LA CARLOTA CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, represented by its Mayor, HON. JEFFREY P.

FERRER,and the
SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD OF LA CARLOTA CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, represented by its Vice-Mayor,
HON. DEMIE JOHN C. HONRADO,Petitioner, vs. ATTY. REX G. ROJO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 181367 | April 24, 2012 | J. Carpio
FACTS: Atty. Rojo (R), who was then a member-councilor of the SangguniangPanlungsod (SP) of the petitioner La
Carlota City, Negros Occidental, tendered his resignation as councilor before the SP during the SPs regular session. A
day after, he (R-Rojo) was permanently appointed as the SP Secretary by then Vice-Mayor Jalandoon. VM Jalandoon
forwarded Rojos appointment papers to the CSC-Field Office (CSCFO),which, however, recalled the appointment of Rojo
because his appointment papers were infirm. The infirmity was due to the fact that the appointment documents were NOT
signed by the chairman of the Citys Personnel Selection Board and the Human Resource Management Officer.
VM Jalandoon appealed the CSCs decision to the CSC Regional Office No. 6. At this point, the Petitioner-City
(represented by the newly elected Mayor Ferrer) and the SP (represented by the newly-elected VM Honrado) intervened.
CSC Regional Office REVERSED the CSCFO. This decision was also appealed to the CSC, which affirmed the CSC Reg.
office. Pet. appealed to the CA.
CA: Affirmed the CSC.
Hence, this petition for review before the SC.
ISSUE 1: WON VM is the proper party to appeal the CSCFOs decision
P:AttyRojo is the proper party in interest, as he is the one who stood to be injured by the CSCFO decision. Since Rojo
was NOT the one who appealed the CSCFOs decision but VM Jalandoon, Rojo is deemed to have waived his right to
appeal, and the decision as regards the recall of his appointment is deemed to have become F&E.
R:VM Jalandoon is the proper party to APPEAL the CSCFO decision, considering that the recall of Rojos appointment
affected/was adverse to the VMs appointing powers (cf. LGC 445 (a)(2) re VMs power to appoint all officials and ees of
the SP)
HELDby the CSC, which was not contested by the Ps before the CA/SC: YES, VM can appeal. Recall by the CSCFO
affected VMs discretionary power of appointment. Hence, VM can appeal as an adversely affected party. (Baka
langitanongni DG)
ISSUE 2: WON Rojos resignation was validly effected (If yes, then Rojo can be validly appointed as SP Sec,
provided that he be qualified for the position)
P:AttyRojo, being an ELECTIVE LOCAL OFFICIAL (he was councilor) is NOT ELIGIBLE for APPOINTMENT to any public
office or position DURING HIS TENURE (cf. 1987 Consti, Art. IX-B, Sec.7); Since AttyRojos RESIGNATION was
INVALID, he was therefore NOT qualified for appointment.Atty. Rojos resignation was NOT VALID considering that it
failed to comply with the requirements of LGC 82. There was no approval by the SP, nor was there valid tender before
OPEN SESSION, since the SP, at the time the resignation was tendered, DID NOT CONSTITUTE A QUORUM. There
was no quorum according to Ps because there were only 6 of 12 SP members present at that time. Ps computation of
quorum EXCLUDES the Vice Mayor, because they believe that the VM is NOT a part of the SP.
R:VM is part of the quorum. Hence, the total number of SP members was 13, and the total number of members present
was 7 at the time of the tender of resignation. There being a quorum, the SP could validly transact its business, and
therefore, upon presentation of Rojos resignation before the SP on open session, such resignation was validly effected;
hence, Rojo was already qualified for appointment as SP Secretary at the time of his appointment by VM Jalandoon, and
there can be no violation of the aforecitedConsti provision.
HELD: YES, there was a QUORUM and a valid resignation. LGC 457 provides the composition of the SP. LGC 49
provides that the Vice Mayor, who is the presiding officer of the SP, only votes to break a tie. LGC then clearly states that
the Sangguniang Panlungsod shall be composed of the city vice-mayor as presiding officer, the
regular sanggunian members, the president of the city chapter of the liga ng mga barangay, the president of
the panlungsod na pederasyon ng mgasangguniang kabataan, and the sectoral representatives, as members. Blacks Law
Dictionary defines composed of as formed of or consisting of. As the presiding officer, the vice-mayor can vote only to
break a tie. In effect, the presiding officer votes when it matters the most, that is, to break a deadlock in the votes. Clearly,
the vice-mayor, as presiding officer, is a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod considering that he is mandated under
LGC 49 to vote to break a tie. To construe otherwise would create an anomalous and absurd situation where the presiding
officer who votes to break a tie during a Sanggunian session is not considered a member of the Sanggunian.
Additionally, SC looked at the Senate Deliberations while the LGC was still a Senate Bill pending before it. According to
the delibs, Senator Pimentel (who was the father of this LGC) agreed with Sen. Gonzales who recognized that the LGC
provided for a NEW PROVISION, i.e. prior to the LGC, local chief executives (LCEs) were also the presiding officers of

the Sanggunian, but under the LGC, the VMs are now the presiding officers. That is, LCEs are no longer members of
their respective sanggunian. Logically then, the vice-mayors replaced the LCEs as MEMBERS of the sanggunian.
Jurisprudentially, the issue of VM as a member of the SP has already been settled by the SC in Zamora v Governor
Caballero (itoyung case natinna nag-LOA simun councilor Sotto kasi nag-abroad siya). In stating that there were fourteen
(14) members of the Sanggunian, the Court in Zamoraclearly included the Vice-Governor, as presiding officer, as part of
the entire membership of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan which must be taken into account in computing the quorum.
SC also enumerated various DILG Memos stating its opinion that the VM is a member of the SP, based on the
COMPOSITION of the SP as provided in LGC 467 (a)
Petitioners rely on the Perez case (which is also cited by the Dissent). In Perez, the SC stated that the mere fact that the
VM was the presiding officer does not mean that he is a member of the SP. However, this case was decided prior to the
effectivity of the LGC. Also, that case was decided based on the charter of Naga City (RA 305) and the amendement
thereto (RA 2259). Under RA 2259, the vice-mayor was the presiding officer of the City Council or Municipal Board in
chartered cities. However, RA 305 and 2259 were silent on whether as presiding officer the vice-mayor could vote.
Thus, the applicable laws in Perez are no longer the applicable laws in the present case.
Was there a quorum in this case? YES. In the same manner, a quorum of the Sangguniang Panlungsod should be
computed based on the total composition of the Sangguniang Panlungsod. In this case, the SangguniangPanlungsod of
La Carlota City, Negros Occidental is composed of the presiding officer, ten (10) regular members, and two (2) ex-officio
members, or a total of thirteen (13) members. A majority of the 13 members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, or at least
seven (7) members, is needed to constitute a quorum to transact official business. Since seven (7) members (including
the presiding officer) were present on the 17 March 2004 regular session of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, clearly there
was a quorum such that the irrevocable resignation of respondent was validly accepted. Hence, the quorum requirements
under LGC 53, which states that a majority of all the members of the sanggunian who have been elected and qualified
shall constitute a quorum to transact official business, have been complied with.
ISSUE 3: WON Rojos appointment complied with the LGC requirements
HELD: YES. There was sufficient compliance.Although his appointment papers were not signed by the chairman of the
Personnel Selection Board (PSB) and the Human Resource Management Office, the records show that Rojos
appointment was published; his qualifications were deliberated upon by the PSB, which was attended by VM Jalandoon.
Also, VM Jalandoon himself, the APPOINTING AUTHORITY, issued a Certification stating that Rojos appointment was
made in accordance with the limitation set by LGC 325 (re limitations on using city funds) and other CSC rules and
regulations.
Clearly, the appointment of respondent on 18 March 2004 was validly issued considering that: (1) he was considered
resigned as Sangguniang Panlungsod member effective 17 March 2004; (2) he was fully qualified for the position
of Sanggunian Secretary; and (3) there was substantial compliance with the appointment requirements.
ISSUE 4: WON Rojos appointment was made during the election ban
P:Rojos appointment was made during the election ban, in effect between March 26 to May 9, 2004.
R: Rojos appointment was NOT made during the election ban, as it was made BEFORE the effectivity of the ban (on
March 18, 2004)
HELD: NO; the election ban is not applicable.CAs factual findings reveal that the appointment was made on March 18,
2004, BEFORE the effectivity of the election ban between March 26 to May 9, 2004.
J. Brion (Concurring with Qualifications): I wish to emphasize that the Vice-Mayor as presiding officer is considered a
member of the sanggunian for purposes of quorum determination only. In particular, the majoritys ruling should by no
means be interpreted as including the Vice-Mayor (as presiding officer) as sanggunian member, where the Local
Government Code (LGC) itself prescribes a specific voting requirement that makes quorum determination irrelevant.... To
illustrate, in disciplining members of the sanggunian where the penalty involved is suspension or expulsion, the LGC
requires the concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of all the members of the sanggunian. If the Sanggunian has thirteen (13)
regular members (excluding the presiding officer), the votes needed to impose either of the penalty is eight. However,
should the presiding officer be also included, therefore raising the membership to fourteen (14), on the premise that he
is also sanggunian member even if he cannot vote in this instance, an additional one vote is required i.e., nine votes
are required before the penalty is imposed. The presiding officers innocuous inclusion as sanggunian member
negatively impacts on the prohibition against him from voting since his mere inclusion affects the numerical value of the
required voting level on a matter where generally and by law he has no concern.

J. Del Castillo (Dissenting): Section 457 of the LGC does not include the presiding officer as member of the sanggunian
for purposes of quorum. The vice-mayor is not a member, even if he is a part of the composition of the Sanggunian.
Section 457 itself does not treat everyone in the composition of the sanggunian as members. Instead, Section 457 divides
the composition of the sanggunian into two: (a) the vice-mayor, as presiding officer, and (b) the rest, as members. This
division is not an imaginary distinction, but is dictated by the very language of Section 457. There are two qualifying
phrases in this provision "as presiding officer" and "as members." Qualifying phrases refer only to the words to which
they are immediately associated. The phrase "as presiding officer" refers only to the vice- mayor, while the phrase "as
members" refers only to the component parts that are mentioned after the phrase "as presiding officer." Since the phrase
"as members" cannot in any manner refer to the vice-mayor, Section 457 itself does not support the argument that the
vice-mayor is a member that is included in the quorum requirement "of all the members of the sanggunian."
The inclusion of the presiding officer in the composition of the sangguniang panlungsod is only logical considering that the
presiding officer is the administrative head of the said body (see LGC 456). But his inclusion as such does not
automatically make him a member thereof. If it was the lawmakers intent to make him a member of the body, the
provision could have easily been made to reflect such an intention.
Contrary to the inference drawn by the ponencia, the fact that a presiding officer can only vote on very limited and
exceptional occasions (in case of a tie, per LGC 49) would tend to show that he is not considered a member of the
sanggunian. A presiding officers right to vote is highly contingent, very much unlike the actual members whose right to
vote is absolute (i.e., they can always vote)....Simply put, the presiding officer is not a member by the mere fact that he is
the presiding officer of the body and that he has a tie-breaking vote. He only becomes a member when the law says he is
so (when he breaks a tie per LGC 49)
In Perez, the charter of Naga City simply provided that "the vice-mayor shall be the presiding officer of the City Council or
Municipal Board." On that basis the Court said that the vice-mayor is not a member of the municipal board. The vicemayor of Naga possesses in the municipal board of Naga no more than the prerogatives and authority of a "presiding
officer" as such, and no more. (J. Del Castillo cites numerous American cases re. Same issue) These jurisprudence show
that a presiding officer is not necessarily a member of the body over which he presides. His authority to break a tie does
not in itself make him a member.
Zamora case ALSO not controlling. In that case, both parties admit that the VM was part of the SP. There was therefore
no settlement of this issue by the SC in that case.
Re. DILG Opinions they are not controlling, only with persuasive effect. In any event, SC is still the final interpreter of the
law.
Also, SEPARATION OF POWERS. This potential fusion of powers (executive and legislative) is inimical to the checks and
balances created by the separation of powers between the local chief executives and the legislative bodies.
J. Brion (Refuting the Dissent of J. Del Castillo): Dissent erroneously relies on the case of Perez. It was decided by the
court PRIOR to the effectivity of the LGC. First, RA No. 2259, the applicable law at that time, did not provide for a similar
provision under the LGC on the composition of the sanggunian, aside from stating that the Vice-Mayor shall be the
presiding officer of the city council or municipal board of chartered cities. In fact, under RA No. 2259, the powers of the
Vice-Mayor clearly show that aside from being the presiding officer of the city council he was merely a "spare tire" who
could assume the powers of the Mayor only in case of the latters inability.
Second, Perez resolved the question of whether the presiding officer could vote in the selection of local appointive
officials. In order to resolve this issue, the Court had to determine whether the presiding officer was also a member of the
municipal board/city council. As previously discussed, the present case does not involve the active role of the sanggunian
as a body, exercising discretion whether to favorably vote or not; only the sanggunians passive role in accepting the
resignation of a sanggunian member is involved. Recall in this regard that under Section 82 of the LGC, the authority to
accept a resignation resides in the "sanggunian concerned," and that under Article 457, the Vice-Mayor is part of the
composition of the sanggunian. These distinctions can only lead to the conclusion that the Dissent cannot draw strength
from Perez in determining whether there was quorum for the purpose of acting on petitioner Rojos resignation.