Title
Anggay vs. Abalos
Case
G.R. No. 78189
Decision Date
Apr 15, 1988
Elected Barangay Captains unlawfully removed in 1987; Supreme Court ruled replacement invalid, reinstated petitioners due to premature removal and lack of legal grounds.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 78189)

Facts:

  1. Election and Assumption of Office:
    Petitioners were duly elected Barangay Captains of Balo-i, Lanao del Norte in the May 1982 Barangay elections. They assumed office and performed their duties continuously until April 1987.

  2. Removal and Replacement:
    In April 1987, respondents OIC Governor Francisco L. Abalos of Lanao del Norte and OIC Mayor Datu Farouk Aliusman Lomondot of Tubod, Lanao del Norte, issued orders for the removal of petitioners and their replacement by other respondents. The replacements were designated as officers-in-charge (OICs) of the respective Barangays on January 27, 1987.

  3. Legal Basis for Removal:
    Respondents claimed that the removal or replacement of petitioners was within the one-year period from February 25, 1986, to February 24, 1987, as provided under Section 2, Article III of the Freedom Constitution. This provision allowed for the continuation of elective and appointive officials until their successors were designated or appointed within the one-year period.

  4. Discrepancy in Oaths of Office:
    While respondents claimed to have taken their oaths on January 28, 1987, their Residence Certificates revealed that the oaths were actually taken beyond the one-year period:

    • Busran Rangaig: April 13, 1987
    • Sarip B. Usman: April 7, 1987
    • Musacala Dipo: March 6, 1987
    • Esmail Mudag: March 9, 1987
    • Halim Maruhom: March 20, 1987
    • Muslimen Macaurao: March 22, 1987
    • Omar Oti: March 19, 1987
  5. Term of Office:
    Under Section 44 of the Local Government Code, the term of office for Barangay Captains is six years, meaning petitioners were entitled to hold office until June 30, 1988. The next Barangay elections were scheduled for May 1988.

  6. Grounds for Removal:
    Section 60 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 (Local Election Code) provides specific grounds for the suspension or removal of elected local officials, such as disloyalty, culpable violation of the Constitution, dishonesty, oppression, misconduct, neglect of duty, commission of offenses involving moral turpitude, abuse of authority, or unauthorized absence for three consecutive months. None of these grounds were cited for the removal of petitioners.

Issue:

  1. Whether the removal of petitioners as Barangay Captains and their replacement by respondents were valid under the Freedom Constitution and applicable laws.
  2. Whether the designation of respondents as OICs was made within the one-year period provided under Section 2, Article III of the Freedom Constitution.
  3. Whether the removal of petitioners complied with the legal grounds for suspension or removal under Section 60 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court granted the petition. The orders issued by respondents OIC Governor and OIC Mayor on January 27, 1987, designating the other respondents as OICs of the Barangay offices held by petitioners, were declared null and void. The Court permanently enjoined respondents from replacing, removing, or taking over the positions of petitioners as Barangay Captains. The decision was immediately executory.

Ratio:

  1. Validity of Removal and Replacement:
    The removal of petitioners and their replacement by respondents were invalid because the designations of respondents as OICs were not made within the one-year period from February 25, 1986, to February 24, 1987, as required under Section 2, Article III of the Freedom Constitution. The Residence Certificates of respondents proved that their oaths were taken beyond the one-year period.

  2. Term of Office:
    Petitioners were entitled to hold office until June 30, 1988, as their six-year term under Section 44 of the Local Government Code had not yet expired. Their removal in April 1987 was premature and without legal basis.

  3. Grounds for Removal:
    The removal of petitioners was not based on any of the grounds specified under Section 60 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337. Since no valid grounds were cited, the removal was unlawful.

  4. Immediate Executory Nature of Decision:
    The Court emphasized that its decision was immediately executory, ensuring that petitioners could resume their duties without delay.


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.