G.R. No. 161081 - Atienza vs. Villarosa

On June 25, 2002, Villarosa issued a memorandum asserting his exclusive authority to approve all Purchase Orders related to the procurement of supplies, materials, equipment, fuel, repairs, and maintenance of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, citing DILG Opinion No. 148-1993 as basis.
The memorandum directed that all such Purchase Orders be approved by him as the local chief executive, effective immediately.

Atienza replied that, based on DILG Opinion No. 96-1995 and COA opinions, authority to sign such Purchase Orders rested with the Vice-Governor, reflecting the separation of powers under RA 7160 (Local Government Code).
He maintained that routing purchase orders to the Governor for approval was unnecessary, and that such authority included legislative functions related to the Sanggunian.

On July 1, 2002, Villarosa issued a memorandum terminating the contracts of all casual/job order employees appointed by Vice-Governor Atienza, declaring the appointments unauthorized.
The memorandum cited excessive bureaucracy and improper appointments, allowing only a limited number of casual/job order employees to remain and directing submission of recommendees’ names for Governor’s approval.
On July 3, 2002, another memorandum enforced earlier memoranda regarding purchase orders, authority to sign, and cancellation of appointments, directing strict compliance.

Atienza invoked the principle of separation of powers and requested further study from Villarosa but was disregarded.
Atienza filed a Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals seeking to enjoin the Governor from implementing the memoranda.
The petition claimed violation of RA 7160 provisions, arguing exclusion from office privileges and powers.

The CA dismissed Atienza’s petition, ruling the Governor had the authority to approve Purchase Orders under Section 344 of RA 7160.
It differentiated the Governor’s power to approve disbursement vouchers from the Vice-Governor’s authority to sign warrants under Section 466(a)(1).
The CA held the issue on the termination of employees moot as the termination had already been executed.

The authority to approve Purchase Orders belonging to the Governor, not the Vice-Governor.
The mootness ruling regarding employee termination, arguing recurrent appointments necessitate resolution.

Villarosa defended his memoranda as valid and insisted on his exclusive authority in the matters.

Both Atienza and Villarosa ceased to hold office on June 30, 2004, making the case technically moot.
The Court nevertheless decided to resolve the substantive issues to establish guiding principles.

Who, between the Governor and the Vice-Governor, is properly authorized under the Local Government Code (RA 7160) to approve purchase orders related to procurement of supplies, materials, equipment, including fuel, repairs, and maintenance of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan?

Does the Governor, as local chief executive, have the authority to terminate or cancel appointments of casual and job order employees of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan members and the Office of the Vice-Governor?