QUOROM

LA CARLOTA CITY v. ATTY. REX ROJO [G.R. No. 181367, April

24, 2012]

CARPIO, J.:

This petition for review assails the 14 September 2007 Decision [1] and the 18 January 2008 Resolution [2] of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01377. The Court of Appeals affirmed Resolution Nos. 0506543 and 051646 [4] of the
Civil Service Commission, which affirmed the Decision dated 20 September 2004 of the Civil Service Commission
Regional Office (CSCRO) No. VI, Iloilo City, approving the appointment of respondent Atty. Rex G. Rojo
(respondent) as Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretary under a permanent status. cralaw

The Facts

The facts as found by the Court of Appeals are as follows:

On March 18, 2004, [the] then Vice-Mayor Rex R. Jalandoon of La Carlota City, Negros Occidental appointed Atty.
Rex G. Rojo (or Rojo) who had just tendered his resignation as member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod the day
preceding such appointment, as Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretary. The status of the appointment was permanent.
The next day, March 19, 2004, the Vice-Mayor submitted Rojo’s appointment papers to the Civil Service Commission
Negros Occidental Field Office (CSCFO-Negros Occidental) for attestation. In a Letter dated March 24, 2004, the said
CSCFO wrote Jalandoon to inform him of the infirmities the office found on the appointment documents, i.e. the
Chairman of the Personnel Selection Board and the Human Resource Management Officer did not sign the
certifications, the latter relative to the completeness of the documents as well as to the publication requirement. In
view of the failure of the appointing authority to comply with the directive, the said CSCFO considered the
appointment of Rojo permanently recalled or withdrawn, in a subsequent Letter to Jalandoon dated April 14, 2004.

Jalandoon deemed the recall a disapproval of the appointment, hence, he brought the matter to the CSC Regional
Office No. 6 in Iloilo City, by way of an appeal. He averred that the Human Resource Management Officer of La
Carlota City refused to affix his signature on Rojo’s appointment documents but nonetheless transmitted them to the
CSCFO. Such transmittal, according to Jalandoon, should be construed that the appointment was complete and
regular and that it complied with the pertinent requirements of a valid appointment. Before the said CSC Regional
Office No. 6 [could resolve the appeal], the City of La Carlota represented by the newly elected mayor, Hon. Jeffrey P.
Ferrer and the Sangguniang Panlungsod represented by the newly elected Vice-Mayor, Hon. Demie John C.
Honrado, collectively, the petitioners herein, intervened. They argued that Jalandoon is not the real party in interest
in the appeal but Rojo who, by his inaction, should be considered to have waived his right to appeal from the
disapproval of his appointment; that the appointment was made within the period of the election ban prior to the
May 14, 2004 national and local elections, and finally, that the resignation of Rojo as member of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod is ineffective having not complied with the provision on quorum under Section 82(d) of R.A. No. 7160.

In a Decision dated September 20, 2004, the CSC Regional Office No. 6 reversed and set aside the CSCFO’s earlier
ruling. On the argument of the intervenors that the former Vice-Mayor lacked legal personality to elevate the case on
appeal, the regional office cited settled jurisprudence that the disapproval of an appointment affects the discretionary
authority of the appointing authority. Hence, he alone may request for reconsideration of or appeal the disapproval
of an appointment. The regional office likewise ruled that Rojo’s appointment on March 18, 2004 was made outside
the period of the election ban from March 26 to May 9, 2004, and that his resignation from the Sangguniang
Panlungsod was valid having been tendered with the majority of the council members in attendance (seven (7) out of
the thirteen councilors were present). Considering that the appointment of Rojo sufficiently complied with the
publication requirement, deliberation by the Personnel Selection Board, certification that it was issued in accordance
with the limitations provided for under Section 325 of R.A. 7160 and that appropriations or funds are available for
said position, the regional office approved the same. x x x

Mayor Ferrer and Vice-Mayor Honrado appealed the foregoing Decision of the CSC Regional Office No. 6 to the Civil
Service Commission (or Commission). On May 17, 2005, the Commission dismissed said appeal on the ground that
the appellants were not the appointing authority and were therefore improper parties to the appeal. Despite its ruling
of dismissal, the Commission went on to reiterate CSC Regional Office’s discussion on the appointing authority’s
compliance with the certification and deliberation requirements, as well as the validity of appointee’s tender of
resignation. x x x

It likewise denied the motion for reconsideration thereafter filed by the petitioners in a Resolution dated November
8, 2005.[5]

Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. On 14 September 2007, the Court of Appeals denied
the petition, and affirmed Resolution Nos. 050654 and 051646 of the Civil Service Commission, dated 17 May 2005
and 8 November 2005, respectively. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals
denied in its Resolution dated 18 January 2008.

Hence, this petition for review.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Citing Section 9(h), Article V of Presidential Decree No. 807 [6] or the Civil Service Decree, the Court of Appeals held
that “in the attestation of an appointment made by a head of agency, the duty of the Civil Service Commission does
not go beyond ascertaining whether the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility and the minimum
statutory qualifications.”[7] In this case, the Court of Appeals found that respondent met the minimum qualifications
for the position of Secretary of the Sanggunian, as enumerated under Section 469(b), Article I, Title V of the Local
Government Code.[8] In fact, the Court of Appeals held that respondent is more than qualified for the position
considering that respondent is a lawyer and an active member of the bar. Furthermore, the requirements for the
appointment of respondent have been substantially complied with: (a) publication; (b) Personnel Selection Board
deliberation; and (c) certification from the appropriate offices that appropriations or funds are available for the
position. Thus, the Court of Appeals ruled that there was no sufficient reason for the Commission to disapprove
respondent’s appointment.

On the issue of the lack of signature of the Human Resource Management Officer of La Carlota City on respondent’s
appointment papers, the Court of Appeals held that such refusal of the officer to affix his signature should not affect
the validity of the appointment. Otherwise, “it would be tantamount to putting the appointing power under the
mercy of a department head who may without reason refuse to perform a ministerial function, as what happened in
the instant case.”[9]

The Court of Appeals also found that the appointment of respondent on 18 March 2004 did not violate the election
ban period which was from 26 March to 9 May 2004. Furthermore, there was no substantial evidence to show that the
appointment was a “midnight appointment.”

Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded that since respondent possessed the minimum qualifications for the position
of Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretary, and the appointing authority has adequately complied with the other
requirements for a valid appointment, then the Civil Service Commission’s approval of the appointment was only
proper.

The Issues

Petitioners raise the following issues:

1. WHETHER THE APPOINTMENT OF RESPONDENT AS SANGGUNIANG

PANLUNGSOD SECRETARY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROSCRIPTION AGAINST
ELIGIBILITY OF AN ELECTIVE OFFICIAL FOR APPOINTMENT DURING HIS TENURE; and

2. WHETHER RESPONDENT’S APPOINTMENT AS SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD SECRETARY

WAS ISSUED CONTRARY TO EXISTING CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS. [10]

The Ruling of the Court

Petitioners allege that respondent’s appointment as Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretary is void. Petitioners maintain
that respondent’s irrevocable resignation as a Sangguniang Panlungsod member was not deemed accepted when it
was presented on 17 March 2004 during the scheduled regular session of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of La Carlota
City, Negros Occidental for lack of quorum. Consequently, respondent was still an incumbent regular  Sangguniang
Panlungsod member when then Vice Mayor Jalandoon appointed him as  Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretary on 18
March 2004, which contravenes Section 7, Article IX-B of the Constitution.11

The resolution of this case requires the application and interpretation of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 7160
(RA 7160), otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991. The pertinent provisions read:

Section 82. Resignation of Elective Local Officials. (a) Resignations by elective local officials shall be deemed effective
only upon acceptance by the following authorities:

(1) The President, in the case of governors, vice-governors, and mayors and vice-mayors of highly urbanized cities
and independent component cities;
(2) The governor, in the case of municipal mayors, municipal vice-mayors, city mayors and city vice-mayors of
component cities;
(3) The sanggunian concerned, in case of sanggunian members; and
(4) The city or municipal mayor, in the case of barangay officials.

(b) Copies of the resignation letters of elective local officials, together with the action taken by the aforesaid
authorities, shall be furnished the Department of Interior and Local Government.
(c) The resignation shall be deemed accepted if not acted upon by the authority concerned within fifteen (15) working
days from receipt thereof.
(d) Irrevocable resignations by sanggunian members shall be deemed accepted upon presentation before an open
session of the sanggunian concerned and duly entered in its records: Provided, however, That this subsection does
not apply to sanggunian members who are subject to recall elections or to cases where existing laws prescribe the
manner of acting upon such resignations.

Section 49. Presiding Officer. (a) The vice-governor shall be the presiding officer of the sangguniang
panlalawigan; the city vice-mayor, of the sangguniang panlungsod; the municipal vice-mayor, of the sangguniang
bayan; and the punong barangay, of the sangguniang barangay. The presiding officer shall vote only to break a tie.

(b) In the event of the inability of the regular presiding officer to preside at a sanggunian session, the members
present and consisting a quorum shall elect from among themselves a temporary presiding officer. He shall certify
within ten (10) days from the passage of ordinances enacted and resolutions adopted by the sanggunian in the
session over which he temporarily presided.

Section 52. Sessions. (a) On the first day of the session immediately following the election of its members, the
sanggunian shall, by resolution, fix the day, time, and place of its regular sessions. The minimum number of regular
sessions shall be once a week for the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, and sangguniang bayan,
and twice a month for the sangguniang barangay.

(b) When public interest so demands, special session may be called by the local chief executive or by a majority of the
members of the sanggunian.
(c) All sanggunian sessions shall be open to the public unless a closed-door session is ordered by an affirmative vote
of a majority of the members present, there being a quorum, in the public interest or for reasons of security, decency,
or morality. No two (2) sessions, regular or special, may be held in a single day.
(d) In the case of special sessions of the sanggunian, a written notice to the members shall be served personally at the
member’s usual place of residence at least twenty-four (24) hours before the special session is held. Unless otherwise
concurred in by two-thirds (2/3) vote of the sanggunian members present, there being a quorum, no other matters
may be considered at a special session except those stated in the notice.
(e) Each sanggunian shall keep a journal and record of its proceedings which may be published upon resolution of
the sanggunian concerned.

Section 53.  Quorum. (a) A majority of all the members of the sanggunian who have been elected and qualified
shall constitute a quorum to transact official business. Should a question of quorum be raised during a session, the
presiding officer shall immediately proceed to call the roll of the members and thereafter announce the results.
(b) Where there is no quorum, the presiding officer may declare a recess until such time as a quorum is constituted,
or a majority of the members present may adjourn from day to day and may compel the immediate attendance of any
member absent without justifiable cause by designating a member of the sanggunian, to be assisted by a member or
members of the police force assigned in the territorial jurisdiction of the local government unit concerned, to arrest
the absent member and present him at the session.
(c) If there is still no quorum despite the enforcement of the immediately preceding subsection, no business shall be
transacted. The presiding officer, upon proper motion duly approved by the members present, shall then declare the
session adjourned for lack of quorum.

Section 457. Composition. (a) The sangguniang panlungsod, the legislative body of the city, 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 mga sangguniang kabataan, and the
sectoral representatives, as members.

(b) In addition thereto, there shall be three (3) sectoral representatives: one (1) from the women; and as shall be
determined by the sanggunian concerned within ninety (90) days prior to the holding of the local elections, one (1)
from the agricultural or industrial workers; and one (1) from the other sectors, including the urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, or disabled persons.
(c) The regular members of the sangguniang panlungsod and the sectoral representatives shall be elected in the
manner as may be provided for by law. (Boldfacing supplied)

Petitioners insist that the vice-mayor, as presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, should not be counted in
determining whether a quorum exists. Excluding the vice-mayor, there were only six (6) out of the twelve (12)
members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod who were present on 17 March 2004. Since the required majority of seven (7)
was not reached to constitute a quorum, then no business could have validly been transacted on that day including
the acceptance of respondent’s irrevocable resignation.

On the other hand, respondent maintains that in this case, the Sangguniang Panlungsod consists of the presiding
officer, ten (10) regular members, and two (2) ex-officio members, or a total of thirteen (13) members. Citing the
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Opinion No. 28, s. 2000,12 dated 17 April 2000, respondent
asserts that the vice-mayor, as presiding officer, should be included in determining the existence of a quorum. Thus,
since there were six (6) members plus the presiding officer, or a total of seven (7) who 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.

The 1987 Constitution mandates Congress to enact a local government code which provides, among others, the
powers, functions and duties of local officials and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the
local government units. Section 3, Article X of the 1987 Constitution states:

Section 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and
accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanism of
recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities,
and resources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and
functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local
units. (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, the Local Government Code “shall x x x provide for the x x x powers and functions and duties of local officials,
and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units.” In short, whether a vice-mayor
has the power, function or duty of a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod is determined by the Local
Government Code.

On 10 October 1991, the Congress approved RA 7160 or the Local Government Code. Under RA 7160, the city vice-
mayor, as presiding officer, is a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, thus:

Section 49. Presiding Officer.  (a) The vice-governor shall be the presiding officer of the sangguniang
panlalawigan; the city vice-mayor, of the sangguniang panlungsod; the municipal vice-mayor, of the sangguniang
bayan; and the punong barangay, of the sangguniang barangay. The presiding officer shall vote only to break a tie.
(b) In the event of the inability of the regular presiding officer to preside at a sanggunian session, the members
present and consisting a quorum shall elect from among themselves a temporary presiding officer. He shall certify
within ten (10) days from the passage of ordinances enacted and resolutions adopted by the sanggunian in the
session over which he temporarily presided.

Section 457. Composition. (a) The sangguniang panlungsod, the legislative body of the city, 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 mga sangguniang kabataan, and the
sectoral representatives, as members.

(b) In addition thereto, there shall be three (3) sectoral representatives: one (1) from the women; and as shall be
determined by the sanggunian concerned within ninety (90) days prior to the holding of the local elections, one (1)
from the agricultural or industrial workers; and one (1) from the other sectors, including the urban poor, indigenous
cultural communities, or disabled persons.

(c) The regular members of the sangguniang panlungsod and the sectoral representatives shall be elected in the
manner as may be provided for by law. (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)

RA 7160 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 mga sangguniang kabataan, and the sectoral representatives, as members.”
Black’s 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 Section 49 of RA 7160 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.

The Senate deliberations on Senate Bill No. 155 (Local Government Code) show the intent of the Legislature to treat
the vice-mayor not only as the presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlungsod but also as a member of
the Sangguniang Panlungsod. The pertinent portions of the deliberations read:

Senator Pimentel. Before Senator Rasul and Senator Lina take the floor, Mr. President, may I reiterate this observation,
that changes in the presiding officership of the local sanggunians are embodied for the municipality where the vice-
mayor will now be the presiding officer of the sanggunian and the province where the vice-governor will now be the
presiding officer. We did not make any change in the city because the city vice-mayor is already the presiding officer.

The President. All right.

Senator Rasul, Senator Lina, and Senator Gonzales.

Senator Gonzales. May I just add something to that statement of Senator Pimentel?

The President. All right.

Senator Gonzales. Reading this bill, there is also a fundamental change in the sense that the provincial governor,
the city mayor, the municipal mayor, as well as, the punong barangay are no longer members of their respective
sanggunian; they are no longer members. Unlike before, when they were members of their respective sanggunian,
now they are not only the presiding officers also, they are not members of their respective sanggunian.

Senator Pimentel. May I thank Senator Gonzales for that observation. (Boldfacing supplied)

During the deliberations, Senator Pimentel, the principal author of the the Local Government Code of 1991, clearly
agrees with Senator Gonzales that the provincial governor, the city mayor, and the municipal mayor who were
previously the presiding officers of their respective sanggunian  are no longer the presiding officers under the
proposed Local Government Code, and thus, they ceased to be members of their respective sanggunian.[13] In the same
manner that under the Local Government Code of 1991, the vice-governor, the city vice-mayor, and the municipal
vice-mayor, as presiding officers of the  Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod, Sangguniang Bayan,
respectively, are members of their respective sanggunian.

In the 2004 case of Zamora v. Governor Caballero,[14] the Court interpreted Section 53 of RA 7160 to mean that the entire
membership must be taken into account in computing the quorum of the sangguniang panlalawigan. The Court held:

“Quorum” is defined as that number of members of a body which, when legally assembled in their proper places,
will enable the body to transact its proper business or that number which makes a lawful body and gives it power to
pass upon a law or ordinance or do any valid act. “Majority,” when required to constitute a quorum, means the
number greater than half or more than half of any total. In fine, the entire membership must be taken into account in
computing the quorum of the sangguniang panlalawigan, for while the constitution merely states that “majority of each
House shall constitute a quorum,” Section 53 of the LGC is more exacting as it requires that the “majority of all
members of the sanggunian . . . elected and qualified” shall constitute a quorum.

The trial court should thus have based its determination of the existence of a quorum on the total number of
members of the Sanggunian without regard to the filing of a leave of absence by Board Member Sotto. The fear that a
majority may, for reasons of political affiliation, file leaves of absence in order to cripple the functioning of
the sanggunian is already addressed by the grant of coercive power to a mere majority of sanggunian members present
when there is no quorum.

A sanggunian is a collegial body. Legislation, which is the principal function and duty of the sanggunian, requires the
participation of all its members so that they may not only represent the interests of their respective constituents but
also help in the making of decisions by voting upon every question put upon the body. The acts of only a part of the
Sanggunian done outside the parameters of the legal provisions aforementioned are legally infirm, highly
questionable and are, more importantly, null and void. And all such acts cannot be given binding force and effect for
they are considered unofficial acts done during an unauthorized session. [15]

In stating that there were fourteen (14) members of the Sanggunian,[16] the Court in Zamora clearly 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.

DILG Opinions, which directly ruled on the issue of whether the presiding officer should be included to determine
the quorum of the sanggunian, have consistently conformed to the Court’s ruling in Zamora.

In DILG Opinion No. 46, s. 2007, the Undersecretary for Local Government clearly stated that the vice-mayor is
included in the determination of a quorum in the sanggunian. The DILG Opinion reads:

DILG Opinion No. 46, s. 2007

02 July 2007

MESSRS. JAMES L. ENGLE,

FEDERICO O. DIMPAS, JR.,
MARIFE G. RONDINA,
PORFERIO D. DELA CRUZ, and
WINSTON B. MENZON
Sangguniang Bayan Membership
Babatngon, Leyte

Dear Gentlemen and Lady:

This has reference to your earlier letter asking our opinion on several issues, which we quoted herein in toto:

“(1)  What is the number that would determine the quorum of our sanggunian that has a total membership of eleven
(11) including the vice-mayor?

(2) Are the resolutions adopted by a sanggunian without quorum valid?

In reply to your first query, may we invite your attention to Section 446 (a) of the Local Government Code of 1991
(RA 7160) which provides and we quote:

“SECTION 446. Composition. – (a) The Sangguniang bayan, the legislative body of the municipality, shall be composed of the
municipal vice-mayor as the presiding officer, the regular sangguniang members, the president of the municipal chapter of the
liga ng mga barangay, the president of the pambayang pederasyon ng mga sangguniang kabataan, and the sectoral
representatives, as members.”

Based on the aforequoted provision, the Sangguniang Bayan is composed of eight (8) regular members, the Liga ng
mga Barangay President, the SK Federation President, the Vice-Mayor as Presiding Officer and the sectoral
representatives.

Under the old Local Government Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 337), the Presiding Officer then of the sanggunian
was the Mayor. Thus, there was a dilemma as to whether or not the Vice-Mayor, as Presiding Officer, is to be
included in the determination of quorum in the Sangguniang Bayan. This issue was, however, resolved with the
advent of the new Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) providing the aforequoted provision. Hence, the
vice-mayor is included in the determination of a quorum in the sanggunian.

Based on the aforequoted provision, sectoral representatives are also included in the determination of quorum in the
sangguniang bayan. Let it be noted however that sectoral representatives in the local sanggunian are, pursuant to
Section 41 (c) of RA 7160 and Section 10 (b) of RA 9264, to be elected “in a manner as may be provided for by law.”
Meantime however, Congress has yet to enact a law providing for the manner of electing sectoral representatives at
the local sanggunians. Such being the case, sectoral representatives are not, in the meantime, included in the
determination of quorum in the local sanggunians.

In view of the foregoing, the Sangguniang Bayan is composed of the 8 regular members, the Liga ng mga
Barangay President and the SK Federation President as ex-officio members, and the Vice-Mayor as Presiding
Officer. The total membership in that sanggunian, therefore, is eleven (11). Relative thereto, Section 53 of the Local
Government Code of 1991 provides that a majority of all the members of the sanggunian who have been elected and
qualified shall constitute a quorum to transact official business. “Majority” has been defined in Santiago vs.
Guingona, et al. (G.R. No. 134577, 18 November 1998) as that which is greater than half of the membership of the
body. Following the said ruling, since the total membership of the sanggunian being 11, 11 divided by 2 will give us a
quotient of 5.5. Let it be noted however that a fraction cannot be considered as one whole vote, since it is physically
and legally impossible to divide a person or even his vote into a fractional part. Accordingly, we have to go up to the
next whole number which is 6. In this regard, 6 is more than 5.5 and therefore, more than one-half of the total
membership of the sangguniang bayan in conformity with the jurisprudential definition of the term majority. Thus,
the presence of 6 members shall already constitute a quorum in the sangguniang bayan for it to conduct official
sessions.

xxxx

Very truly yours,

(signed)
AUSTERE A. PANADERO
OIC, OUSLG[17]

In another DILG Opinion dated 9 February 2010, the Undersecretary for Local Government opined that the Vice-
Governor, as a Presiding Officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, is a composite member thereof and is included in
the determination of the quorum. DILG Opinion No. 13, s. 2010 reads:

DILG Opinion No. 13, s. 2010

09 February 2010

GOVERNOR JESUS N. SACDALAN

VICE-GOVERNOR EMMANUEL F. PIÑOL
Provincial Capitol Building
Province of Cotabato

Gentlemen:

This has reference to your earlier separate letters, which we herein consolidated, considering that they both pertain to
one subject matter.

Per your letters, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan held its regular session on 12 January 2010 where the August Body
embarked upon the approval of the Annual Budget. According to you, all fourteen (14) members of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan attended said session, namely: ten (10) regular Sangguniang Panlalawigan Members, three (3) ex-officio
Sangguniang Panlalawigan Members and the Vice-Governor as the Presiding Officer. You further represented that when
said approval of the Annual Budget was submitted for votation of said August Body, the result was:  seven (7)
members voted for the approval of the Annual Budget and six (6) voted against.

Specifically, you want us to shed light on the following issues:

“1) Whether or not the august body has reached the required majority of all the members of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan as provided for in Sections 53 and 54 of the Local Government Code and in relation to Article 107 (g) of
its Implementing Rules and Regulations?

2) Whether or not the vice governor as the presiding officer is included in the count in determining the majority
of all the members of the sangguniang panlalawigan to validly pass an appropriation ordinance.

3) Whether or not the board member who signed the Committee Report endorsing the 2010 Proposed Annual
Performance Budget may withdraw without just and valid cause his signature thereon and vote against the approval
thereof?

4) In the event that the Province operates under a re-enacted budget, what are those expenditures included in the
term “essential operating expenses” that may be incurred by the Province?”

xxxx

For the sanggunian to officially transact business, there should be a quorum. A quorum is defined by Section 53 of
the Local Government Code of 1991 as referring to the presence of the majority of all the members of the sanggunian
who have been duly elected and qualified. Relative thereto, generally, ordinary measures require for its enactment
only the approval of a simple majority of the sanggunian members present, there being a quorum. These pertain to
the normal transactions of the sanggunian which are approved by the sanggunian through a vote of simple majority
of those present. On the other hand, there are certain measures where the Local Government Code requires for its
approval the vote of majority of all the members who were duly elected and qualified. This is what we call approval
by the qualified majority of the sanggunian. In this case, the approval is to be voted not just by the majority of those
present in a session there being a quorum but by the majority of all the members of the sanggunian duly elected and
qualified regardless of whether all of them were present or not in a particular session, there being a quorum.

xxxx

In determining a quorum, Section 53 of the Local Government Code of 1991 provides that a majority of all the
members of the sanggunian who have been elected and qualified shall constitute a quorum. Along this line, it bears
to emphasize that per Section 467 (a) of the Local Government Code of 1991, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is a
composite body where the Vice-Governor as Presiding Officer is a composite member thereof. As a composite
member in the sangguniang panlalawigan, he is therefore included in the determination of a quorum.

“Majority” has been defined by the Supreme Court in Santiago vs. Guingona, et al. (G.R. No. 134577, 18 November
1998) as that which is greater than half of the membership of the body or that number which is 50% + 1 of the entire
membership. We note, however, that using either formula will give us the same result. To illustrate, using the 50% +1
formula, the 50% of a sanggunian composed of 14 members is 7. Hence 7 + 1 will give us a sum of 8. On the other
hand, if we use the second formula which is that number greater than half, then 8, in relation to 7, is definitely greater
than the latter. The simple majority of the sangguniang panlalawigan with fourteen (14) members where all of them
were present in that particular session is therefore 8.
xxxx

Very truly yours,

(signed)
AUSTERE A. PANADERO
Undersecretary[18]

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 Sangguniang Panlungsod 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.

The Perez[19] case cited in the Dissenting Opinion was decided in 1969 prior to the 1987 Constitution, and prior to the
enactment of RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991. In fact, the Perez case was decided even prior to the
old Local Government Code which was enacted in 1983. In ruling that the vice-mayor is not a constituent member of
the municipal board, the Court in the Perez case relied mainly on the provisions of Republic Act No. 305 (RA 305)
creating the City of Naga and the amendatory provisions of Republic Act No. 2259 [20] (RA 2259) making the vice-
mayor the presiding officer of the municipal board. 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.

On the other hand, the 2004 case of Zamora v. Governor Caballero,[21] in which the Court interpreted Section 53[22] of RA
7160 to mean that the entire membership must be taken into account in computing the quorum of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, was decided under the 1987 Constitution and after the enactment of the Local Government Code of
1991. In stating that there were fourteen (14) members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Compostela Valley,[23] the
Court in Zamora clearly 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.

On the issue that respondent’s appointment was issued during the effectivity of the election ban, the Court agrees
with the finding of the Court of Appeals and the Civil Service Commission that since the respondent’s appointment
was validly issued on 18 March 2004, then the appointment did not violate the election ban period which was from
26 March to 9 May 2004. Indeed, the Civil Service Commission found that despite the lack of signature and
certification of the Human Resource Management Officer of La Carlota City on respondent’s appointment papers,
respondent’s appointment is deemed effective as of 18 March 2004 considering that there was substantial compliance
with the appointment requirements, thus:

Records show that Atty. Rojo’s appointment was transmitted to the CSC Negros Occidental Field Office on March 19,
2004 by the office of Gelongo without his certification and signature at the back of the appointment. Nonetheless,
records show that the position to which Atty. Rojo was appointed was published on January 6, 2004. The
qualifications of Atty. Rojo were deliberated upon by the Personnel Selection Board on March 5, 2004, attended by
Vice Mayor Jalandoon as Chairman and Jose Leofric F. De Paola, SP member and Sonia P. Delgado, Records Officer,
as members. Records likewise show that a certification was issued by Vice Mayor Jalandoon, as appointing authority,
that the appointment was issued in accordance with the limitations provided for under Section 325 of RA 7160 and
the said appointment was reviewed and found in order pursuant to Section 5, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Executive Order No. 292. Further, certifications were issued by the City Budget Officer, Acting City
Accountant, City Treasurer and City Vice Mayor that appropriations or funds are available for said position.
Apparently, all the requirements prescribed in Section 1, Rule VIII in CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15, series of
1999, were complied with.[24]

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.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. We AFFIRM the 14 September 2007 Decision and the 18 January 2008
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01377.

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr.,  Mendoza, Sereno, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ.,
concur.
Corona, C.J., Abad, Perez, and Reyes, JJ., joins in the dissent of J. Del Castillo.
Brion, J., concur in the result.: see separate opinion.
Del Castillo, J., see dissenting opinion.

Opinion No

DE LOS REYES VS SANDIGANBAYAN [281 SCRA 631]

The approval of an ordinance where the LCE affixes his signature is not a purely
ministerial act. He in fact has veto power.
In an effort to exonerate himself from the charge, petitioner argues that the
deliberations undertaken and the consequent passage of Resolution No. 57-S-92 are
legislative in nature. He adds that as local chief executive, he has neither the official
custody of nor the duty to prepare said resolution; hence, he could not have taken
advantage of his official position in committing the crime of falsification as defined and
punished under Article 171 6 of the Revised Penal Code.
Petitioner would like to impress upon this Court that the final step in the approval of an
ordinance or resolution, where the local chief executive affixes his signature, is purely a
ministerial act. This view is erroneous. Article 109(b) of the Local Government Code
outlines the veto power of the Local Chief Executive which provides: Art. 109 (b). The
local chief executive, except the punong barangay shall have the power to veto any
particular item or items of an appropriations ordinance, an ordinance or resolution
adopting a local development plan and public investment program or an ordinance
directing the payment of money or creating liability. . . . .
Contrary to petitioner's belief, the grant of the veto power confers authority beyond the
simple mechanical act of signing an ordinance or resolution, as a requisite to its
enforceability. Such power accords the local chief executive the discretion to sustain a
resolution or ordinance in the first instance or to veto it and return it with his objections
to the Sanggunian, which may proceed to reconsider the same. The Sanggunian
concerned, however, may override the veto by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of all its
members thereby making the ordinance or resolution effective for all legal intents and
purposes. It is clear, therefore, that the concurrence of a local chief executive in the
enactment of an ordinance or resolution requires, not only a flourish of the pen, but the
application of judgment after meticulous analysis and intelligence as well.
The minutes of the session reveal that petitioner attended the session of the
Sangguniang Bayan on July 27, 1992. It is evident, therefore, that petitioner approved
the subject resolution knowing fully well that "the subject matter treated therein was
neither taken up and discussed nor passed upon by the Sangguniang Bayan during the
legislative session."
The Sandiganbayan is directed to set the criminal case for arraignment and trial.
GAMBOA VS AGUIRRE [310 SCRA 867]
A vice-governor who is concurrently an acting governor is actually a quasi-governor.
For the purpose of exercising his legislative prerogatives and powers, he is deemed a
non member of the SP for the time being.
A Vice-Governor who is concurrently an Acting Governor is actually a quasi-Governor.
This means, that for purposes of exercising his legislative prerogatives and powers, he
is deemed as a non-member of the SP for the time being.
Being the Acting Governor, the Vice-Governor cannot continue to simultaneously
exercise the duties of the latter office, since the
PUBLIC CORPORATION CASE DIGESTS || USC LAW BATCH 2013
Page | 108
nature of the duties of the provincial Governor call for a full-time occupant to discharge
them. 19 Such is not only consistent with but also appears to be the clear rationale of the
new Code wherein the policy of performing dual functions in both offices has already
been abandoned. To repeat, the creation of a temporary vacancy in the office of the
Governor creates a corresponding temporary vacancy in the office of the Vice-Governor
whenever the latter acts as Governor by virtue of such temporary vacancy.
This event constitutes an "inability" on the part of the regular presiding officer (Vice
Governor) to preside during the SP sessions, which thus calls for the operation of the
remedy set in Article 49(b) of the Local Government Code — concerning the election of
a temporary presiding officer. The continuity of the Acting Governor's (Vice Governor)
powers as presiding officer of the SP is suspended so long as he is in such capacity.
Under Section 49(b), "(i)n the event of the inability of the regular presiding officer to
preside at the sanggunian session, the members present and constituting a quorum
shall elect from among themselves a temporary presiding officer."
MALONZO VS ZAMORA [323 SCRA 875]
The law does not require the completion of the updating or adoption of the internal
rules of procedures before the Sanggunian could act on any other matter like the
enactment of an ordinance; There is nothing in the law, which prohibits that the 3
readings of a proposed ordinance be held in just one session day.

[G.R. NO. 147767 - January 14, 2004]

MANUEL E. ZAMORA, Petitioner, v.  GOVERNOR JOSE R.

CABALLERO, ANESIO M. RANARIO, in his capacity as
Provincial Administrator, MARIANO KINTANAR, in his
capacity as Provincial Auditor, CARMEN R. RASUL, in his
capacity as Provincial Treasurer, ROLANDO L. OSORIO,
BELINDA G. APAWAN, ARMANDO L. SERAS, RUWEL PETER S.
GONZAGA, ARMANDO C. CODILLA, RAUL B. BASAÑES,
GRACIANO C. ARAFOL, JR., Respondents.

DECISION

CARPIO-MORALES, J.:

Petitioner Manuel Zamora, a member of the Sangguniang

Panlalawigan of Compostela Valley (the Sanggunian), seeks to
invalidate all acts executed and resolutions issued by the
Sanggunian during its sessions held on February 8 and 26, 2001 for
lack of quorum.

It appears that on February 6, 2001, Vice-Governor Reynaldo

Navarro sent a written notice of a special session on February 7,
2001.1 Upon the request of Governor Jose R. Caballero, however,
the scheduled special session was reset to February 8, 2001 without
the benefit of a written notice.2

On February 8, 2001, the Sanggunian thus held a special session to,

among other things, allow the Governor to deliver his State of the
Province Address. As only seven members of the fourteen-member
Sanggunian were present,3 no resolution was considered.

On February 26, 2001, the Sanggunian held its 4th regular session
during which it issued Resolution No. 054 declaring the entire
province of Compostela Valley under a state of calamity and
Resolution No. 075 authorizing the Governor to, on behalf of the
province, enter into a construction contract (Contract) with Allado
Construction Company, Inc. (the Allado Company) for the
completion of Phase II of the construction of the capitol building.
During the same session, the Sanggunian accepted the letter of
irrevocable resignation submitted by Board Member Gemma
Theresa M. Sotto.6

While only eight members of the Sanggunian were present at the

commencement of the session on February 26, 2001, the Journal of
the Proceedings (Journal) and Resolution Nos. 05 and 07 showed
that a total of thirteen members attended it.7

Petitioner thus filed a petition8 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)

of Nabunturan, Compostela Valley against the Governor, et al.,
challenging the validity of the acts of the Sanggunian on February
26, 2001, alleging that while the Journal and Resolutions indicated
the presence of 13 members, the Sanggunian nonetheless
"conducted official business without a quorum"9 as only seven of its
fourteen members were actually present when the irrevocable letter
of resignation of Board Member Sotto was noted,10 and the motions
to declare the entire province of Compostela Valley under a state of
calamity11 and to authorize the Governor to enter into the Contract
with the Allado Company12 were approved.13

Petitioner additionally alleged that when the vote respecting

Resolution No. 05 was taken, only the remaining six members voted
for the adoption thereof, the then presiding officer Board Member
Rolando Osorio not having cast his vote;14 that when Resolution No.
07 was taken up, however, then presiding officer
Osorio,15 relinquished his seat to Board Member Graciano Arafol
after the six members present unanimously voted on the said
resolution in the affirmative, following which Osorio cast his vote as
a member also in the affirmative, thereby authorizing the Governor
to enter into the Contract with Allado Company; and that Board
Member Arafol thereafter relinquished his seat as presiding officer
to Board Member Osorio who once again assumed the duties of a
presiding officer.16

Petitioner furthermore challenged the validity of the special session

of February 8, 2001 for lack of quorum, there being only seven
members of the Sanggunian in attendance, and for lack of written
notice sent to all members at least 24 hours before the holding of
the special session in accordance with Section 52 (d) 17 of the Local
Government Code of 1991 (LGC). 18

Respondents, on the other hand, contended that since Board

Member Sotto was in the United States19 at the time the questioned
acts were executed and resolutions adopted, the actual number of
Board Members then in the country was thirteen which should be
the basis of the determination of a quorum.

Branch 3 of the RTC of Nabunturan, at Compostela Valley, by

Order20 of April 24, 2001, dismissed the petition upon the following
ratiocination:

.. . Gemma Theresa M. Sotto should not be counted as member for

the purpose of determining the number to constitute a quorum
because she is in the United States of America. However, sub-
paragraph (b) [of section 53 of the Local Government Code] states
and provides for compulsion of any member absent without any
justifiable cause.

This is interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Jose

Avelino, petitioner v. Mariano J. Cuenco, respondent, G.R. No. L-
2821, March 4, 1949.

Gemma Theresa M. Sotto is beyond the reach of the legal processes

of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and could not be arrested to
compel her to attend its session. Quorum should be determined on
the basis of the actual number of members of the body concerned
rather than upon its full membership which is fourteen (14).
Therefore, in this case, with seven (7) members of the thirteen (13)
members present in constitutive of a quorum. x x x

Moreover, Presidential Decree 181821 prohibits the issuance of a

restraining order or injunction in any case involving government
infrastructure projects.22 (Emphases omitted)

Hence, the present petition for Certiorari under Rule 45, faulting the

trial court for erroneously (1) applying the case of Avelino v.
Cuenco 23 to a controversy involving a local government unit; (2)
taking judicial notice of Board Member Sottos being in the United
States without proof thereof; and (3) ruling that to grant a
Temporary Restraining Order would be in violation of P.D. 1818.24

Respondents question the authority of the Court to look beyond the

Journal and Resolutions of the Sanggunian25 and assert that the
construction of the capitol building26 cannot be enjoined. And they
too assert that the presence of thirteen members at the February
26, 2001 session should be conclusive on the strength of Arroyo v.
De Venecia 27and  U.S. v. Pons. 28 Citation of these cases is
misplaced, however.

In Arroyo v. De Venecia, this Court refused to inquire into

allegations that the House of Representatives failed to comply with
the rules of procedures which the House itself promulgated absent
any showing that there was a violation of a constitutional provision
or of the rights of private individuals.

In U.S. v. Pons, this Court did not go beyond the legislative journals
which it found clear and explicit, it holding that to disprove the
entries in the journals, evidence must be adduced based merely
upon the memory or recollection of witnesses in contrast to journals
which are the acts of the Government or sovereign itself.29

In the instant case, this Court is not called upon to inquire into the
Sanggunians compliance with its own rules. Rather, it is called upon
to determine whether the Sanggunian complied with the LGC, a law
enacted by Congress, and its Implementing Rules.

Moreover, the Journal of the Sanggunian is far from clear and

explicit as to the presence of a quorum when the questioned acts
were taken. It does not indicate how many members were actually
present when the body voted on the motions leading to the
adoption of Resolution Nos. 05 and 07. While the Journal and the
Resolutions show that 13 members attended the session,30 the
Journal shows that only six members were called by the presiding
officer to vote on the motions.31 Six members whose names appear
in attendance, namely: Vice Governor Navarro and Board Members
Zamora, Yanong, Castillo, Andres and Gentugaya, were not called
and, save for the absent Vice Governor,32 no explanation was given
therefor.

Coincidentally, in Resolutions 05 and 07, the names of the Board

Members who were not called upon to vote, including petitioner as
he had in the meantime left, are followed by two asterisks (**).

Additionally, it was clearly noted by petitioner, when he asked

permission to leave the session, that only seven members were left:

SP Member ZAMORA: Mr. President, I move to adjourn, Mr.

President.

SP Member ARAFOL : Objection Mr. President.

SP Member ZAMORA: Mr. President, before the objection, before

objection Mr. President, I would like to invite everybody to go at my
service I have a patient nga gi-pagawas na sa hospital nga i-uli na
sa Awao, its been there for one hour so I really have to go I have to
carry that patient to Awao Mr. President.

SP Member OSORIO : You are excused Honorable

SP Member ZAMORA: Okay, then remember that youre only seven

Mr. President.

SP Member ARAFOL : No problem.

SP Member ZAMORA: Okay so its alright for you to decide. The

seven of you. I would like to manifest in the record that before
further discussion that

SP Member GONZAGA: Mr. President he is already excused Mr.

President.

SP Member ZAMORA: Yes but I would like to make statement first

for the record, for the record. That I do not want Mr. President that
the incident of the of the State of the Province Address will be
repeated Mr. President, wherein there are only seven members
present and the quorum was declared Mr. President. x x x
SP Member GONZAGA: Thats only your opinion. .. 33 (Underscoring
supplied)ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ

Respondents themselves admit that there were only seven

members present when the motions were voted upon:

26. Nevertheless, even if that remark constituted a proper question

on quorum, it is a matter of fact that there were still seven (7)
members present. x x x [T]here is a quorum since seven is a
majority of thirteen (13). x x x34 (Emphasis supplied.)

Clearly, this Court is constrained to look into the proceedings of the

Sanggunian as recorded in the Journal and not just rely on
Resolution Nos. 05 and 07 to determine who and how many
participated in the consideration thereof. The placing of the
asterisks after the names of five members in the Resolutions is
highly irregular and suspicious especially since both resolutions
indicate that petitioner, whose name is also followed by asterisks,
was present even if it is clear from the Journal that he had already
left the session before the Sanggunian took note of the resignation
of Board Member Sotto and voted on the motions.

Respondents other contention that the construction of the capitol

building cannot be enjoined in light of Malaga v. Penachos, Jr. 35fails
to convince. In Malaga, this Court declared that although
Presidential Decree No. 1818 prohibits any court from issuing
injunctions in cases involving infrastructure projects, the prohibition
extends only to the issuance of injunctions or restraining
orders against administrative acts in controversies involving facts or
the exercise of discretion in technical cases. On issues clearly
outside this dimension and involving questions of law, this Court
declared that courts could not be prevented from exercising their
power to restrain or prohibit administrative acts.36

Respondents maintain that the exception in Malaga as indicated

above should not be applied in the instant case because there was
therein a defect in the compliance with procedural rules on bidding.
In contrast, respondents stress, the bidding for the construction of
the capitol building in which the winner was the Allado Company
was not defective, they adding that Resolution 07 simply authorized
the Governor to formalize the Contract necessary for the full
implementation of the project.37

This Court fails to see the essential difference between Malaga and

the instant case.

In both cases, the defect in the Contract relates to the non-

compliance with the mandate of a law respecting requirements
before validly entering into a contract. In Malaga, the defect
pertained to bidding. In the present case, the alleged defect
pertains to the required number of votes necessary to authorize the
Governor to enter into a construction contract.

Clearly then, what is at issue in this case is not the propriety or the
wisdom of entering into the Contract for the construction of the
capitol building, which is beyond the power of this Court to enjoin,
but the Sanggunians compliance with the requirements prescribed
under the LGC before it may grant the Governor authority to enter
into the Contract, which issue falls under the exception to the
proscription against injunctions in cases involving infrastructure
projects, as held in Malaga.

On the applicability of Avelino 38to the present case: The issue in

said case was whether there was a quorum in a meeting attended
by only 12 of 24 senators, one having been in the hospital while
another was out of the country. This Court held that although the
total membership of the Senate was 24, the presence of 12
members already constituted a quorum since the 24th member was
outside the country and beyond the coercive power of the Senate.39

In the instant case, there is nothing on record, save for respondents

allegation, to show that Board Member Sotto was out of the country
and to thereby conclude that she was outside the coercive power of
the Sanggunian when the February 8 and 26, 2001 sessions were
held. In fact it is undisputed that the leave form filed by said Board
Member before the Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG) did not mention that she was going out of the
country.40 Petitioners contention that the trial court cannot take
judicial notice of Board Member Sottos whereabouts is thus well
taken. On this score, the instant case is outside the application of
the doctrine in Avelino.

A court may take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge, or

those which are capable of unquestionable determination or ought
to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.41 With
respect to disputed facts, however, the court must receive evidence
thereof, with notice to the parties.42

Also, in Avelino, the legislative body involved was the Senate and
the applicable rule on quorum was that embodied in Article VI,
Section 10 of the 1935 Constitution which reads:

Section 10. x x x

(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do

business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and
may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner and
under such penalties as such House may provide.43 (Emphasis
supplied)ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ

The present case, however, involves a local legislative body, the

Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Compostela Valley Province, and the
applicable rule respecting quorum is found in Section 53(a) of the
LGC which provides:

Section 53. Quorum.-

(a) A majority of all members of the sanggunian who have been

elected and qualified shall constitute a quorum to transact official
business. Should a question of quorum be raised during a session,
the presiding officer shall immediately proceed to call the roll of the
members and thereafter announce the results. (Emphasis supplied) ςrαlαωlιbrαrÿ

"Quorum" is defined as that number of members of a body which,

when legally assembled in their proper places, will enable the body
to transact its proper business or that number which makes a lawful
body and gives it power to pass upon a law or ordinance or do any
valid act.44 "Majority," when required to constitute a quorum, means
the number greater than half or more than half of any total.45 In
fine, the entire membership must be taken into account in
computing the quorum of the sangguniang panlalawigan, for while
the constitution merely states that "majority of each House shall
constitute a quorum," Section 53 of the LGC is more exacting as it
requires that the "majority of all members of the sanggunian. ..
elected and qualified" shall constitute a quorum.

The difference in the wordings of the Constitution and the LGC is

not merely "a matter of style and writing" as respondents would
argue, but is actually a matter of "meaning and intention."46 The
qualification in the LGC that the majority be based on those "elected
and qualified" was meant to allow sanggunians to function even
when not all members thereof have been proclaimed.47 And, while
the intent of the legislature in qualifying the quorum requirement
was to allow sanggunians to function even when not all members
thereof have been proclaimed and have assumed office, the
provision necessarily applies when, after all the members of
the sanggunian have assumed office, one or some of its members
file for leave. What should be important then is the concurrence of
election to and qualification for the office. And election to, and
qualification as member of, a local legislative body are not altered
by the simple expedient of filing a leave of absence.

The trial court should thus have based its determination of the
existence of a quorum on the total number of members of the
Sanggunian without regard to the filing of a leave of absence by
Board Member Sotto. The fear that a majority may, for reasons of
political affiliation, file leaves of absence in order to cripple the
functioning of the sanggunian is already addressed by the grant of
coercive power to a mere majority of sanggunian members present
when there is no quorum.48

A sanggunian is a collegial body. Legislation, which is the principal

function and duty of the sanggunian, requires the participation of all
its members so that they may not only represent the interests of
their respective constituents but also help in the making of decisions
by voting upon every question put upon the body. The acts of only a
part of the Sanggunian done outside the parameters of the legal
provisions aforementioned are legally infirm, highly questionable
and are, more importantly, null and void. And all such acts cannot
be given binding force and effect for they are considered unofficial
acts done during an unauthorized session.

Board Member Sotto is then deemed not resigned because there

was no quorum when her letter of irrevocable resignation was noted
by the Sanggunian. For the same reason, Resolution Nos. 05 and 07
are of no legal effect.

Even assuming arguendo that there were indeed thirteen members

present during the questioned February 26, 2001 session,
Resolution No. 05 declaring the entire province of Compostela Valley
under state of calamity is still null and void because the motion for
its approval was approved by only six members.49 When there are
thirteen members present at a session, the vote of only six
members can not, at any instance, be deemed to be in compliance
with Section 107(g) 50 of the Rules and Regulations Implementing
the LGC which requires the concurrence of the approval by the
majority of the members present and the existence of a quorum in
order to validly enact a resolution.

The motion to grant the Governor authority to enter into the

construction contract is also deemed not approved in accordance
with the law even if it received seven affirmative votes, which is
already the majority of thirteen, due to the defect in the seventh
vote. For as priorly stated, as the Journal confirms, after all six
members voted in the affirmative, Board Member Osorio, as acting
presiding officer, relinquished his seat to Board Member Arafol and
thereafter cast his vote as a member in favor of granting authority
to the Governor.51

This Court is faced with an act clearly intended to circumvent an

express prohibition under the law a situation that will not be
condoned.52 The LGC clearly limits the power of presiding officers to
vote only in case of a tie, to wit:

Section 49. Presiding Officer. (a) The vice-governor shall be the

presiding officer of the sangguniang panlalawigan  x x x. The
presiding officer shall vote only to break a tie.
(b) In the event of inability of the regular presiding officer to
preside at a sanggunian session, the members present and
constituting a quorum shall elect from among themselves a
temporary presiding officer. x x x (Italics in the original. Emphasis
supplied.)

While acting as presiding officer, Board Member Osorio may not, at

the same time, be allowed to exercise the rights of a regular board
member including that of voting even when there is no tie to break.
A temporary presiding officer who merely steps into the shoes
of the presiding officer could not have greater power than that
possessed by the latter53 who can vote only in case of a tie.

Lastly, for a resolution authorizing the governor to enter into a

construction contract to be valid, the vote of the majority of all
members of the Sanggunian, and not only of those present during
the session, is required in accordance with Section 46854 of the LGC
in relation to Article 10755 of its Implementing Rules.

Even including the vote of Board Member Osorio, who was then the
Acting Presiding Officer, Resolution No. 07 is still invalid. Applying
Section 468 of the LGC and Article 107 of its Implementing Rules,
there being fourteen members in the Sanggunian, the approval of
eight members is required to authorize the governor to enter into
the Contract with the Allado Company since it involves the creation
of liability for payment on the part of the local government unit.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Order of

the Regional Trial Court of Nabunturan, Compostela Valley dated
April 24, 2001 is hereby reversed and set aside.

Resolution Nos. 05 and 07 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of

Compostela Valley approved on February 26, 2001 declaring the
entire Province of Compostela Valley under a state of calamity and
granting authority to the Provincial Governor to enter into a general
construction agreement, respectively, are hereby declared null and
void.

SO ORDERED.
Vitug, (Chairman)