ADMIN CHAP 2 CASES who enjoy security of tenure may be removed only for

any of the causes enumerated in said law. In other

AQUILINO LARIN VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, 280 words, the fact that the petitioner is a presidential
SCRA 713 (1997) appointee does not give the appointing authority the
FACTS: Aquilino Larin, a Revenue Specific Tax Officer license to remove him at will or at his pleasure for it is
under the Assistant Commissioner of the BIR, is an admitted fact that he is likewise a career service
convicted of crimes of violation of sec. 268 (4) NIRC officer who under the law is the recipient of tenurial
and sec. 3 (e) RA 3019 (grave misconduct). Acting by protection, thus, may only be removed for a cause and
authority of the president, Sr. Deputy Executive in accordance with procedural due process.
Secretary Quisumbing issued a memorandum order, Was the removal for a legal cause under a valid
creating an Executive Committee to investigate Larins proceeding?
administrative charge. While the investigation was
going on, the President issued E.O. 132, streamlining SC held that the removal complied with the
the BIR and abolishing the office of the Specific Tax requirements for procedural due process but that the
Service. Afterwards, Larin was found guilty and was dismissal was not for a valid cause. The basis used in
subsequently dismissed. However, in the appealed Larins removal is the criminal conviction against him,
case, SC set aside the conviction of Larin. but this conviction was later set aside by the Supreme
Court upon appeal. Where the very basis of the
ISSUE: W/N Larin was unlawfully removed from office administrative case against petitioner is his conviction
(1) Does the President have the power to in the criminal action which was later on set aside by
dismiss him? Reorganize the BIR? this court upon a categorical and clear findings that
the acts for which he was administratively held liable
(2) Was reorganization valid, considering that are not unlawful and irregular, the acquittal of the
there was no law enacted by Congress petitioner in the criminal case necessarily entails the
authorizing reorganization by the Executive dismissal of the administrative action against him,
because in such a case, there is no basis nor justifiable
HELD: SC held that removal as a result of reason to maintain the administrative suit.
reorganization was done in bad faith.
Does the President have the power to reorganize the
Does the President have the power to dismiss him? BIR?
Larin is a presidential appointee. As such, he comes Yes, under sec. 48 and 62 of RA 7645, sec. 20, Bk. III of
under the direct disciplining authority of the President EO 292 (Residual Powers), and PD 1772, which
for the power to remove is inherent in the power to amended PD 1416. But while the Presidents power to
appoint. However, Larin is a career service officer, reorganize cannot be denied, this does not mean
therefore, he enjoys security of tenure. Under the Civil however that the reorganization itself is properly made
Service Decree, career service officers and employees in accordance with law. Well-settled is the rule that
1
reorganization is regarded as valid provided it is reclassified offices perform substantially the
pursued in good faith. same functions as the original offices;

When is there reorganization made in good faith? (5) Where the removal violates the order of
separation provided in sec. 3 hereof.
The general rule is that reorganization is carried out in
good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to
make bureaucracy more efficient. In that event no
dismissal or separation actually occurs because the DARIO VS MISON
position itself ceases to exist. And in that case the Facts: When President Cory Aquino came into power,
security of tenure would not be a Chinese Wall. Be that she proceeded to reorganize the government, upon
as it may, if the abolition which is nothing else but a which Mison, the Commissioner of Customs sent
separation or removal, is done for political reasons or notices of termination to 394 Customs officials. Some
purposely to defeat security of tenure, or otherwise sought reinstatement from the CSC which the latter
not in good faith, no valid abolition takes place and granted to 279 of them while the others went directly
whatever abolition is done is void ab initio. to the Supreme Court. Mison also filed a petition
What are the marks of bad faith in removal as a result questioning the decision of the CSC. Also, RA 6656 was
of reorganization? passed, providing that all officers and employees who
are found by the Civil Service Commission to have
Sec. 2, RA 6656 enumerates the circumstances been separated in violation of the provisions of this
evidencing bad faith in the removal of employees as a Act, shall be ordered reinstated or reappointed. The
result of reorganization: validity of this law is also put into question.

(1) Where there is a significant increase in the Held: All the parties agree on the validity of
number of positions in the new staffing pattern reorganization per se, leaving the question only on its
of the department or agency concerned; nature and extent. Invariably, transition periods are
characterized by provisions for "automatic" vacancies.
(2) Where an office is abolished and another They are dictated by the need to hasten the passage
performing substantially the same functions is from the old to th e new Constitution free from the
created; "fetters" of due process and security of tenure .At this
(3) Where incumbents are replaced by those point, we must distinguish removals from separations
less qualified in terms of status of appointment, arising from abolition of office (not by virtue of the
performance and merit; Constitution) as a result of reorganization carried out
by reason of economy or to remove redundancy of
(4) Where there is a reclassification of offices in functions. In the latter case, the Government is obliged
the department or agency concerned and the to prove good faith. In case of removals undertaken to
comply with clear and explicit constitutional mandates,

2
the Government is not obliged to prove anything the revolutionary Constitution of the Revolutionary
because the Constitution allows it. Evidently, the Government had started. We are through with
question is whether or not Section 16 of Article XVIII of reorganization under the Freedom Constitution - the
the 1987 Constitution is a grant of a license upon the first stage. We are on the second stage - that inferred
Government to remove career public officials it could from the provisions of Section 16 of Article XVIII of the
have validly done under an "automatic"-vacancy- permanent basic document. What must be understood,
authority and to remove them without rhyme or however, is that notwithstanding her immense
reason. revolution ary powers, the President was,
nevertheless, magnanimous in her rule. This is
Simply, the provision benefits career civil service apparent from Executive Order No. 17, which
employees separated from the service. And the established safeguards against the strong arm and
separation contemplated must be due to or the result ruthless propensity that accompanies reorganizations -
of (1) the reorganization pursuant to Proclamation No. notwithstanding the fact that removals arising
3 dated March 25, 1986, (2) the reorganization from therefrom were "not for cause," and in spite of the fact
February 2, 1987, and (3) the resignations of career that such removals would have been valid and
officers tendered in line with the existing policy and unquestionable. Noteworthy is the injunction
which resignations have been accepted. The phrase embodied in the Executive Order that dismissals
"not for cause" is clearly and primarily exclusionary, to should be made on the basis of findings of inefficiency,
exclude those career civil service employees graft, and unfitness to render public service. Assuming,
separated "for cause." In other words, in order to be then, that this reorganization allows removals "not for
entitled to the benefits granted under Section 16 of cause" in a manner that would have been permissible
Article XVIII of the Constitution of 1987, two requisites, in a revolutionary setting as Commissioner Mison so
one negative and the other positive , must concur, to purports, it would seem that the Commissioner would
wit: have been powerless, in any event, to order dismissals
1. The separation must not be for cause, and at the Customs Bureau left and right. Lastly,
reorganizations must be carried out in good faith. In
2. The separation must be due to any of the three this case, Mison failed to prove that the reorganization
situations mentioned above. was indeed made in good faith because he hired more
people to replace those that he fired and no legitimate
By its terms, the authority to remove public officials structural changes have been made. To sum up, the
under the Provisional Constitution ended on February President could have validly removed officials before
25, 1987, advanced by jurisprudence to February 2, the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution even without
1987. 70 It can only mean, then, that whatever cause because it was a revolutionary government.
reorganization is taking place is upon the authority of However, from the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution,
the present Charter, and necessarily, upon the mantle the State did not lose its right to reorganize resulting
of its provisions and safeguards. Hence, it cannot be
legitimately stated that we are merely continuing what
3
to removals but such reorganization must be made in the administrative structure of the Office of the
good faith. President in order to achieve economy and efficiency.
b. The reorganization should be carried out in good
faith. The EOs issued by Estrada was motivated by the
BUKLOD NG KAWANING EIIB v ZAMORA fact that the functions of EIIB are also being performed
by other agencies. The Court also pointed out that the
FACTS: On June 1987 Pres. Cory issued EO 127, deactivation of EIIB was intended to lessen the
establishing the Economic Intelligence and expenses of the government.
Investigation Bureau (EIIB) as part of the Ministry of
Finance. Aquino issued another memo providing that
the EIIB shall be the agency of primary responsibility BAGAOISAN VS NAT'L TOBACCO
for anti smuggling operations in all land areas and ADMINISTRATION. G.R. NO. 152845 : AUGUST 5,
inland water and waterways outside the areas of sole 2003.
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs. On January 2000
Pres. Estrada issued EO 191 entitled Deactivation of FACTS: Petitioner Bagaoisan, et al were terminated
the EIIB. The order of deactivation was motivated by from their position in the National Tobacco
the fact that the designated functions of the EIIB are Administration (NTA) as a result of Executive Order No.
also being performed by the other exiting agencies of 29 issued by President Estrada which mandates for the
the government. On March 200, Estrada issued EO 223 stream lining of the NTA, a government agency under
providing for the separation from the service of all the Department of Agriculture. Consequently, the
personnel of EIIB pursuant to a bona fide petitioners filed a letter of appeal to the Civil Service
reorganization resulting in the abolition, redundancy, Commission to recall the NTA-prepared Organizational
merger, division, or consolidation of positions. Structure and Staffing Pattern (OSSP).

ISSUE: Does the president have the authority to Petitioner all filed a petition for Certiorari with
reorganize the executive department? How shall the Prohibition and Mandamus with prayer for Preliminary
reorganization be carried out? Mandatory Injunction and a temporary restraining
order with the RTC of Batak to prevent the respondent
RULING: YES, the President has the authority to from enforcing the Notice of Termination and from
reorganize the executive department. Bureaus, ousting the petitioners in their respective offices.
agencies, or offices in the executive department are
under the Presidents power of control. Hence he is The RTC issued an order ordering the NTA to appoint
justified in deactivating the functions of a particular the petitioner to the OSSP to position similar to the
office, or in carrying out reorganizations when a one that they hold before.
certain law grants him such power. Sec. 31, Book III of
the Revised Administrative Code provides the
President with the continuing authority to reorganize

4
The NTA appealed to the Court of Appeals, who Dissatisfied with their reassignment, petitioners filed
reversed the decision of the RTC. Petitioner appealed the instant petition, arguing that EO 81 is void and
to the Supreme Court. unconstitutional for being an undue legislation by
President Estrada. Petitioners also maintain that the
ISSUE: Whether or not, the reorganization of the NTA is Presidents issuance of EO 81 violated the principle of
valid, true issuance of executive order by the separation of powers. Furthermore, they also challenge
president. the DECS Memoranda for violating their right to
HELD: According to the Supreme Court, The president security of tenure.
has the power to reorganize an office to achieve During the pendency of the case, Republic Act No.
simplicity, economy and efficiency as provided under 9155 was enacted on August 11, 2001, which
Sec. 31 of Executive Order 292 and Section 48 of RA expressly abolished the BPESS and transferred the
7645 which provides that activities of executive functions, programs and activities of the DECS relating
agencies may be scaled down if it is no longer to sports competition to the PSC.
essential for the delivery of public service.
ISSUE: Whether or not EO 81 and the DECS
WHEREFORE, the Motion to Admit Petition for En Banc Memoranda are valid.
resolution and the Petition for an En Banc Resolution
are DENIED for lack of merit. Let entry of judgment be HELD: SC dismisses this petition for being moot and
made in due course. No costs. academic. The subsequent enactment of RA 9155 has
rendered the issues in the present case moot and
academic. Since RA 9155 abolished the BPESS and
DOMINGO VS ZAMORA transferred the DECS functions relating to sports
competition to the PSC, petitioners now admit that "it
FACTS: On March 5, 1999, former President Joseph E. is no longer plausible to raise any ultra vires
Estrada issued Executive Order No. 81, which transfers assumption by the PSC of the functions of the BPESS."
the sports development programs and activities of the Moreover, since RA 9155 provides that BPESS
DECS to the PSC. personnel not transferred to the PSC shall be retained
by the DECS, petitioners now accept that "the law
Pursuant to EO 81, the former DECS Secretary explicitly protects and preserves" their right to security
Gonzales issued Memorandum Nos. 01592 and 01594 of tenure.
on Jan 10 and Jan 11, 2000. These memoranda
reassigned all remaining Bureau of Physical Education Although the issue is already academic, its significance
and School Sports (BPESS) Staff to other divisions or constrains the Court to point out that Executive Order
bureaus of the DECS effective March 15, 2000. No. 292 expressly grants the President continuing
Petitioners were among the BPESS personnel affected authority to reorganize the Office of the President. EO
by the memoranda. 292 grants the President this power in recognition of
the recurring need of every President to reorganize his
5
office "to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency."
To remain effective and efficient, the Office of the
President must be capable of being shaped and
reshaped by the President in the manner he deems fit
to carry out his directives and policies.

However, the Presidents power to reorganize the

Office of the President under Section 31 (2) and (3) of
EO 292 should be distinguished from his power to
reorganize the Office of the President Proper. Under
Section 31 (1) of EO 292, the President can reorganize
the Office of the President Proper by abolishing,
consolidating or merging units, or by transferring
functions from one unit to another. In contrast, under
Section 31 (2) and (3) of EO 292, the Presidents power
to reorganize offices outside the Office of the President
Proper but still within the Office of the President is
limited to merely transferring functions or agencies
from the Office of the President to Departments or
Agencies, and vice versa.

This distinction is crucial as it affects the security of

tenure of employees. The abolition of an office in good
CHAP 3 CASES
faith necessarily results in the employees cessation in
office, but in such event there is no dismissal or TAULE vs. SANTOS (G. R. No. 90336 August 12,
separation because the office itself ceases to exist. On 1991)
the other hand, the transfer of functions or agencies
does not result in the employees cessation in office This is a petition for certiorari seeking the reversal of
because his office continues to exist although in the resolutions of respondent Secretary dated August
another department, agency or office. 4, 1989 and September 5, 1989 for being null and
void.

FACTS: An election for the officers of the Federation of

Associations of Barangay Council (FABC) was held on
June 18, 1989 despite the absence of other members
of the said council. Including Petitioner was elected as
the president.

6
Respondent Verceles sent a letter of protest to RATIO DECIDENDI:
respondent Santos, seeking its nullification in view of
several flagrant irregularities in the manner it was 1. No. The Secretary of Local Government has no
conducted. jurisdiction to entertain any protest involving the
election of officers of the FABC. He is only vested with
Petitioner denied the allegations of respondent the power to promulgate rules and regulations and to
Verceles and denouncing respondent for intervening in exercise general supervision over the local
the said election which is a purely non-partisan affair. government as provided in the Local Government Code
And requesting for his appointment as a member of and in the Administrative Code. It is the exclusive
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the province being original jurisdiction of the inferior to hear election
the duly elected President of the FABC in Catanduanes. protest and the COMELEC have the appellate
jurisdiction over it.
Respondent Santos issued a resolution on August 4,
1989 nullifying the election and ordering a new one to 2) Yes. The Governor has the personality to file the
be conducted as early as possible to be presided by protest. Under Section 205 of the Local Government
the Regional Director of Region V of the Department of Code, the membership of the Sangguniang
Local Government. Petitioner filed a motion for Panlalawigan consists of the governor, the vice-
reconsideration but it was denied by respondent governor, elective members of the said Sanggunian,
Santos in his resolution on September 5, 1989. Thus etc. He acted as the presiding officer of the
this petition before the Supreme Court. Sangguniang Panlalawigan. As presiding officer, he has
an interest in the election of the officers of the FABC
ISSUES: since its elected president becomes a member of the
1) WON the respondent Santos has jurisdiction to assembly. If said member assumes his place under
entertain an election protest involving the election of questionable circumstances, the Sanggunian may be
the officers of the FABC. vulnerable to attacks as to their validity or legality.
Therefore, respondent governor is a proper party to
2) WON the respondent Verceles has the legal question the regularity of the elections of the officers
personality to file an election protest. of the FABC.

DECISION: Petition GRANTED. Assailed August 4, 1989 The election of officers of the FABC held on June 18,
and September 5, 1989 resolution is SET ASIDE for 1989 is null and void for not complying with the
having been issued in excess of jurisdiction. However, provisions of DLG Circular No. 89-09.
the election on June 18, 1989 is annulled. A new
election of officers of the FABC be conducted DLG Circular No. 89-09 provides that "the incumbent
immediately in accordance with the governing rules FABC President or the Vice-President shall preside over
and regulations. Supplemental petition is likewise the reorganizational meeting, there being a quorum."
partially granted. It is admitted that neither the incumbent FABC
President nor the Vice-President presided over the
7
meeting and elections but Alberto P. Molina, Jr., the RULING: No. The Commission cites no provision of law
Chairman of the Board of Election expressly supporting its rule against double listing. It
Supervisors/Consultants. Therefore, there was a clear suggests that the power is 'necessary for the
violation of the said mandatory provision. execution of the functions vested in it.' It argues that
said rule was approved by the Department Head
Pending resolution, petitioner also filed a before the War and it is not in conflict with the
supplemental petition alleging that public respondent provisions of the Securities Act. The approval of the
Local Government Secretary, in his memorandum Department, by itself, adds no weight in a judicial
dated June 7, 1990, designated Augusto Antonio, litigation.
despite him being absent on said election. The
Secretary of Local Government has no authority to The test is not whether the Act forbids the Commission
appoint anyone who does not meet the minimum from imposing a prohibition but whether it empowers
qualification to be the president of the federation of the Commission to prohibit. The Commission
barangay councils. possesses no power to impose the condition of the rule
which results in discrimination and violation of
constitutional rights. It is fundamental that an
MAKATI STOCK EXCHANGE, INC. vs SECURITIES administrative officer has such powers as expressly
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (14 SCRA 620) granted to him by statute, and those necessarily
implied in the exercise thereof.
[Scope of Powers of Administrative Agencies /Express
and Implied Powers] Accordingly, the license of the Makati Stock Exchange
is approved without such condition against double
FACTS: The Securities and Exchange Commission, in its listing.
resolution, denied the Makati Stock Exchange
permission to operate a stock exchange unless it RATIO: It is fundamental that an administrative officer
agreed not to list for trading on its board, securities has only such powers as are expressly granted to him
already listed in the Manila Stock Exchange. by the statute, and those necessarily implied in the
exercise thereof.
Objecting to the requirement, Makati Stock Exchange,
Inc. contends that the Commission has no power to
impose it and that anyway, it is illegal, discriminatory SOLID HOMES, INC. VS. PAYAWAL, 177 SCRA 72,
and unjust. The Commission's order or resolution 79 (1989)
would make impossible, for all practical purposes, for
the Makati Stock Exchange to operate, such that its FACTS: Respondent Payawal is a buyer of a certain
"permission" amounted to a "prohibition." subdivision lot who is suing Solid Homes for failure to
deliver the certificate of title. The complaint was filed
ISSUE: Whether or not the SEC has the authority to with the RTC. Solid Homes contended that jurisdiction
promulgate the rule in question
8
is with the National Housing Authority (NHA) pursuant its ramified activities. Specialized in the particular
to PD 957, as amended by PD 1344 granting exclusive fields assigned to them, they can deal with the
jurisdiction to NHA. problems thereof with more expertise and dispatch
than can be expected from the legislature or the
ISSUE: W/N NHA has jurisdiction to try the case and courts of justice. This is the reason for the increasing
the competence to award damages vesture of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers in
HELD: SC held that NHA (now HLURB) has jurisdiction. what is now not unreasonably called the fourth
department of the government.
In case of conflict between a general law and a special
law, the latter must prevail regardless of the dates of Statues conferring powers on their administrative
their enactment. It is obvious that the general law in agencies must be liberally construed to enable them to
this case is BP 129 and PD 1344 the special law. discharge their assigned duties in accordance with the
legislative purpose.
On the competence of the Board to award damages,
we find that this is part of the exclusive power Sources of Administrative Law
conferred upon it by PD 1344 to hear and decide Constitution
claims involving refund and any other claims filed by Statute
subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers against the Jurisprudence
project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman. Rules and Regulations by the Administrative
Agencies (quasi-legislative)
As a result of the growing complexity of the modern Orders and Decisions by the Administrative
society, it has become necessary to create more and Agencies (quasi-judicial)
more administrative bodies to help in the regulation of