JUST COMPENSATION IN LOCAL EXPROPRIATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF PASAY vs. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY* G.R. No. 260038, 7 May 2025
JUST COMPENSATION IN LOCAL EXPROPRIATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF PASAY vs. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY* G.R. No. 260038, 7 May 2025
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals to remand the case back to the trial court, as the determination of just compensation made by the trial court was based on incomplete or inaccurate data. Here, the trial court solely relied on the Pasay City Assessor's 1978 assessment values, without considering other factors such as the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), the acquisition cost, tax declarations, size, shape, and location of the property, as well as the value of similar properties.
N.B. "Totality of circumstances" approach to determining just compensation - every fact relating to the property's condition, surroundings, improvements, and potential capabilities should be taken into consideration by the courts.
SECOND-PLACER RULE ABANDONED
MANGUDADATU vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS* G.R. Nos. 260219 & 260231, 22 April 2025
The Supreme Court abandoned the so-called "Second Placer Rule" - where the second-highest vote-getter is to be proclaimed winner in the event that the first placer is disqualified or found ineligible.
It was ruled that the proper course of action is to declare the position vacant. For local elective positions, this vacancy is then filled by succession in accordance with Sections 44 or 45 of the Local Government Code. This rule of succession applies regardless of the mode used to disqualify the candidate i.e. disqualification under Sections 12 and 68, cancellation of certificate of candidacy under Section 78, or even through a quo warranto petition, all of the Omnibus a
GOCC HIRING PRIVATE LAWYERS THE LAW FIRM OF LAGUESMA MAGSALIN CONSULTA AND GASTARDO, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. No. 185544, 13 January 2015
GOCC HIRING PRIVATE LAWYERS THE LAW FIRM OF LAGUESMA MAGSALIN CONSULTA AND GASTARDO, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. No. 185544, 13 January 2015
The GOCC may hire the services of a private counsel in exceptional cases with the written conformity and acquiescence of the Government Corporate Counsel, AND with the concurrence of the Commission on Audit (COA). Land Bank of the Philippines v. AMS Farming Corporation, 590 Phil. 170, 198- 199 (2008)
When a government entity engages the legal services of private counsel, it must do so with the necessary authorization required by law; otherwise, its officials bind themselves to be personally liable for compensating private counsel's services.
2º Cog.2
CORPUZ, BORJA, JAVIER, TADO, AND REYES, vs. COA* G.R. No. 253777, November 23, 2021 EN BANC
PhilRice hired a private lawyer without getting the needed written consent and acquiescence from the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), as well as COA concurrence.
The fees paid to an unauthorized private lawyers become the personal liability of the specific public officials who hired them without proper written conformity. Thus, Corpuz, Borja, Javier, Tado, and Reyes, all of whom had no involvement in the hiring of Atty. Mendoza, the legal retainer, are absolved of liability from Notice of Disallowance No. 14-001-101-(09).
> DISMISSAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE CASE = DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL CASE?
SPOUSES MIRAFLORES vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE G.R. Nos. 238103 and 238223, 06 January 2020, FIRST DIVISION
Although the criminal cases involve the same acts or omissions complained of in the administrative cases, their absolution in the latter does not bar their prosecution in the former, and vice versa. The quantum of evidence required in one is different from the quantum of evidence required in the other.
The 5
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, vs. TEODORA T. HERMOSURA* G.R. No. 207606, 16 February 2022
In the present case, it is undisputed that the respondent availed of optional retirement after Ortiz's counsel sent her letters, which informed her of the possibility of the institution of legal action against her should she fail to settle her obligation. Verily, a complaint was filed against her four months after her optional retirement.
The respondent's voluntary separation from the government service, in addition to her knowledge that a complaint would most likely be filed against her at anytime, bolsters the Ombudsman's position that the respondent attempted to forestall the filing of an administrative case against her by availing of optional retirement.
STATEMENT OF ASSETS LIABILITIES and NETWORTH
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, vs. LILAH Y. RODAS* G.R. No. 225669, 23 March 2022
In Navarro v. Office of the Ombudsman, this Court declared:
A mere misdeclaration in the SALN does not automatically amount to dishonesty. Only when the accumulated wealth becomes MANIFESTLY DISPROPORTIONATE to the income or other sources of income of the public officer/employee and HE FAILS TO PROPERLY ACCOUNT OR EXPLAIN his other sources of income, does he become susceptible to dishonesty. x x x Where the source of the undisclosed wealth can be properly accounted for, then it is "explained wealth" which the law does not penalize.
CONDONATION DOCTRINE
CARPIO-MORALES vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 217126-27, 10 November 2015
> Achieved FINALITY on 12 April 2016
RADAMES F. HERRERA v. NOEL P. MAGO et al. G.R. No. 231120, 15 January 2020, 1ST DIVISION
This Court simply finds no legal authority to sustain the condonation doctrine in this jurisdiction. xxx Verily, the Court holds that Herrera can no longer avail of the condonation doctrine because although the complaint below was instituted on January 9, 2015, he got reelected only on May 9, 2016, well within the prospective application of Carpio-Morales case.