandiganbayan, 173 SCRA 409
*Libanan vs. Sandiganbayan, 233 SCRA
163
*Berona vs. Sandiganbayan, 435 SCRA 306
 Purpose of pre-suspension hearing
Cases

*Talaga vs. Sandiganbayan, 570

SCRA 622
*Juan vs. Pp, 322 SCRA 126
*Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, 356
SCRA 637 (02BQ)
*Flores vs. Layosa, 436 SCRA 339
 Rights, Duties & Privileges
Basis of right to salary: legal title to the
office & the law attaches compensation to
the office.
To be entitled to recover from the public
the salary, officer must show he is the
officer de jure. A mere de facto officer
cannot recover.
In absence of constitutional prohibition,
legislature has absolute authority to
change the compensation of public officer.
 Compensation of Pres. & VP, as fixed by law,
cannot be increased by Congress during their
continuance in office. A law increasing the
salary of the Pres. Or VP shall not benefit the
incumbent Pres. or VP, for the increase shall
not take effect after expiration of his term
during w/c such increase was approved.
They shall not received during their tenure
any other emolument from government or
any other source (Sec. 6, Art. Vll).
 The salary of the members of the SC
& judges of lower courts shall be
fixed by law. During their continuance
in office, their salary shall not be
decreased (Sec. 10, Art. Vlll).
There is no prohibition vs. increase in
their salary w/c may be made
effective immediately.
 The salaries of Senators & Members of the
House of Rep. shall be determined by law
(Sec. 10, Art. Vl).
Congress is not prohibited from increasing
or decreasing the salary of its members.
However, any increase can take effect
only after the expiration of the full term of
the members approving such increase.
This rule applies also to those who voted
vs. the increase.
Can an officer de jure recover from
govt salary paid to de facto officer?
De jure officer, upon establishing his title
to the office, cannot recover from the
public the amount paid to the de facto
officer for services performed by him
before adjudication upon the title.
He can recover from the public the salary
so paid to the de facto officer after notice
of the adjudication in favor of the former.
 Can de jure officer recover from de
facto officer salary received by him?
A de jure officer can recover from
the de facto officer the salary, fees
or other emoluments received by
him after notice of adjudication of
title in favor of the de jure. He would
not if payment of salary were made
before adjudication of title.
 Where there is no de jure officer, a
de facto officer who in good faith has
had possession of the office & has
discharged the duties is legally
entitled to emoluments of the office.
Officer may not retain salary from
fees collected by him in his official
capacity.
 Salary not subject to garnishment,
attachment or assignment.
Salary cannot be assigned.

Agreement affecting compensation is

void as vs. public policy.
No elective or appointive officer shall
receive additional, double or indirect
compensation, unless specifically
authorized by law [Sec. 8 (1), Art. lX B]
 There is additional compensation when
for one and the same office for which a
compensation has been fixed there is
added to such fixed compensation an
extra reward in the form, for instance
of a bonus.
Double compensation refers to two sets
of compensation for two different
offices held concurrently by one officer.
 Pensions: an act of liberality; not a
salary (Sec. 8 par. 2, Art. lX B)
Only full-time services with
compensation are credited for
retirement purposes under GSIS Act
(Valdez vs. GSIS, 30 June 08).
Retirement pay may not be applied to
indebtedness to the government (Cruz
vs. Tantuico, 166 SCRA 671; Tantuico
vs. Domingo, 230 SCRA 391).
 Benefits granted under GSIS Act (RA
8291) not subject to judicial & admin
processes, including COA disallowances ;
Exception (GSIS vs. COA, 441 SCRA 534)
Loss of retirement benefits if public officer
is convicted xxx (Sec. 13, RA 3019)
COA can direct withholding of salary
pending litigation of public officers liability
(Santiago vs. COA, 537 SCRA 740)
 Payment of per diem only & no other
compensation under Sec. 13, PD 198 (Baybay WD
vs. COA, 374 SCRA 482; De Jesus vs. COA, 403
SCRA 667). Practice in granting the benefit, no
matter how long continued, cannot give rise to
any vested right if it is contrary to law.
LWUA Reso granting compensation to BOD of
LWDs is contrary to Sec. 13, PD 198 (Querubin
vs. COA, 433 SCRA 773). No need to refund
benefits received in good faith prior to Baybay
ruling(De Jesus vs. CSC, 471 SCRA 626; Barbo
vs. COA, 568 SCRA 304).
 Sec. 13 PD 198 now amended by RA 9286
as approved on 04/02/04
*Apart from per diem, each director shall
receive allowances & benefits as the Board
may prescribe subject to LWUA approval
Alternates of ex-officio members of NHA
Board are not entitled to extra
compensation (Dela Cruz vs. COA, 371
SCRA 158).
 RA 7916 authorizing DOLE Sec. or representative to
receive per diem as PEZA Board member violates
Constitution (Dir. Bitonio vs. COA, 425 SCRA 437).
The ex-officio position being part of the principal
office, the official has no right to receive additional
compensation for his services in said position.
Retirement benefits under RA 8551 are applicable to
INP members retired prior to effectivity of RA 6975
since INP was not abolished but merely transformed
(PNP vs. Manilas Finest, 09 May 07). RA 6975
considered them as PNP members. Also, under Sec.
38 of RA 8551, the retirement benefits shall have
retroactive effect in favor of PNP members, retired or
separated.
 Constitutional right to
self-organization
Sec. 8 Art. lll, Sec. 2(5) Art. lXB, Sec. 3 Art.
Xlll 1987 Constitution
Scope under EO 180 (Arizala vs. CA, 14
Sept. 90).Terms & conditions of govt
employment are governed by law.
Govt employees do not have right to strike
xxx (SSS vs. CA, 175 SCRA 686; Manila
PSTA vs. Educ. Sec., 200 SCRA 323; Gesite
vs. CA, 444 SCRA 52).
Right of govt employees to organize is
limited to formation of unions/assns
 Exercise of rights to peaceably assemble and
petition for redress of grievances must be exercised
w/in reasonable limits xxx without work stoppage
(Bangalisan vs. CA, 276 SCRA 619; Dela Cruz vs.
CA, 305 SCRA 303).
No back wages may be awarded to the teachers
who were reinstated after the dismissal order
issued by the DECS Sec. were commuted to 6 mos.
Suspension by CSC (Alipat vs. CA, 308 SCRA 781).
What are excluded from (included in) negotiation
by government employees?
 Right to Information
Guarantees right of people to demand
information on matters of public concern (Sec.
28 Art.ll Const.)
Can be invoked by any citizen (Gonzales vs.
Narvasa, 337 SCRA 736)
A duty of officialdom even if nobody demands
(North Cotabato vs. GRP, 568 SCRA 410). The
subject of information sought, i.e. MOA-AD, is
of public concern, involving as it does the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
State, w/c directly affects the lives of the
public at large.
 Exemptions from compulsory disclosure of
information (Chavez vs. PCGG, 09 Dec.
98)
Right to information does not extend to
privileged information (Neri vs. Senate,
564 SCRA 153)
Doctrine of executive privilege which
includes matters of diplomatic character
under negotiation and review (Senate vs.
Ermita, 488 SCRA 1)
 Liability of Public Officers
An impeachable officer cannot be
charged during his incumbency with
any offense w/c carries with it
penalty of removal (In re Gonzales,
160 SCRA 771)
Sections 2 & 3, Art. Xl Constitution

Sec. 3 RA 3019

Sec. 7 RA 6713
 RA 6713
Sec. 4: Norms (code: CPJPRNCS)
Sec. 5: Duties

Sec. 8: Submission of SALN (in re

Sec. 7 RA 3019)
Sec. 9: Divestment (avoid conflict of
interest at all times)
 Unexplained Wealth of
Public Officers
Basis of Lifestyle Check:
*Sec. 1 Art. Xl Constitution
*Sec. 8 RA 3019 in re to RA 1379
Cases
*PNB vs. Gancayco, 15 SCRA 91
*Banco Filipino vs. Purisima, 161 SCRA
576
*Marquez vs. Desierto, 359 SCRA 773
Exceptions to the rule vs. disclosure of
bank deposits (UBP vs. CA, 321 SCRA
563)
 Liability of Head of Office
Sec. 102 PD 1405
Head of office as final approving authority
of disallowed transaction not necessarily
personally liable (Albert vs. Gangan, 353
SCRA 680; Peralta vs. Desierto, 473 SCRA
323)
Heads have to rely on their subordinates
and on good faith of those who prepared
documents (Arias vs. Sandiganbayan, 180
SCRA 309)
 Administrative liability could not be based
on the principle of command responsibility
(Principe vs. OMB, 374 SCRA 460).
Negligence of subordinates cannot always
be ascribed to their superior (De Jesus vs.
Guerrero, 598 SCRA 342)
General Rule: Superiors cannot be held
liable for acts of their subordinates
Exceptions
 No recovery of damages by official for
falsehood charge related to his official
conduct unless statement was with actual
malice (Banas vs. CA, 325 SCRA 263)
state immunity from suit doctrine applies
to complaints vs. officials for acts in
performance of their duties; rule not
applicable if sued in his personal capacity
(Lansang CA, 23 Feb. 00)
 State immunity doctrine affording
protection to public officers applies only to
activities within the scope of their
authority done in good faith (Calub vs. CA,
331 SCRA 55)
Public officer cannot invoke immunity if
complaints vs. her do not impose financial
liability vs. the State but merely
nullification of state action (Phil. Agila
Satellite vs. Lichauco, 489 SCRA 160)
 Disabilities and Inhibitions of
Public Officers
Under 87 Constitution
* Sec. 13 Art. Vl (Incompatible Office
& Forbidden Office)
*Sec. 14 Art. Vl
*Sec. 7 Art. lX-B
*Sec. 13 Art. Vll
 `
Sec. 7 Art. lX-B lays down the general rule
while Sec. 13 Art. Vll is the exception
applicable only to the Pres., VP, Cabinet
members, their deputies or assistants.
Sec. 13 Art. Vll is not applicable to the
PCGG Chairman nor to the Chief
Presidential Legal Counsel (Public Interest
Center vs. Elma, 494 SCRA 62). But Elma
remains covered by the general prohibition
under Sec. 7, Art. lX-B.
 Prohibition vs. holding dual or multiple
offices under Sec. 13 Art. Vll is not
applicable to posts occupied by Exec.
officials without additional compensation in
an ex-officio capacity as provided by law
and as required by the primary functions of
their office (Civil Liberties vs. Exec. Sec., 22
Feb. 91).
Alternates of ex-officio members in govt
boards, like their principals, cannot receive
additional compensation (Dela Cruz vs.
COA, 371 SCRA 157; Bitonio vs. COA, 425
SCRA 437).
 Official may hold any other office or
employment only when specifically authorized
by Constitution, to wit:
1. Vice Pres. as Cabinet Sec. [Sec. 3(2) Art. Vll]
2. Justice Sec. as ex-officio JBC member (Sec. 8
Art. Vlll)
3. Pres. as head of economic and planning agency
(Sec. 9 Art. Xll)
In any case, the appointive official is not
entitled to received additional, double or
indirect compensation, unless specifically
authorized by law.
 Cases
Gordon as SBMA Chairman and Mayor
of Olongapo City under Sec. 13, RA
7227 (Flores vs. Drilon, 223 SCRA
568)
Practice of law and acceptance of
employment as PLEB member and
Lupon member by government
lawyer (Lorenzana vs. Fajardo, 462
SCRA 1)
 Sec. 7(b)(2) of RA 6713
Government lawyers cannot handle private
cases for they are expected to devote
themselves full-time to the work of their
office (Ramos vs. Imbang, 530 SCRA 759).
As an exception, public officer can engage in
private practice under the ff. conditions: 1 st,
it is authorized by Constitution or law; 2 nd, it
will not conflict with her public functions
(Query of Atty. Buffe, 596 SCRA 379)
end