LGC Annotated

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    1/24

    BASIC PRINCIPLES . . 17(e) In the resolution ?f. o n t r o v e r _ s i ~ arising under this ..

    code where no legal prov1s10n_or jurisprudence_applies, re- _. sort .may be had to ..the c u s t o ~ s and traditions in the placewhere the _controversies t a k ~ place. . - ANNOTATIONS

    How Local G o v e r n m e ~ f Code of 1991 should be_ nterpreted .- . . . ._ ..-_ The liberal interpretation in favor of g r a ~ t of. powers . ~ LGU's . : .

    pars. (a). n d ( c_) a b o v ~ gOes against . h ~ prh1dple e n ~ n c i a t e d by . O&Jion (Mun1c1pal Corporataons, Vol. 1, p. 145) that if there is-doubt

    . that a power _s granted 'to a IJ1Unic.ipal corporation1 the .rule is to . : . .. . consider_ h_t t ~ e power has not. been granted. T ~ i s Dillon o p i ~ i o n : . .. .has been superseded by the principle of decentralization whic:h looks . .- :-towards reasonable s e l f - r u l ~ . . . - , ,I . . P a r ~ (b)'_ .above .merely r e i t ~ r a .two- basic p ~ ; n c i p l e s in taxation, thaf a tax b e ~ n g a b u r d E m ~ i m p ~ s i t is not p r ~ s u m e d incase of doubt and . hat . the law does not .favor a tax .exemption,

    , . ' ' . , . . , , taxes being t_he lifeblood .of the nation or. any territorial part ther'e7of. . - .. . . _, -- .. . . : P a r ~ { r ~ ~ p e vested rig.hts ~ n d r e s p e c t s c o ~ s t i t ~ t i o ~ a l . . , . _. __ .:.

    rule 'that the obligations o{ contracts cannot be impaired. : ... ' .. . .- .. . '.

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    2/24

    ~ ~ . , . . - ~ - -

    ., . I ' , . '16 -. . ~ O C A L GOVERNMENT .CODE, o'F. 199l ; .

    ., j

    titularly .in. c a ~ ~ s where ~ e r t a i n powers p ~ r t a i r i i n g to national. Government are devolved unto the LGU's); . . ,: .: . :In S e c t i ~ n S26 .of- this o it . r o v i ~ e d : . ~ T h i s . ~ o d e shall

    . a p p l y to -all provinces, Cities, municipalities and, barangays in thea ~ t o n o m o u s regions until .such time_ s th e ~ e g i o n ~ l g o v e r ~ ~ e n t con._ .cerned shall have enacted its own . ccal government; code. In Sec.tion 529 hereof. UAIJ .existlng.t_x ordinances ' ~ r r e v e ~ u e measures_of local government units . shall ' continue b e in force and effect .after the effeetivity of this Code (on January 1, 1992) .unless amended by the sanggunian concerned, .or . inconsistent 'with, _or in . i o l a t i o nof , the . provisions of this C o d e . ' ~ _ ; -.. . . . : .. .. : ' .-. As to existing cities, it e e r i , ~ c l ~ a r that th-ey _are still governed : . .by their respe

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    3/24

    . ' .18 . LOCAL . GOVERN?.IENT CODE__OF . 1991 .

    ANNOTATIONS. ..

    . . . , .. ;, . . I

    C r e a t i ~ n , '.div.fslo.ri,merger, a b o l i t i o ~ .'or :,.:. . ..< :. _: ) : _": . : .alteration .of boundaries of LGU's -7-- . . ..

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    4/24

    '20 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991th e original local government unit or units shall no t fall beloitA currtnt ineome classification prjor to such division. "

    The income dassifiution of . ocal government units shanbe updated within Bix (6) months from the effectivity of thiCode to reflect the c b a n ~ e s in their financial position resultsin g from tb e inerea!!ed reve11ueg as prGvided herein.

    ANNOTATIONSMinimal r e q u i r ~ n t s for divisionand merger-

    Whne the factors in Section 7 are 1ibwi$e considered In divlsi611 or merger of LGU's, the above saction: enjoins compliance withmil\imal t ~ u l r e m e n t s on income, population and land area as a t a t ~by this Cod., (Refer to Stions 38$, lU , -442, 450 and 4&1 ofth cocs.).logically, two local units are m e r ~ (they being contiguo\ls}be

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    5/24

    ~ ~22LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 19n

    v.elopment and economic progress, and other relevant totJOns sha)J be taken Into Account. 118ide'l.(b) \Vhen conditions and developments in the loclJ ment unit concerned have eignllleantt;y cha.nted e q ~ o v e ~ ,th e establi$hment of th e seat ot government,. lUI B&hg l!flt fo .

    may. after public hearing an d by a vote of t w o - t h i r d s < ~ ~aJl it s members, transer th e .Same to 8 Bite b e t ~ r IIUik Of .its needs: Provided, however, That no eucb transfer aba!1 ]made outside territorial boundaries ot the local fO\>e"' :ment unit concerned. rn. i

    The old 8ite, together with the improvements thereon I'll ibe disposed of by sale or lease or converted to .BUch oth;r Ias th e sanggunian concerned may deem beneficia] to the IOQI ;government.unit concerned an d it s inhabitants. 1 (e ) Local government offices and facilities .elu.U not be ;transferred, relocated, or converted to other uses unleaa Jlublir /hearings ar e fi.rst conducted fo r th e purpose and the c o n c u ~ . :renee of the majority of aU the members of eanggunbu :concerned is obtained.

    ANNOTATIONSGovernment seat in case of creationor merger of local government tJnits -

    Note that in ( ) above, there ar e futs to ~ considered In lhtselection of th e Hat of Government of the created (new) or aur.viving unit while in (b) above, th e tunsfer of lhe seat selected;,.( shalf be md ~ f t e r certain supervening circumstances hcf t 1 k e ~ ~place, requiring public heuing an d 2 / l vote of sangguni.art mombmThe s u ~ r a g r a p h of (b ) above concerns djsposal of the old siltan d it s i m p r o v e ~ n t s ft Js th . unggunian that decides the mM -ne r of disposal.

    The third paragraph concerns disposal of offices and fcllities,regardless of whether ttHtre is creation or m r ~ r of units, mort particululy of course h ~ r e there wa s e r ~ r or conversion of un lti.

    What will happen to officials of n abolished local unit or onemerged with another with the latter as surviving vnit? Theor ordiniilnce concerned may provide lo r such vntvality. T ~ ;no vested right to public office n d the .term oF local ofFic19,1three years as provided for in Section 8. Articl X of the 1

    JJ.A.SIC PRINCIPLES 23. vll0'1 lt avb].ct to f ~ a i conMqvnees of 5.

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    6/24

    y24LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991

    (S ) other public place or building owned b .mc1a1 government. . . . . , . Y the Pro \>. (b ) Th e sanggunians of highly ~ r b a n i z e d ~ i t i e s . Ponent cities whose charters prohibit their voters f d_of col!!. :for 1 1 rotn v t' prov1nc1a e ectlVe offici als, hereinafter referred t . 0 'd d . . o tn th I.? e as 1n ependent compOnent . cities, nay, in c . 4

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    7/24

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    8/24

    )

    28 LOCAL' GOVERNMENT CODE OI' 1991( 3} lncidentill powers; and(4) Powers essential to promote th 1 .. gener;a w e l f ~ r e .. No. 3 above is supported by th e legal principle thlaw grants a power, 'i t includes grant of h dd ' . illt when 1'd f sue a 1t1onat poprOYI or measures to make th e originally g ted wer toor meanirtgful. Thus, as an example th poriln power e f f e e t i ~ e .... we r to sell p

    includes power to sign documents to effectuilte th e sa. ropertytransfer t 1tl e to property. But in the above h nd to....._ d " f ' t ff ' . . case, t e law u ...tmr wor s or 1 s e rcrent an d effective governa , b ....,,f d . . nee, o vrovlre errmg to a mlntstratron of p ~ b l i c affairs. . " 't

    Ordinances designed to protect hf!alth peace mo l hld h ' , ra s, etc avebeen uphe as au t orbed by the generl welfare clause 1 b . n one casethe ordrnanc:e emg questroned as unconstitutionlllf provides ..1shlllll be prohibited fo r any operator of an y barber shop to dh b f n uctt e usrness o massagrn g customers or other persons in any d'f ' d be . 1"cent room Ot' rooms o sat ba r r shop, or in any room or roowithin the same building where th e barber shop is located as l o ~ ;as the operator of th e barber shop an d the rooms where musaginis condudi!d is the um e person." Upholding th e nlidity of afor!said ordinance, the Supreme ~ o u r t said: ''The grant of police powerto a municipality (o r city) is given liber1l ~ o n s t r u c : t i o n by the courts.Thrs Court has been most liberal in sustaining ordinance-s based onth e genenf welfare clause. As fa r back u U.S. vs . Safaveria (39 Phil .102), a 19J8 decision, this Court through Justice Malcolm madeclear th e significance-an d scope of such a clause, which 'delegates Inltatutory form th e police power to a municipal ity. As above stated,this clause ha s been given wide application by municipa.1 authoritiesan d has in it s relation to th e particular circumstances of th e case beenlibeulfy construed by the courts. Such, it is well to recall, is th11progressive view of Philippine jurisprudence.' - As it was then, soit has continued to be. There is no showing, therefore, of the unconstitutionality of such ordinance." (Tomas Velasco, et af. vs. Hon .Antonio J. Villegas, et al ., t -24153, Feb . 14, 1983)

    I t was held in Vicente de Ia Cru1, et at . vs. Hon. Edgardo L.P ~ r a s , et al . ( L-42571 -72 , July 25 , 1983), that a municipal corporation cannot, by ordinance, prohibit th e operation of night c l u ~ s ; itcan, however, regulate th e seme. Said th e Supreme Court: It lsclur that in th e guise of police regulation, there was in this instance a clear invasion of personal or property .rights, personal inth e cue of individuals desirous of patronizing those night clubsproperty in terms of th e investments made an d salaries to be earne

    I

    BASIC PRINCIPLES 29h rein employed. x x x Reference is made by respondents .

    by 1, : .rate Hotel an d Motel Operators Association , Inc. vsto E ~ a t a of Manila {20 SCRA 849) (where the Supreme CourtCitY d ay:r validity of a local o r d i n ~ n c e levying big license taxesuphel h and motels an d requiring open registration of occupants"po" fo) e There is a misapprehension as to what was d e c i d ~ by thistl1ereo ' That wa s a regulatory menure. Necessarily, there was nocourt. 1 d I d"d'd bjection on du e process or equa protectiOn groun s. t rvalr 0oh lbl t motels. It merely regulated th e mode in which it ma y- ~ . .duct business in order precisely to pu t an en d to practic& whichconld ~ n c o u r a g e vice an d immorality. This is an entirely differ"ntc.ou 1 ed b ed h. hWhat was invo v IS a measure not em rae w1 t tn t e re ;:7a;ory power bu t :exercise 0! ' n assumed power to prohibit! '. _.. ' .

    SEC. 17. Basic Services and. FacilitieB. - (a) Local government units shall endeavor to be self-reliant an d shall continue exercising the powers and discharging the duties an dfunct.ions currently vested upon them. They shall also dischargethe functions and responsibilities of national agencies and offices devolved to them pursuant to this Code. Local government units shall likewise exercise such other powers and dis-. charge such other functions and respon-sibilities as ar e neces_-.sary, appropriate, or incidental to efficient and effective p r o ~vision of the basic services and facilities enumerated herein. .

    (b) Such basic services and facilities ' include, bu t ar e no tlimited to, the following: .. . ; .. ! .. ' - I ( 1) Fo1 - a Barangay: . ..( D Agricultural support services which include plant

    ing materials distribution system and operation offarm produce collection and buying st at ions;( ii) Health and social welfare services which includemaintenance of barangay health center and day-care

    center. ,(iii) Services and facili ties related to general hygiene

    and sanitation, beautification, and solid waste. col-lection;

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    9/24

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    10/24

    t.

    32 . LOCAt. . G O V E H ~ M E N T C'ODE OF' !!'191(ii) I n d u s t r i ~ l research and development servicesas the transfer of appropriate technology. ' as '\\'ell(iii) Pursuant to national policies and subject,vision, control an d review of the DENR enfoo suPer.. , rcernentof fo!estry laws hm1ted to communitY-based f t II t orestryproJec s, po n 10n control law, s m a l l ~ s c a l e minin

    law, an d t h ~ r !aws on the , l } ~ o t e c t i o n of the n v i r o n ~ment; and m 1 m ~ h y d r o electr1c projects fo r 1ocal Pur.poses; . . . . . .

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    11/24

    ~34 LOCAL G O V E R N M E ~ T CODE OF 1991

    . ' : I ' '

    are tasked by law .to establish and maintain such . .. .f ' l ' t ' A f d ' serv1ces oac1 1 1es. . ny un or tesource available for the us f l'government ,units shall be first allocated fo r the p r o ~ 0 localbasic s e ~ v i c . e s Or f a c . i l i t ~ e s enumerated in subsection (b) Ofbefo:e ap?lyin? th e s ~ m ~ for other ~ u r p o s ~ . _unless o t h e r w ~ o tprov1ded m th1s Code. . . tse

    . :(h ) i o n a ~ .offices of national .a'ge.ncfes ~ f f i whosef u n ~ t i o n s are devolved to l o c ~ l ? o v e r n ~ e n t units as provided lherein shall .be p h ~ s e d o ~ t w 1 t ~ u n one (1). )_'ear .from the ap.

    p r o v a ~ of . this 9ode . ~ a 1 d n a t l o ~ a l a g e n c and office8 may !establish such !1eld umts as . be _ e c e s s a r y for monitoring ipurposes and providing tech.n1cal assistance to local govern.ment units. : The properties, _quipment, an d t h e ~ assets ofthese regional offices shall be distributed to the local govern.ment units in the regio.n in accordance w i t h t ~ e r U l e s and reg. ulations issued by the Oversight Committee c ~ e a t e d under this

    i

    Code . ' .,: - . . (i) The d e v ~ h ~ i i o n c o n t t ~ ~ p l a t e d iii .thi/Code shall nclude

    the transfer ~ local government units:ef the r e c o r d s equip.ment an d other assets and personnel of national agencies and, ' . . .. - -offices corresponding to th e devolyed powers, u n c t i o n s , and

    l ~ e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . ' , .,Personnei .of s ~ i d national .agencies or f f i c e s shallbe ab

    sorbed by local government units . to which they .belongor i.Q whose areas they_are assigned .to th e' extent .that i t isadministratively viable as determined : by th e said , oversightcommittee: P1o?.?ided, That the rights accorded to such person- ne i pu,isuant to .Civil service law, :rules and regulations shall no t be impaired: v i d e d fzwther, That regional directorswho are' career executive service ' officers and other. officers ..of similar rank in thesaid regional offices whO" cannot be absorbed by the .local government unit shall be retained by theNational Government, .without an y dimin'ution .of rank, salary or tenure. ..

    . .. ( j ) To e n s ~ r e a c t i ~ e p a r t i ~ i p a t i o n of the ~ r i v a t e sector. in local governance, local government units may, by o r d i n a n c ~ ,. sell, lease, encumber, or otherwise .dispose o f public economtCe"nterprises owned by them in their proprietary capacity . ser-Costs may also be charged fo r .the delivery of . a s ~ c vices or facilities enumerated in this Section.

    BASIC PRINCIPLES 35: .. ANNOTATIONS... .

    Basic. services and facil!ties- n ~ ~ e t a i l e d e n u ~ e r a t ~ o n of topics or. instances of basic services_

    d . facilities follow an umbreJia provision on general welfare inan . .Section ' 16, s u p r ~ . Se-ction 17 a b o ~ e mentions , the dischargefunctions and taking over. of resp.onsibilities of national offices an dagenCies that,' by the provisions of this_ o d ~ , have been devolvedto local government u ~ i t s l i ~ e functions pertilining to a g r i c u ~ t u r e ,

    health, . 1 , 1 b l i ~ . works, : o c : i a l ":felfare, education, tourism, telecommunications, housing projects ;-a_nd other services .

    With r ~ s p e ~ t _o a g r i c ~ J t ~ r e , baste services include research ser-. vices, water an d soil_conservation, seeding services, :marketing ser

    vices, .setting up of :demonstration .farms and incentives fo r livesstock and poultry and fishing activities, e.tc. Health services i n c : l u d ~control of d i s e a s e s ~ treat.ment thereof, 'maintenance of health an dday care c e n t e ~ s ; etc. Social services include protection. for th eelderly and disabled, rehabilitation of beggars, juvenile delinquents,drug addicts; .etc., ob.serving proper, nutrition,' family . planning, "un &krtaking livelihood . projects, etc. lnfra_tructure facilities ,may re-fer to municlp.al o" l ~ a l roads and bridges, irrigation" systems, schoolbuildings,: artesian wefls, water supply systems, floOd control, drain .age and s ~ w e r a ~ e , etc . :Information services may . cover informa-

    . tion on jo b 'placement, investments, tax matters, marketing systems. and mainttmance'of public: library which. may cover books, m a g a z i ~ e s .cr p e r i o d i c I on g e n e r ~ l information, laws, etc. . a ~ s . C {.d (in. the ~ b o v e section sets forth some limitati"ons th.at . be observed by or binding upon LGU's. ;, .' .Pars. {e), (h ) 'anc( ( i) ~ e f e r .to devolution of national functicns to LGU's. : See Executive Order 503 ' signed by President .

    ~ q u ~ n o Janu.ary' 23, 992; infra. .:. At may . be . ndicated ln . subsequent e ~ t i o n s enumeratfng . po

    wers of local legislative organs, infra, the above services and f a c i l i ~ .lies .are implemented by means of local ordinances, in. some "cases,following certain legal guidelines or national policies. .

    Note. ~ h ~ t :conomic enterprises owned by LGU's .in their pro.prletary capacity m

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    12/24

    36 . LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991SEC. 18. Po10er to 'Genemte and Apply e s o u 1 c e ~ . _ Lo government units shan have the power and authority to estacaJ

    lish an organization that shall be responsible for the efficieand e f f ~ c t i ~ e i m p l e m e n _ t a t _ i ~ n of their development plans, P r o ~ .ra m obJectives and pnor1bes; to c r e a t ~ their own sources ofrevenue and to levy taxes, fees. and charges which shall accruexclusively fo r their us e.and disposition which shall be

    !

    III

    tained by them; to have a just share in national taxes whichshall .be automatically and directly released to them withoutneed of any further .action; . o have an equitable share in theproceeds from th e utilization and development of the nationalwealth- and resources within their respective territorial jurisdictions . including sharing th e same . the. inhabitants byway of direct benefits; to . acquire, d e v e l o p ~ l e a ~ e , encumber,alienate, or otherwise dispose of real or personal property heldby them in their proprietary capacity an d to apply t h e i ~ resources and assets fo r productive, d ~ v e l o p m e n t . a l . or welfarepurposes, in th e exercise or furtherance o f their governmentalot proprietary powers and functi

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    13/24

    38 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991based on the fair market value of the proPerty t th . .taking. : a . e . oF its

    ' . .The d e t e r m . i n ; ~ t i o n of fust c ~ m p e n s a t i o ~ is ;a f .: 1 : . .h f . . . . vnc &on a d d r ~to t e courts o JU5tice an d may no t be usurped by an th S$,.11or official C)f the Government. (Association of SmaTI0 l erd branch .f th Ph., . 1 s - an ownerso e 11pp1nes, nc . vs. ecretary of Agrarian Refor G78742, July _14, 1989) Just compensation means the eqmu: ,.R. No. . . IVa ent for.th e value of the proper\y at th e time of it s taking. Anyth' bh h' . h . . . mg eyondt_ at 1s more, . and anyt '" 9 .s ort of that _is : less, than just com.pensation, I t is a fair an d full equivalent fo r the loss sust dh. h h f h d . iiUne 'w . ', . 1s_t e m e a s u r ~ . o. _ e .J? emntty, whatever. gain .wouldaccrue to e x p r o p r . a ~ m ~ entity, The .market .value of the landt_aken is the _ust compensation to__which owner of the condemnedproper.ty _s e n ~ i t f ~ d , m a ~ k e t value that sum of money which , ,. . . a p ~ r s o n desirous, but not , 0 m p e l l e ~ : t_ buy and an :Owner Willingbut not .compelled to sell; ~ o u l d agree on .a5 a price to be given ..an d received for such property. {Ibid.) The ' medium _of payment ofcompensation is ready money or cash. The condemner cannot com-pel . the owner . "o accept anything ;but money, . nor can th.e owner 'compel or require tfie condemner to pay him. on an y other basis thanth e value of th e property in .money the time and In the mannerprescribed by fhe Constitution an d th e statutes. -. the powerof eminent domain is resorted to, there must be a standard mediumof payment, binding. ~ p o n b'ot h parties, illnd th e law has fixed that standard as money in cash. .{Ibid. ) But other modes _of paymentmay be authorized by ' like payment in bonds unde'r the CARPLa w an d this , Is no t violative of th e C o n s t i t u t i o n (Ibid.) . Title tothe property e x p r o p r J ~ t e d shall pa.ss from the owner to the expro-

    . priato.r only upon full payment .of the just c ~ m p e n s a t i o n . ( I b i d . ~Note that th e -15% down payment .in ~ h i s s ~ c t i o n is based on .

    th e FMV as appearing in the current tax d e c l a r a t i ~ n bu t this doesno t mean that said fair market value is th e just compensation pay. able. I t is th e court that decides that. Thus, ' in th e Small Land d h. 1 f e of duewners case aforecited 1 it W aS observe t at I t 15 VIO a IV that the varocess to deny th e owner th e opportun1ty to prov'! . . . . . It s repuls1ve toluation in the tax document5 IS unfa1r or .wrong. _1 . h dth e basic concepts of justice and fairness to allow the _hap azahr ... l k . b . f t r prevail over t ework of a minor bureaucrat or c er to a so u e Y ers. J . f rt commiSsiOnJudgment of ,. court promulgated on y a te r . 'd. f eel I after ev encehave actually viewed th e property promu gat on Y 11 factorsan d arguments pro an d con have been presented, and a ter a

    i!j.

    I

    l 'i

    BASIC PRINCIPLES 89

    d o ~ s i d e ~ a t i o ~ s essential to a fair and Just determination havean c I d .Judiciously eva uate ~ n .. f R e c l ~ s i ! i c a t i o n . o f Landa .. ( a ) ~ City m u ~ i c -i alitY may, t h r o ~ g h an o r d m a n ~ e passed by ,the sangguman!rter conducting public heal'ing for the purpose, authorize th eeclassification .of agricultural lands and provide for th e rnanof their uti_ization.or d i s p o i t i o ~ in ' the following cases:

    (1 ) when land ceases to be econ?mically feasible and soundfor agricultural purposes as determmed by the Department ofAgriculture or . (2) 'where land shall. have. substantially .greater economic value for ' residential, commercial, ' or industrial p u r p o s ~ s . as_ determined by the sanggunian concerned:Provided, -That such reclassification shall be limited to the following p ~ r c e n t a g e . :the total agricultural land area a t .th etime of. hE! passage of the ordinance:_ : . , . '(1) ' For , i ~ h i y r b ~ ~ i z e d and .independent component ci- .

    ' ties, fifteen percent 05 %) ; . .(2 ) ' Fo r component Cities .and .;first . o-thira . class ~ u n i. _:'ipalities; ten percent 00%.) ;. and . _(3 ) fourth to sixth.chiss municipalities, five percent : (5% >: P1ovidea;/ u1ther, That agricultural lands dis-. tributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant toRepublic Ac t Numbered Sixty-six hundred fifty-seven The local g ~ v e r n ~ e n ~ units h ~ l l , in c ~ n f o r m i t y with

    e ~ J s h n g laws,. continue to prepare their respective comprehen~ v ~ 1 l a n d use plans enacted through zoning ordinances which ofa be the. primary and dominant bases for the future use

    P land, resources: Provided, That the requirements fo r foodb ~ o : ~ t t o ~ , human settlements, and industrial expansion shalla en mto consideration the preparation of such plans.

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    14/24

    -10 LOCAL. G O V E R ~ M E N T CODE OF 1991(d ) When approval by a national agency is required forreclassification, such approval shall no t be unreasonably with.held . Failure to ac t on a proper and complete application forreclassification within three (3.) months from . receipt of thesame shall be deemed as a p ~ r o v a l thereof. .(e ) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as repealing,

    amending, or modifying in any manner. the .Provisions of R.A,No. 6657. ' 'ANNOTATIONS

    When agricultural lands may bereclassified fo r non-agricultural purpose s -

    . T ~ e ~ e c l a ~ s i f i c ~ t i o n of a g r i c ~ [ t u r a l by the LGU. (city orm u n ~ c 1 p a J . t ~ ) rs through the ordmance passed by sanggunian afterpublrc hearmg s u b j ~ c t to percentage limitation (which may be ln-

    c ~ e a s e d by th : P r ~ s 1 d e n t under certain .conditions) but. he said ordma?ce shalf Jn no way repeal, amend 'or modify in any manner theprovtsions of th e Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R . A. 6657).

    If a n a t i o ~ a f raw requires a ~ p ~ o v a l of .the .recfassi.fication; par.{d ) will apply. Use of land resources by LGU's shall be in conformity with _zoning o r d i n a n ~ e s which . local legislative assemblies of. LGU's may pass.

    SEC. 21. Clostire and Opening .of Roads. - (a ) A localgovernment unit may, .pursuant to an ordinance, permanentlyor temporarily close .or open an y local road, alley, park, orsquare falHng within its jurisdiction: Provided, however, Thatin case of permanent closure, such ordinancemust be approved.by at least two-thirds (% ) of all the members of the sanggunian, an d when necessary, an adequate .substitute for thepublic facility that is subject to closure is provided.

    (b ) No such way or place or any . a ~ t thereof s?al! bepermanently closed without making provisions fo r the ma.ln;;-nancc of public safety therein. A property thus permanen Ywithdrawn from public use may be used or c ~ n v e y e d ~ ; J Ipurpose fo r which other real property belongmg to the dgovernment unit concerned may be lawfully used or c o n ~ e ~ ~ r :Provideo, however, That no freedom park shall be c l o ~ e to amanently without provision fo r its transfer or relocatiOn

    new site.

    lIItf'.

    DASIC PP,JNCIPLES 41(c ) Any .m1tional.or local road, alley, park, or s q u ~ r e may

    be temporarily cl?sed ~ u r i n g actual e ~ e r g e n c ! , or. fiesta. elebrations, pubhc rallies, agncultural or mdustnal fa1rs, orundertaking of public wor,ks and highways, telecommunications, and waterworks projects, the duration of which shall bespecified by. the local c h ~ e f executive. concerned in .a writtenorder: Pro'V'I.ded, however, That no nat10nal or local road, alley,park, or s q u ~ ~ e . shall . be t e ~ ~ o r a r i 1 y closed fo r a t h l e ~ i < t , c u l t u r a l ~or civic activltles no t officially sponsored, r e c o g m z e ~ , or ap .proved b)' the Io.cal g,overnment.unit concerned. .

    (d) Any city, municipality, or barangay may, by a dulyenacted ordinance, temporarily close . and : regulate the use ofany local street, road, thoroughfare, .or any other public placewhere shopping m a l l s ~ Sunday, .flea or night markets, or shopping areas may be established and where goods,- merchandise,foodstuffs, .commodities,'or. articles of commerce may be soldand dispensed to the general public. .ANNOTATIONS

    When a local .' road, alley, park cirq u a r e may be .closed or opened-

    In F ~ r . a) b o v ~ , the per.manent or temporary .closJre oropening of an y local road, alley, etc; is. made pursuant to an ordinance; it is, therefore, necessary that 01n ordinance is p a s ~ e d andthe one making th e closure or opening s normally the local chiefexecutive.

    Par. (b ) above .contemplates a permanent closure an d refer- .ring also to the local road, alley, etc. Note the use of the words"No such way or place". A permanent closure of a freedom parkmust also provide fo r it s transfer or -relocation to a new site including appropriatio.n fo r its construction or cost ther.eof.

    ln . Par. (c ) a ~ v e , note the words "noationaf or local;'. Th etemporary closure is by order of the local chief executive ( LCE) whos p ~ c i f i e s the duration. The second part of the paragraph is a limitat.on, an d the athletic, cultural or civic activities must be officiallysponsored, recognixed or approved by the LGU (through the LCE asa r u ~ e unless an implementing. ordinance provides for another ap

    ~ o v n g authority like a committee chaired by the LCE), the wordsi ~ ~ o g n i : r e d " and "approved", indicating that th e activities may belltated b .d Y private organizations or groups. In case of temporaryosure of roads, etc. because of public tonstructions, npairs, etc.

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    15/24

    ii'42 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF l!l91. Idamage may be ca.used .to n ~ a r b y businesi .estabUshrnents. The lGU ror th& National Governmen.t is not liable for such damage, it bein ,.b . . g a tuse of damnum a sque U 1 J U r 1 ~ . . . . 1

    Th e last paragraph authorizes t e m p o r a ~ y closure of a local s t r ~ t 1road, etc. fo r. selling _or s ~ o p p i n g purposes, it being understood tha; Ith e same be authorized by an ordinance which may state the jvstifi. Jcation or reasons for such temporary closure. .. ISee old bu't pertinent c_ses cited under Sections 458 .and 468, fifra. . , ,

    1SEC: 22. Corporate towers. - . (a ) Every. local government, umt, as a c o r ~ o r a t l o n , shaH have the following- powers: ( 1) To have continuous succession in itscorporate mime(2) To sue and be .sued; . . : : . '(3) .To have and lise .a corporate sea(; .(4) To acquire and convey real or personal property; ( 5) To enter into contracts; and . . (6} To exercise such other powers as are granted to corporations, subject to the . limitations prov)ded in thisCode and other laws.

    . . : Local. governme nt .units m ' ~ y ..continue using, modify,or change their existing .corporate seals: Prov-ided. That newly_establishedlocal government units Qr those without corporate seals may 'create thefr.own corporate seals which shall beregistered with' the Department of he Interior and Local Gov-. ernrnent:,Provided,_{urthei,That ariy changeof corporate seal.shall also be registered as provided herein .. :: . . . . . (c) Unless otherwise 'provided: in this . no contractmay ' be f;!ntered into by the local chief executive in behalf ofthe local government' unit _without prior authorization by the sanggunian concerned. A legible copy of such _ontract shall be posted at a conspicuous place in the. r o v h 1 ~ i ~ d capitol or thecity, municipal or barangay hall. . . . .

    (d ) Local go.vernment units shall enjoy full llutonomy.Jnthe exercise of their ;..,roprietary functions and in the m a n ~ g e .t ' h 1 twnsment of their economic enterprises, subject to e IIDl apro\ided in this Code and other applicable laws . .,

    ANNOTATIONSCorporate powers of LGU- . .

    f h GovernA locaJ government unit is not only an agency o t e rment bu t it is also a body politic with corporate powers. The powe

    f

    l

    BASIC PRINCIPLES 43

    Ue nd be sued properly refers to proprietary powers because antO S d - LGU cannot as a .rule ~ su e w i t h ~ u it s c o n s e n t ~ express o_I. d .p Je . . . , . . . . .. Unless dispensed with by this Code, every contract entered into

    by the local chief ~ x e ~ u t i v e ~ h a l f o! LGU of which he is _thechief executive must bear pr1or author!zat1on from the Sanggum.an.This authority may be embodied in a m ~ e resolution. Such contract js r e q v i r ~ to be

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    16/24

    -1-2 LOCAL GOVERNl\1EN1' CODE OF . 1991from an y department, agency, or office of the National Gemment or from any higher local government unit: Providov._That p r o j e c ~ s f ! n a n ~ e d .uy such grantR or assistance withtional s e c u n t ~ Implications shall _be approved by th e nati 1gency conce-ned: ,Provided, further, That y.hen such n a t i ~ ~ ! ragency fails to ac t on th e request . fo r approval within thirt(30) days fro!n receipt ~ h e 1 e ~ f , _ ?e _ ame shall be deemedproved. - - -

    The local ch.ef executive . shall, .withfn thirty (SO) davsupon signing of such grant agreement or ~ e e d of d o n a t i ~ n ,report the nature, amount, an d terms of such assistance to bothHouses of Congress and the- P r ~ s i d e n t .

    ANNOTATIONSAuthority to obtain grants an dd o n a t i o n s ~ .

    The above _e,tion authorizes th e ._LGU ,.to n e g o t i a t ~ fo r and securefinancial grants (aid J or d o n ~ t i ~ n s in . kind (like equipment, machineries, etc.) to support basic services . an d facilities se t forth in Section .17 , supra. All Governmen- al . (authorized by law or ordina,nce)projects ar e powered by money an d in most cues, there is lack offunding. Aside from th e power of -taxation- or _from the power tosecure local or forejgn Joans, LGU's may seek . local or foreign aidor assistance. It is th e sanggunian that grants th e authority to .negotiate fo r su'ch kind of aid, 'with .necessity ' of dea 'rance or ap-proval from higher authority except p r o j e ~ t s with s_curity implications.

    . second paragraph ~ b o v e is m ~ ~ e Informational but t.he information may be useful in th e Formulation __ f national policies onforeign aid or assistance._ . 24. l i t y for D a m a g e s ~ Local. . o ~ ~ r n m e n t u:::an d their officials ar e not exempt from haiHfJty for dot injury to' persons or d a ~ a g e to property.

    ANNOTATIONSof l iabil i ty-

    - ' 1 t malfeasThe above section presupposes negligence, wiJifu ac ' neance or misfeasance. There must be some injury, fo r If there 15 110

    BASIC PRINCIPLJt;S 45 1 gain a cue of damnum absque injuria . In other words, there11 ' . f t' Th . f I Ibe suffic1ent eause o ac 10n. e act or Otrllssron o ocafTIUS I t' . h t h be'f f als may be cr1mma or to r 10us, m t e atter case t er e0 or negligence. Thus, in Article 2189 of -th e New Civil Codefau plemented or widened by the above section), "provnices, cities( n u ~ i c i p a l i t i e s shall be liabfe fo r damages fo r th e death of , or

    .ries suffered by any person by reason of th e defective conditionroads, streets, bridges, public buildings an d other public works0 ncler their control or supervision." . While this article refers onlydeath or physical injuries, Section 24 of this Code provided ~ t s o

    1 liability fo r . damage to property. Be it known that the sour_esobligation are, among others law (Sec. 24 above) quasi-delict;Art. 2189, NCC). And be it also known that _so_ rces of liabilityare delay, negligence, fraud an d contravention of the tenor of theobligation, Including therein, fo r _obvious reason, willful acts or omis-

    ' 4 '.sions.

    Liability municipality fo r . tort. corrirnitted . by it s employee dis-cusied-_ - . . , ' , The foll.,wing-is -the d-ecision of th e Supreme Court in Municipality of San Fernando, La Union vs. F i r ~ 1 e (G .' R. No. 52179, April 8, 1991) : .

    This is petition fo r ~ ~ r t i o r ~ r i with p r ~ y e r fo r th e i s s v ~ n c e of awrit of preliminary mandatory injunction seeking the n'-lllification

    m o d i f i c a t i o n of th e proceedings arid the orders issued by the respondent Judge Romeo N. Firme, in his capacity as th e presiding judgeof the Court of First lnstance of La Union, Second Judicial District,Branch IV, Bauang, La Union in Civil Case No. 107-BG, entitled "Juana- Rimando Banina, et al . vs. Macario Nieveras, et al.' ' 'dated November4, 1975; July 13, 1976j August 23 , 1976; February 23 , 1977i March16, 1977; Jvly 26, 1979; September 7, 1979; November 7, 1979 an dDecember 3, 1979 an d the decision dated October 10, l979 orderingdefendants Municipality of San Fernando, La Union an d Alfredo Bisfig

    pay, jointly an d severally, th e plaintiffs fo r funeral expenses, actualarnages consisting of the loss of earning capacity of th e deceased, at

    t ~ r n e y ' s Fees an d costs of sOJit an d dismissing complaint againstt e Estate of Mllcario Nieveras an d Bernardo B a l a

    -. The antecedent facts ar e as follows:to P e t i ~ i o n e r Municipality of San Fernando, La U ~ ~ o n is a mvnicipatr ~ o r a t t o n e x i s t ~ n g vnder and in a c c o r d ~ n c e \vith th e bw s of the

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    17/24

    46 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF . 1991Republic of_the Philippines. Respondent o ~ o r a b i e Jud . F I ded h ' ff ' I . ge Romeo .... arme 1s 1mp ea 1n 1s o t C I ~ capac1ty as th e .presidio . ' 'th e Court of First Instance of La Union, Branch IV, Bauan 9l J U d ~ ofWhile private respondents Juana Rimando.Banina laur 9' a Un&on.. - . . . , . eano 8aniJr., So r Marietta Bantna! Montano Ban na , Orja Baniiia and L . ll.tBanina ar e plaintiffs in . Civil Case No, 1 ~ 7 - B g b e ~ o r e the ~ f ! ~ ~ ~ i l l ~.courts. . . . . . . .

    At 'about 7 o ' d o < : ~ in the morning of b ; c e m ~ r 16 1965 . ed 1 . ' , a coJI1 s1on occurr mvo v.mg a passenger Jeepney driven by B -n d. . .. ar o 8ill-lagot owned _by th e E ~ t a t e ~ a u r i O . ~ i e v e r a s , a gravel and , and 'truck dnven by .Jose Manandeg an d owned by Tanquilino Velasan d a _dump ~ r u c k of t ~ e . ~ u n i c i ~ a l i _ t y o ~ S a ~ F e r n ~ ~ d o , La u ~ ~ : ~an d dr.ven. by Alfredo Btshg. Due to th e _ ampact, several passengersof th e jeepney i n c l u ~ i n g Laureano Banina S_. died as a result of theinjuries they sustained an d four ,

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    18/24

    18 -,LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991Petitioner maintains that th e respondent - d. _ .

    abuse of discretion amounting to excess of I.IJ ~ e d ~ c ~ m i t t e d g r l l ~ eth f .d Juras Jtbon i .e a oresal orders And in rendering a d - .- rssuin"t . .. .rsaon. Further aoner asserts that while appeal of th e d- b more, Ptti. ~ a s a o n may avail blsame as no t th e speedy an d adequate remedy . in th d" a e, theof law. - . . . e or &nary course. On th e other h:md, private respondents controvert the -.

    t10n of th e petitioner and allege that th e petition Is de "d f p o ~ a r I . VOl o merJtutter y acking th e good f a ~ t h which is indispensable in a peff f 'certiorari and prohibition. -(Rollo, 42) In addition the p or . . - . . , ravate re-spondents stress that petahontr ha s_no t considered that every 1 d" d h . court,anc_u mg respon en t court., as th e inherent -powe_to amend and .control its process. an d orders so -as to make them -c o n f o r m ~ b l e tolaw an d justice. (Rollo, p. 43 ) . . .

    Th e controversy boils d ~ w n to .th e ~ a i n inue w-hether wtth e respondent c"urt committed grave abuse Qf discretion when it. deferred ~ a n d failecl .to resolve th e_ efense.of _ on-suability of the St;1teamounting to lack of jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss.th e . at bar, r ~ s p o ~ c f e n t J u d ~ ~ d e f e r r e d t h ~ resolutionof th e defense of non-suability of th e State' amounting to lack ofjurisdiction until trial. Howe.ver, said respondent judge failed to resolve such defense, proceeded . with th e trial arid t h e ~ e a f t e r rendered

    ' a d e ~ i s i o ' n a g a i n s ~ _he municipality _its driver. : . . .. - The respondent judge di d no t commit grave abuse of discretion

    when in th e exercise it s judgment . it arbitrarily failed to resolveth e vital .issue of s u a b i t of the State in the gui$e of the municipality. However, said judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction whenin hi s deeision dated October 10, 1979 he held the m o ~ t i c i p a l i t y l i a b l ~fo r th e quasi-delict committed by its regular employee. .

    Th e d o c t r i n ~ of n o ~ ~ s u a b i l i t y of . tJ1e State is .exp ress!y provided . . t "the State fo r in ArtiCle XVI, Section _3 of th e Con$t&tut1on, to w .:ma y no t be sued without its consent." : . 1 th t the State maYStated in simple p a r l a n c ~ , th e general ru e as a C t takes t t be sued onsennot be sued except when it gtves consen o . th e form of express or implied c o n s e n t . . . .- . 1. . a spec1ab d . d eneral law orExpress consent may be em o 1e '" a g . of moneYS t t be sued an caseJaw. The standing consent of the ta e 0 nd in Act No.tlaims involving liability arising - rom contracts 15 fou to sue the3083. A special raw be passed to enable a person

    r!BASIC P.RINCIP LES 49

    ~ r n m e n t for an alleged quasi-delict, as in Merritt v. Government~ t h e Philippine Islands 34 Phil. 311) . (See United States of America v. Guinto, R. No. 7 6 6 0 7 ~ Feh_uary 26, 1990, 182 SCRA 644,654) . . . . . . . ' -. - .

    Con5ent is implied when the government enters into businesscontracts, thereby descending to the level of the other contractingparty, and also. State fifes _ c o m p l a i ~ t , thus_opening itselfto a c:o11nterclam. ( ~ a d . _ ) -

    Municip411 corporation's, for_ x a m p f e , like prCivinces and ~ i t i e s ,agencies of the State when they are engaged .in governmental .functions and therefore shoufd enjoy the s o v e ~ e i g n immunity fromsuit. Nevertheless, they are subject to suit even in tJ"!e Performanceor such functions . because their charter prcvicles 'that they can sueand be sued. (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1987 Edition, p. 39}t' i A distinction should firs t be made between suability and liability."Suability depends the consent of the state to be sued, liability

    on the applicable law ..an d the establishe$1 facts. The circumstancethat a state is .suable dOes not necessarily mean that it is liable; onthe other hand, it can never be held liable if it does no t first consentto be sued. Liability is no t conceded by the mere fact that th e statehas allowed itself 'to be.sued. When the state does waive its sovereignimmunity; it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can,that the defendant is liable.'', (United ' States of America v. Guinto,supri, p. 659-660) : . .. . .. . . ' .. . .. Anent the issue of whether or not the municipality is liable fo rthe forts committed ' by its employee, the . test of liability _ of themunicipality depends on whether or not the driver; acting iri behalfof the m u n i c i p ~ l i t y , is performing governmental or proprietary functions . As emphasized in case ,of Torio 'v .Fontanilla (G . R. No.l-29993, October . 23, 1978', 85 SCRA 599, 606), the distinction ofpowers beconies important for p u r p o ~ e s of determining th e liabilityof the municipality for the acts of it s agents which result In an injuryto third persons, .d . Another s t ~ t e ~ e n t ~ f th e t ~ s t is given in City of K o k ~ m o v. Loy,.t:c&ded by the Supreme Court of Indiana in 1916, thus : . -

    "Municipal c o r p o r ~ t i o n s exist in a dual capacity, an d theirfunctions are two fold . In one they exercise th e 'right springingfrom sovereignty, an d while in the performance of the duties~ r t a i n i n g thereto, their acts are political an d governmental.Their officer s an d agents in such capacity, though elected or ap-

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    19/24

    50 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF -1991_ - poin-ed _by t h e m , a r ~ n e v ~ r t h e l e s s public_ unctionaries perfor ... .. in g a pul>lc serv1ce, an d as such they _ re officers, agents

    servants of the s t ~ t e . . In th e other capacity th e munici ;,.and - - P 1t1es- - e x e ~ c 1 s e . a p r t v a l ~ , proprietary or ~ o r p o r a t e _right, a r i ~ from. the." extstence as ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ persons and not as public agencies. Theiro_f1cers and agents m th e p e r f ~ r m a of such functions act .

    ~ h a t f of th e mvnidpalities in their c ~ r p o r a t e or individualpacity, and fo r the state or sovereign po':'er." ( 112 N. E.,994-995) (Ibid., pp. 605-606) . ' ' - . .

    It. ~ i ~ e ~ c l y heen ~ ~ m ~ r k e c l that r ; \ . , - ~ i . ~ ~ p o r a t l o n i aresuab!e ~ e u u s e the.ir c ~ a r t e r s grant them th e competence to andbe sued. Neve_theless, ar e s e n e r ~ J t y _ot ' liable, for torts 'coni.mittecl by ~ h e m in th e discha_ge of Overnmental functions and un

    .be _eld answerable only if be .shown they w e r ~ acting ina .proprietary capacity .In permttting :such entities . to be sued, theState mere\y gives 'claimant the right te> show .that th e defendantwas no t a ~ t i n 9 1n it s goverrunental capacity . when : the injury wasccinindtted or that the c a s ~ comes under . th e' exceptions . e c ~ n i : r e d . by. l . i w . Failing this, . the claiman't c a ~ n ~ t r ~ o v e r (Crux, supril, p44 ) . - .:: . :. : . : . '. ____ .. _: .. _- .. . :: " ,

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    20/24

    52 LOCAL GOVERNMENT :CODE OF 1991e x p r e ~ s provision of th e charter holding the ~ l t y n .

    fo r damages or injuries sustained persons or property duot l l a b ~failure of any city o f f i ~ e r to e n f ~ r ~ e t h ~ pro.vi.sions of . the : ~ : r tht ,

    .can no t be used to exm.pt the c1ty, as 1n th e case a.t b ~ r . ler,The charter only lays down general . rules regulating the liabiJi

    of the city. On the other hand, Article 2189 applies in parrto the liability arising from defective streets, public h u i l d i n g ~ ch bl . k . . lndot er pu 1c wor s.. . In hi.s official c a p a ~ i t y as_ity engineer of Dagupan,. u ex-off' .Highway,Engineer, as ex-officio ci_ty engineer of the Buruu of

    -.Works,an d as building offic:.ial fo r Oc;guP,an City, he receives thelowing monthly compens01tion: P1,810 from Oagupan City, P200 fro 111th e Ministry of Pwblic Highways,. PlOO from the Bureau of Pub/it

    .. Works and P500 by .virtue 'of P. D. 1096, respectively. This functior,of supervisi_on over streets, buildings 01nd other public'works r t a i ~ ~ oing to city engineer is .coursed through a maint'enance foremanand maintenance engineer/ . Although th e _last two Is are 1111-ployees of the National Government, . they ar e detailed with the CilyoF Oagupan .and .hence receive instruction an d supervision from thtcity through the City' Engineer. Undoubtedly, therefore the City E ~ ~ ogineer. x ~ r c i s e s c o n t r o l or supervision:over th e public. o r k s in question: Hence, the liability of th e city to petitioner under Article 2189of the Civil Code is .clear. (Guilatco v. City of Da.gJpan, G. R. 61516, 21 March 89 ) . = ,

    ;. >" :"Liability of lcx:al chief executive . :. :for illegal dismissals- : ;

    The .munic.ipal mayor alone ma y be held l i a b l ~ back salariesof , or damages to a dismissed municipal employee, to the exclusionof th e municipality, if th e mayor no t only arbitrarily. dismissed IMemployee bu t also refused to reinstate him in defiance of an order of-the Commissioner of Civil Service, or if the mayor dismissed t h e e ~ployee without justifiable cause an d without any administrative 1"'vestigation. ( l aganapn. v. AsediUo, G. R. 28353, 30 Sept. 87)

    In one case, th e, governor, v i c e - g o ~ e r ~ o r , members of t h ~ t S i n ~guni;ang Panlalawigan, Provincial Auditor,' provincial treasurerprovincial engineers were ordered to pay jointly and severallytheir individual and personal capacity dam"9eS to some 0 0 e m p l o y ~ sf .. . of theiro a province who were eased out from their posiUonsbecause

    party affiliations. (Ibid . )

    . BASIC PRINCIPLES 53If the' "'ayor who 'WI S suect in his o f f i c i ~ l capac:ity as municipal

    for m ~ a l l y djsmining . an employee ha d in th e meantimem a y o ~ away th e liability to pay the empfoyee his back salaries mustpasse ' (" I ( lb"d ) .devolve upon th e rnumc1pa rty .one .. r . .The ,.;unidpality ma y be .held liable to pay the back wages ofth i(legally dismissed employee but the liability js limited to a periodof five y ~ a r s . {Ibid. ) . - .... .

    ' The general rule is that public officials can be held personallycount,ble lor ~ t c t s claimed to have beer1 performed in connef an order .of th e Com.missioner of Civil service to. reinstate. (Chavez vs. Sandiganbayan,G. R. No : 91391,.January 24, 1991) . .: . . ; .. \ . .rn Nemenzo v. Sabillano (2 5 SCRA .1 ( 1968),' th e municipalmayor.was held personally l i ~ b l e for dismissing a police corporal who p ~ s s e s s e d the necess.ary civil service eligibility, the dismissal beingdone without . justificable c a ~ s e and without any administrative in-

    vestfgation. (Ibid.) - :"l .n R ~ m a Court of ~ p e ~ l s (G. R. Nos, L-44484, L-44842,

    L-44591, L-44894, March J6, ' 1937), the governor, vice-governor,~ ~ b e r s of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, provincial auditor, provIncial treasurer and provinc.ial .engineer were ordered to pay jointlyand severally in their individual and personal capacity damages to;ome 2 ~ employees 'of ..th e province of Cebu. who were eased ou trom t h e ~ r positions because of their party affiliations." ( Jbid.). . - .. . : . .Wh . ere compromise merely implements

    contract signed by the mayor previouslyuly entered into - . Th . . .tround 15 s a petition . for c e r t i o r ~ r l which seeks to annul, on the1985. of grave abuse of di,scretion, the ( 1) Decision dated May 24,' (2 ) Order d ~ t e d May 27 , 1987 and (3) Order dated December

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    21/24

    54 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUE OF 1901 -. . , . .I : 24 , 1987, al l issued in Civil Case No , N-3367 of the. R ' - eg1ona1 TCourt of Cavite, Branch XV, Cavite City entitled "Vileriano E .11

    v. ' : ' u n i ~ i ~ a l i t y of R ~ s a r i o , r c ~ i ~ c e of _Cavite and Hon. C i i l i : ~ ;Enr_quez 1n hi s capacaty.,as Mumcapal ~ a y o r Rosa_io, Cavite. 0 D . f. The Pertinent backgrou_nd _acts ar e: . ' ; ,- j

    Valeria!'o Espiritu, h e r ~ i n priva.te r e s p ~ n d e n t filed A 'I 1983, a c ~ m p l a ! n . t Specific P ~ r f o r m ~ n c e and Da"!'ages, a g ~ ~ ~ t . l$pondents Muntctpahty of Rosano, C01V1te and Calixto Enr'1nue h. . , z, t elatter in his capacity as Mayor of ._aid .municipality, to enforce th .. agreement contained in :a Reclamation .Contract. In his .complaiEspiritu prayed that Municipality of Rosario, .together with ; :.riquex, _ e ordered to convey to _him ' 323,996 square m ~ t e r s of

    r e c l a i m ~ ~ r t i ~ n of_ the f o r e s h ~ r e 1 ~ n d _of the _own . Espiritu filedthe action in his Ciipacity as _he assignee of the SaHnas DevelopmentCorporation ( SADECO) th e entity .which reclaimed the area in ques. .tion by virtue of a Redamation Contract entered into b e t w e e ~ it and_he Municipality of _ o ~ a r i o , represented by Enrique a's M11nicipalM a y o r ~ The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 4367 of the Regional: ~ r i a l C o u ~ t of ~ ~ v i t ~ u r t h Judi_ial_ e g i o ~ ; B r a n ~ h VI; v i t e City.

    . . Jn'its an.swe;; defendan't . municipality r ~ ~ i s t e d p i ~ i n t i f f ' ~ ciaim. stating that it was by _the statute of limitation'; the"contractbeen . substantially .amended, . modified .and supplenie'nted; and

    plaintiff ha s no t p e r f o r m 2 d his reciprocal obligation. . . . The b a r a n g a ~ c ~ j : ) t a i n of T ~ j ~ r o ~ Convention, .Rosario, c::avite,: herein petitioner Romeo O-rdonez:;_ogether . seven (7) _ ther' municipal an d barangay of ficialS intervened,and in their A . n s ~ e r' Intervention; . they alleged that no actual reClamation was d ~ n e by. the plaintiff 'an d the area being claimed by the plaintiff ~ a m e a b o ~ t

    by natural accretion; the reclamation contract between the contractor.and the municipality is either void, ' voidable or disadvantageous tothe defendant m . u n i ~ i p a l i t y . .: . . , : . . . , The issues having j o i ~ a t triaf ~ ~ u r t ,se t the .cu e,. for

    th e mandatory pre-trial _ onference on November _15, 1984 . : .. At tf,is scheduled p r ~ t r i a l ~ ~ n f e r e n c e ali Jitlgants i n d u d i ~ ~ the intervenors, with their respectiv-e counsel, were p r e ~ ~ ~ .n Ja lcf

    c o n f e ~ e n c e , plaintiff Espiritu and defendant municipality, m a n l f e s ~ eto the 'court that having' arrived at a s a t i s f a c t o ~ y s e t t l e m e ~ t , ey would sub.mit a compromise agreement at a later. date. :On other .hand, .the l n t ~ r v ~ n o r s asked .the court that ~ ~be allowed to present their evidence to ' prove their d e f e n asse ;

    BASIC. PRINCIPLES 55. . answer-in-intervention. .For the said purpose, heuing -wa sin th:; December 13- 1_84, wherein Ernesto A n d ~ c o , vice-mayor t e s ~

    h . e ~ d . Another hearing wa s also held on January 24 , 1985 wheret J ~ t e d G o v e r n o r 'Jose M. Ricafrente, Jr. of the Province of c _vite, an dy,ce 1 h t t I t tf _J 1 r' s counse m . e ms an case, a so es 1 1eQ, . .pet1t C?"e . . . - . . , , 011 May 20 ,_1985, the principal litigants fifed respondentt r i ~ l c o u r t t h e ~ t promised compro111ise a g r e e ~ e n ~ . The p a r ~ i e s agreedthat 2os,664 square meters of the r ~ c l a i m e d area were to be a l l ~ t e dto the plaintiff a ~ d } l ~ , 3 ~ 1 s ~ ~ ~ r e meters e r e o ~ were to be g t v e ~to defendant m ~ m c 1 p a h t y . . . .. . :

    . On . riaJ ~ o u ~ t a p p r ~ v e d the o m p r o m i s e agreem e ~ t and rendered a d e c i s i o ~ in . c ~ o r d a n c e therewith. . The inter

    venors received their copy of the decision on September 19, 1985 thruVice--Mayor Ernesto Andico. The de

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    22/24

    56 ILOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991. .based on the Compromise A g r ~ m e ~ t was .rendered .

    1 9 8 ~ On the other hand, the present Motion 10 Set :';i:yComprombe Agreement was fired only on June 24 19a7 As1deover, under Section 3 of Rule 38 , .th a petition r: 1 f M ~ r e .judgment should be filed within 60 days :after thee '1 .fro,! e a r n ~ of the j u ~ g m e n t sought ~ se t a ~ i d ~ : The i : ! ~ : e rrn thss case recerved _a copy of the decision based on the Co orpromise Agreem,nt on e p t e m ~ r 19, 1985. If th e instant ,_tion be construed _s an indepe-ndent action to annul a juagmthis Court would no t have jurisdictio-n ov er it _nasmuch s n ~ n t ,5_ection Batas P ~ " : ' b . a n s a Slg. 129, th e Ju.diciary R e o r g ~ n i z : :_ro n Act of 1980, an actron for -th e annulment of a judgment ofth e Regional Trial Court falls under th e _exclusive original Juris-.diction of th e Court of A p p e a l s ~ : ; .. '. .. . . . A d ~ l i t i o ~ ~ l l y , i n t e r v e _o n v i ~ c i n g i ~ shown

    tht defendant Mayor Enriquex vias no t authorized to sign tht Compromise Agreeme':'t in ~ h a l f of . he Municipality of. Rosario,On the contrary, the _Mayor ha s in h:s .favor th e presumptionthat official duty h.,$ been regularly Pe-rformed. (Sec. 5 (m), Rule, 131, Rules of Court.) "Likewise, they failed ' to_sufficiently ex.\ plain why an d how the terms and conditions of the Compromise _Agreement have c-ontravened the .Jaw, morals, good .cus-: toms an d public policy." .(pp. 41:42, R o l l o ) ~

    . M e a n w h i J ~ ; A ~ g u s t 1 9 ~ 7 / p l a i n t i f f Espi;itu fifed a manif e s t ~ t i o n an d Motion praying that th e proceecfings be. terminated andt h ~ t the ~ a s e .be considered ' dosed, which motion respondent . udgegranted in hi s Order dated D e c e m b ~ r 241 1987. _The p e r t i ~ e n t porlion of th e said ,Order reads - .. . . _ .

    "In support of his ~ o ~ i o n to t e ~ m i ~ a t ~ the proceedings,plaintiff argued that_ urther trial. in. this ~ a s e 1will be an exerc1sein futility considering that the issues rarsed DY th e lnter.venorshave become moot an d academic in view of the decision of the b d b theCourt based on th e Compromise Agreement su m1tte Y .plaintiff an d the,defendant.s. .. ' ' .

    ll k Th dedsion of' 'This contention appears to be we ta en . . e ff t., th e Court based on th e Compromise .Agreeme.nf ~ ~ e ~ ;: ,., resolved th e issues raised by th e intervenors, .s.e., w f .R ,.10 L. h town of osaredamation contract, enteredmto ~ t w e e n t e "'rs-in . t" th predecessv a nd th e Salinas Development Corpora ron, e . h r not. II d 'd cl whet er ointerest of th e plaintiff, is nu an vor i .an . . This 1 50 ,there ac:tual r e ~ l a m a t i o n done by the said entity. .

    I

    Ifi'!, i

    ,

    B A ~ I C PRINCIPLES 57fo t th e decision of th e Court based on the Compromise Agreement has impliedly recognized the validity of the said reclamation con-. rraet an d th e fa d that the tract of fand divided betweert theplaintiff an d the defendant municipality of .Rosuio pursuant to the compromise Agreement wa s the product of the reclamationefforts undert.aken by the SaUnas Development Compc. ation,which subsequently i g n e d its rights to the pJaintiff."The continuation of th e trial in this case will be useless.;hould tntervenors fail to a d d u e ~ evidence showing that thereclamation c o ~ t r a c t was null and void and that no actual re cJamation was undertaken by the Salinas Development Corporation; th e . o r r ~ c t n e s s and propriety of th e decision of th e Court

    b a s ~ _on the Compromise . Agreement would be strengthened,. Even if they would ~ u c : c e e d in provi-ng that the reclamation contract was null an d void and that the area in q'uestion came intobeing through the natural action of the sea an d not through th e reclamation done by . th e Salinas Development C o r p o r a t ~ o n , stillthe said decision could no longer be se t aside, inasmuch as ithas already become final an d according to the pfaintiff,.already . executed. The .continuation of the reception.of th e evidence fo rthe intervenors clearly appl-ars to serve no"purpgse "at all. xxx ' xxx _ . 'xxx "WHEREFORE, th e Manifestation and Motion. dated August6, .1987, filed by the "plaintiff, is granted, an d th e trial of thiscase is declared terminated and this case' is considered closed., ~ ' T h i s order modifies th e pre-trial order. dated November 15,1984 of this court, insofar as the said order has allowed the in tervenors to .adduce evidence in .support of their contention thatthe land in question was not reclaimed by th e plaintiff or hispredecessor-ininteres' bu t the product of accretion, . an d that the reclamation 'contract between the defendants and th e Salinas . Development Corporation was null an d void.. ."S O ORDERED." (pp. 45-47, Rolto) .

    assailing th e a f o r e m e ~ t i o n e d Decision an d Orders of th e trialcourt, p e ~ i t i o n e r Romeo Ordonez (one of the intervenors, the other~ ~ ~ n i ~ t e r v : e n o r s di d J\Ol join him in this petition) raised th e fol' owrng rssues; to wit:

    . 1, Whether or not the lower court erred ;.., stopping/pre~ e n t i n g th e intervenors from further presenting their evidence

    ' 1" support of their Answer-in-Intervention. 2. Whether or no t th e lower court erred in approving th ecompromise agreement of May 20, 1985 an d rendering a decision

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    23/24

    58 LOCAL' GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1!191baSed theNOn dated May 24 , 1985, il1spit& o f the dear 1authority on the p a r ~ of respondent Calix o D . Enriquez t ck_ ofthe municipality of Rosario because of th e b ~ n c e of an o b b ~ l l t l. h ena hnor dina.nce f!om t . e S a ~ g g u n a a ~ g Bayan of_ Rosa.rio, Cavite 9powerang h1m to enter anto uad compromtse agreement 111We answer both. issues :in n e g a t i v ~ . . . . . . .

    l n t e ~ e n t i o n is defined as a " p r o ~ e e d i n g 'a suit or . action Lwhich a third person is p e r m i t t ~ by th e court to m011ke himself Y t,party, e'ither. joining .plaintiff in claiming .what is sought by th: fcomplaint, or uniting with defendant in resisting the claims of plain.

    tiff, or demanding something a d v e r s e ~ y to both of them; . he .act or 1 . proceeding by which.a thJrd person becomes a party in a suit pending ;between others, th e admission, by leave of court, oF a person not an i

    . . original party to pending legal proceedings, by which such peron ! becomes a party thereto for . the r o ~ e c t i o n of some right or in I.. terest alleged by him to be affe

  • 7/28/2019 LGC Annotated

    24/24

    IlLOCAL GOVERNMENT . CODE OF 1991 lemphuiz.ed I t this juncture th1t the decision b1seoc1 on the comprornJ

    1greement had long been exeeuted. . I t

    60

    - An&nt the other issue niMCI ~ whether no t respondent -1

    ... Yorneeded another 1uthorJty f r ~ he Sangguni-.ng Sayan to stg11 thecompromise agreement, suffJce 1t_ o st1te that the mayor 1'1" National a g e n ~ i e s and f f i c e s including governmentowned or controlled corporations with field units or . branchesin a province, city,. or municipality .shall furnish the local chiefexecutive concerned, fo r hi s information and guidance, monthly

    :. reports including duly certified budgetary allocations and ex..penditures. -ANNOTATIONS

    Supervisor-Y a u t h o ~ i t y of thePresident over loca l governments-The Constitutional provisions (Art. X; 1987 Constitution) on

    supervisory power of the President over LGU ' s including autonomousregions are: . '11Sec. The P r ~ i c f e n t of th e Philippines shall exercise genera( supervision over local governments. Provinces with res-

    . pect' to component cities and municipalitiesl and cities and munidp.alities with respect to component barangays shall ensuret h ~ ~ th e ad s of their compon,nt units are within th e scope oftheir prescribed powers an d functions."

    _ ,,Sec. _16. The President shall exercise genera1 supervislonover autonomous regions to ensure that laws ar e faithfully exe-.cuted.''