Atty. Rudiver D Jungco Jr.

17/10/2025

25/03/2024

SC: One-Year Appointment Ban on Losing Candidates Applies to Contracts of Service |

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitutional prohibition on the appointment to government positions within one year from the election applies to all losing candidates, regardless of the position and the place or jurisdiction of the office where they are appointed.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Midas P. Marquez, the Supreme Court En Banc denied the petition for certiorari under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the Rules of Court filed by Raul F. Macalino (Macalino). The petition challenged the rulings of the Commission on Audit (COA) disallowing the payment of Macalino’s wages and allowances as Legal Officer II of the Municipal Government of Mexico, Pampanga.

In denying Macalino’s petition, the Court stressed that Article IX-B, Section 6 of the Constitution is clear that those who lost in the election are prohibited from being appointed to any government position within one year of such election.

Section 94(b) of the LGC likewise states that except for losing candidates in barangay elections, no candidate who lost in any election, within one year after such election, shall be appointed to any office in the government or any government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) or in any of their subsidiaries.

The Court added that such prohibition is “a recognition of political will—it means that the people rejected the losing candidate and did not want him or her to occupy a public office. Thus, the electorate’s volition will be flouted if a candidate is immediately appointed to an office in the government after losing an election bid.”

The Court also rejected Macalino’s arguments that (1) the prohibition does not apply to contracts of service and (2) there was no violation because he was appointed as Legal Officer II in Mexico, Pampanga, and not in San Fernando City, Pampanga, where he ran and lost as vice mayor.

The Court stressed that both the Constitution and the LGC explicitly use the phrase “any office in the Government or any [GOCCs] or in any of their subsidiaries.”

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-one-year-appointment-ban-on-losing-candidates-applies-to-contracts-of-service/. Read G.R. No. 253199 at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/253199-raul-f-macalino-vs-commission-on-audit/.

23/03/2024

SC Voids Contract for Being Grossly Disadvantageous to Seafarer |

The Supreme Court has voided a litigation financing agreement between a seafarer and a consultancy firm for being grossly disadvantageous to the seafarer.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Supreme Court’s Second Division denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by RODCO Consultancy and Maritime Services Corporation (RODCO). The petition assailed the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had reversed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) award of damages in favor of RODCO.

In resolving the present petition, the Court evaluated the contract between Floserfino and RODCO and found it has the features of a litigation financing by a third party.

As previously held in the 2009 case of Nocom v. Camerino, a contract between a stranger and a party to a lawsuit, whereby the stranger pursues the party’s claim in consideration of receiving part or any of the proceeds recovered under the judgment, in consideration of receiving, if successful, a part of the proceeds is a champertous contract.

Under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), champertous contracts between attorneys and their clients are prohibited for being against public policy. While the definition of a champertous contract under the CPRA appears to contemplate an agreement between a lawyer and a party, the Court is nevertheless not precluded from recognizing that the agreement of the parties in the present case is similar to a champertous contract.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-voids-contract-for-being-grossly-disadvantageous-to-seafarer/. Read G.R. No. 259832 in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/259832-rodco-consultancy-and-maritime-services-corporation-herein-represented-by-froilan-g-clemente-jr-vs-floserfino-g-ross-and-antonia-t-ross/.

04/03/2024

SC Dismisses Roxas Judge for Soliciting Bribes from Lawyers, Litigants |

The Supreme Court has imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on a judge who directly solicited bribes from lawyers, litigants, and even local elective officials in exchange for favorable actions.

In a per curiam Decision, the Court En Banc found Judge Edralin C. Reyes (Reyes), Presiding Judge of Branch 43, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro guilty of Gross Misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service. The Court also ordered the forfeiture of his retirement and other benefits, except accrued leave credits, and his perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

The Court likewise ordered Reyes to pay a fine of PHP 17,500 for Simple Misconduct, for his negligence in supervising his court staff and ensuring proper and safe record- and evidence-keeping system in his court, resulting in missing fi****ms, exhibits, and pieces of evidence that were in court custody.

The Court, in determining Reyes’ administrative liability, emphasized that a government-issued computer, even if privately controlled, is subject to regulation and monitoring by the government employer.

It ruled that the SMS/iMessage exchanges and the findings of the audit team were not excludable as there was no violation of Reyes’ right to privacy.
For one, Reyes had no expectation of privacy for electronic communications stored in the subject laptop. The Court stressed that for judges and court employees, laptops and computers are provided to facilitate the courts’ function of adjudicating cases, and are not meant for private purposes.

In Reyes’ case, the SMS/iMessage correspondence were stored in the subject laptop and not in his private computer. Neither did it appear that the laptop was forcibly taken from him. “These circumstances convince this Court that Judge Reyes cannot successfully claim that the State unduly intruded into a personal matter,” said the Court.

The Court also held that since there is no violation of Reyes’ right to privacy, the information obtained through the judicial audit cannot be considered fruit of the poisonous tree.

“Further, even if the Court considered the MISO and OCA’s retrieval of the iPhone messages as violation of Judge Reyes’s right to privacy, this Court finds that the information obtained by the judicial audit team should be treated as an exception, as it is an inevitable discovery,” said the Court. “Indeed, an administrative investigation would have been conducted, and the judicial audit team would have found the incriminating information even without the SMS/iMessage exchanges from the laptop…Thus, in the natural course of events, the evidence and information contained in the judicial audit team report would have reached this Court.”

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-dismisses-roxas-city-judge-for-soliciting-bribes-from-lawyers-litigants/. Read A.M. No. RTJ-20-2579 in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/rtj-20-2579-office-of-the-court-administrator-vs-judge-edralin-c-reyes-presiding-judge-branch-43-regional-trial-court-roxas-city-oriental-mindoro/.

15/02/2024

06/02/2024

04/02/2024

RTC Clerk Dismissed for Demanding Money in Exchange for Release of Certificate │

The Supreme Court has meted out on a clerk of the Butuan City Regional Trail Court (RTC) the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service for gross misconduct.

The case stemmed from a letter-complaint from a person under the nom de plume “Danilo D. Divinagracia” (complainant) who accused Michael Vincent L. Ozon (Ozon), Clerk III of Branch 1, RTC, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, of asking for the amount of PHP 25,000.00 in exchange for the release of the certificate of finality of the former’s case for declaration of nullity of marriage.

Upon investigation by Executive Judge Augustus L. Calo (Executive Judge Calo), it was revealed that at one time, a litigant came crying to the RTC Branch Clerk of Court because the certificate of finality in her case had not yet been issued after repeatedly visiting the court despite giving Ozon PHP 500.00 for its release.

Thereafter, Executive Judge Calo obtained sworn statements from two private individuals who revealed that respondent offered “facilitation services” in declaration of nullity cases. They stated that instead of the usual number of months it would take for processing the service of the decision and the corresponding return card, Ozon would expedite the same process into merely three days by sending the decisions via private courier to the Office of Solicitor General (OSG) in exchange for PHP 5,000.00.

The Court, in a Per Curiam Decision, ruled that Ozon’s bare denial is self-serving and a weak defense vis-à-vis the RTC Branch Clerk of Court’s positive testimony which corroborated complainant’s allegation that Ozon demanded money from litigants for the release of certificates of finality.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/rtc-clerk-dismissed-for-demanding-money-in-exchange-for-release-of-certificate/