Title
Alquizola Sr. vs. Ocol
Case
G.R. No. 132413
Decision Date
Aug 27, 1999
A Punong Barangay cannot unilaterally dismiss appointive barangay officials; Sangguniang Barangay majority approval is required under the Local Government Code.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 132413)

Facts:

  1. Election and Appointment of Barangay Officials:

    • Petitioner Ramon Alquizola, Sr., won the position of Punong Barangay of Barangay Tubod, Iligan City, in the May 12, 1997 barangay elections.
    • Respondents Gallardo Ocol, Camilo Penaco, Saturnino Mendoza, Rafael Ardiente, Vicente Caseres, Ricardo Zosa III, and Sirad Umpa were appointees of the former Punong Barangay. Ocol and Penaco served as barangay treasurer and secretary, respectively, while the others were barangay utility workers.
  2. Termination and Replacement of Respondents:

    • After the elections, petitioner Alquizola terminated the services of the respondents.
    • He appointed his co-petitioners, Marissa Doromal and Adelo Seco, as barangay treasurer and secretary, respectively.
    • These appointments were submitted to the Sangguniang Barangay for approval, as required under Sections 394 and 395 of the Local Government Code. However, the Sangguniang Barangay rejected the appointments.
  3. Legal Action by Respondents:

    • Respondents filed a complaint for quo warranto, mandamus, and prohibition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao Del Norte to enjoin petitioner from terminating their services.
    • The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering petitioner to cease and desist from dismissing them. The court held that the dismissal required the approval of the majority of the Sangguniang Barangay under Section 389(b)(5) of the Local Government Code.
  4. Motion for Reconsideration:

    • Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC.

Issue:

The primary issue is whether the Punong Barangay has the authority to unilaterally dismiss appointive barangay officials (such as the barangay secretary and treasurer) without the approval of the majority of the Sangguniang Barangay, as required under Section 389(b)(5) of the Local Government Code.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the RTC. The Court held that the power to remove appointive barangay officials is not absolute and must be exercised with the concurrence of the majority of the Sangguniang Barangay, as mandated by Section 389(b)(5) of the Local Government Code.

Ratio:

  1. Interpretation of "Replace" in Section 389(b)(5):

    • The term "replace" in Section 389(b)(5) encompasses both the appointment of a replacement and the prior removal of the incumbent official.
    • To replace an official, the prior holder must first be removed or the position must be vacated.
  2. Power to Remove as Incident to Power to Appoint:

    • The power to remove is an incident to the power to appoint. Since the Local Government Code does not fix the tenure of appointive barangay officials, the power to remove is implied in the power to appoint.
  3. Concurrence of the Sangguniang Barangay:

    • The power to appoint or replace barangay officials, including the barangay secretary and treasurer, must be exercised jointly by the Punong Barangay and the majority of the Sangguniang Barangay.
    • Without the concurrence of the Sangguniang Barangay, neither an appointment nor a replacement is valid.
  4. Avoidance of Absurdity:

    • Allowing the Punong Barangay to unilaterally dismiss officials without Sangguniang Barangay approval could lead to absurd situations, such as the Sangguniang Barangay refusing to approve replacements for officials dismissed without their consent.
    • The Court found no cogent reason to depart from the established rule that the power to appoint includes the power to remove, subject to the concurrence of the Sangguniang Barangay.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the RTC's decision, ruling that the dismissal of appointive barangay officials by the Punong Barangay without the approval of the majority of the Sangguniang Barangay is invalid under Section 389(b)(5) of the Local Government Code.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.