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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 161081)

Relevant Dates and Procedural Posture

Memoranda in question were issued by Governor Villarosa on June 25, 2002, July 1, 2002, and July 3, 2002.
The vice-governor filed a petition for prohibition to enjoin their implementation, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeals on November 28, 2003.
The Supreme Court rendered its decision on May 10, 2005.
Both officials ceased their respective terms on June 30, 2004.

Applicable Legal Framework

The case is governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Republic Act No. 7160, known as the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991. This code decentralizes governance, distinguishing executive and legislative functions at the provincial level, with specific provisions on appointment powers and fund disbursement procedures. Relevant statutory sections include Sections 344, 361, 465, 466, and 468 of the LGC.

Background Facts

Governor Villarosa issued memoranda asserting his exclusive authority to approve purchase orders for supplies and to terminate the contracts of casual/job order employees appointed by Vice-Governor Atienza. Atienza challenged these memoranda on grounds that they infringed on his legislative powers, particularly his authority as the presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and his control over its operations and personnel.

Issues Presented

Who is authorized to approve purchase orders for supplies, materials, and equipment necessary for the operation of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan: the Governor or the Vice-Governor?
Does the Governor have authority to terminate or cancel appointments of casual/job order employees of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and the Office of the Vice-Governor?

Court of Appeals' Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Governor's authority to approve purchase orders by interpreting Section 344 of the LGC to require local chief executives’ approval of disbursement vouchers. It held that the Vice-Governor’s power to sign warrants (Section 466(a)(1)) did not extend to purchase order approval, and it found the petition moot regarding employee termination since the affected employees had already been dismissed.

Supreme Court's Analysis on Purchase Order Approval

The Supreme Court reversed the CA ruling, emphasizing the principle of decentralization decreed by RA 7160 and the independence of the local legislative body. It held that:

The Vice-Governor, as presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, has administrative control over its funds and the authority to approve vouchers drawn for its operations.
Section 344’s general provision requiring approval by the local chief executive does not override the more specific grant of authority to the Vice-Governor regarding the Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s appropriations and disbursements.
By necessary implication, approving disbursement vouchers includes the authority to approve purchase orders facilitating payment for supplies and services.
The Office of the Vice-Governor acts autonomously in managing its operational budget, including procurement functions.

Supreme Court's Analysis on Appointments and Terminations

Regarding the Governor’s authority to terminate appointments of casual/job order employees, the Court ruled:

While the Governor may appoint officials and employees paid from general provincial funds (Section 465), the Vice-Governor holds appointment power over all officials and employees of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Section 466).
This distinction is rooted in the source of funds, i.e., employees paid from Sangguniang Panlalawigan’s appropriations fall under the Vice-Governor’s appointing authority, which includes casual and job order personnel.
The Governor's memorandum terminating such employees without proper basis constituted an undue encroachment on the Vice-Governor’s lawful powers.
The termination memorandum’s absolute prohibition against the Vice-Governor’s appointment authority was invalid, regardless of whether the affected employees had already been dismissed, since the issue is capable of repetition but may evade review.

Constitutional and Statutory Principles Applied

The Court underscored the 1987 Constitution’s mandate for decentralization and local autonomy, confirmed by RA 7160’s separation of executive and legislative functions at the local level. The Vice-Governor’s role as presiding officer and administrative head of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan embodies this legislative independence, with control over funds, procurement, and appointments within its domain. The Governor’s role as chief executive does not extend to these internal legislative administrative functions.

Impact of Previous Laws and Legislative Intent

The Court contrasted the present law with the earlier Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, under which the Governor presided over

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 161081)

Facts of the Case

Ramon M. Atienza served as Vice-Governor, and Jose T. Villarosa as Governor of Occidental Mindoro.
Villarosa issued two memos on June 25, 2002, and July 1, 2002 restricting Atienza’s authority:
- The June 25, 2002 Memorandum stipulated that all purchase orders for supplies, materials, equipment including fuel, repairs, and maintenance for the Sangguniang Panlalawigan must be approved by the Governor.
- The July 1, 2002 Memorandum terminated contracts of casual and job order employees appointed by Atienza, claiming the appointments were unauthorized and excessive.
Atienza challenged these memoranda, relying on the Local Government Code and previous Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and Commission on Audit (COA) opinions asserting his authority over signing purchase orders and appointing employees of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Villarosa maintained his authority as local chief executive to approve disbursements and cancel appointments deemed unauthorized or excessive.
Atienza filed a petition for prohibition to enjoin the implementation of the memoranda.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Atienza’s petition, prompting him to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

Issues Presented for Resolution

Whether the Governor or the Vice-Governor is authorized to approve purchase orders related to supplies, materials, equipment, fuel, repairs, and maintenance of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Whether the Governor has the authority to terminate or cancel appointments of casual/job order employees of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan Members and the Office of the Vice-Governor.

Procedural History

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Governor, upholding the latter’s authority to approve purchase orders based on Section 344 of the Local Government Code and declared the petition moot regarding the cancellation of employee appointments.
Atienza’s subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court argued that the CA erred, particularly in disregarding the Vice-Governor’s authority and in prematurely ruling the termination issue moot.

Applicable Law and Legal Principles

Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code of 1991, establishes the decentralization of powers and separation of functions between local executive and legislative branches.
The Vice-Governor is the presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and holds legislative powers including the authority to sign all warrants drawn on the provincial treasury for expenditures appropriated for the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (Section 466).
Section 344 of the Local Government Code provides that while the local chief executive generally approves disbursement vouchers, vouchers for the Sangguniang Panlalawigan are approved by the office with administrative control over the funds.
The doctrine of necessary implication holds that powers not expressly stated but essential to effectuate statutory purposes are included within the granted powers.
Appointment powers for local officials and employees are distinctly divided: the Governor appoints officials paid from provincial funds not otherwise provided for and the Vice-Governor appoints all officials and employees of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, subject to civil service rules.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling on Purchase Order Approval Authority

The Supreme Court held that the Vice-Governo