Alquizola, Sr. vs. Ocol

The punong barangay’s power to remove appointive barangay officials is implied in the power to appoint or replace them, but it must be exercised with the approval or concurrence of a majority of all the members of the Sangguniang Barangay; a unilateral dismissal is invalid.

Respondents held appointive positions in Barangay Tubod, Iligan City, under the former punong barangay: the first two as barangay treasurer and barangay secretary, and the rest as barangay utility workers. The Local Government Code, particularly Sections 389(b)(5), 394, and 395, governs the appointment or replacement of the barangay treasurer, barangay secretary, and other appointive barangay officials.

Petitioner Ramon Alquizola, Sr. won the post of Punong Barangay of Barangay Tubod, Iligan City, in the May 12, 1997 barangay elections. Respondents Gallardo Ocol, Camilo P. Penaco, Saturnino Mendoza, Rafael R. Ardiente, Vicente C. Caseres, Ricardo B. Zosa III, and Sirad M. Umpa were appointees of the former punong barangay of Barangay Tubod; Ocol and Penaco occupied the positions of barangay treasurer and barangay secretary, respectively, while the rest were barangay utility workers.

After the elections, Alquizola terminated the services of respondents and appointed his co-petitioners, Marissa C. Doromal and Adelo Seco, as barangay treasurer and barangay secretary, respectively. In consonance with Sections 394 and 395 of the Local Government Code, he submitted both appointments to the Sangguniang Barangay for approval. The Sangguniang Barangay rejected the appointments.

Following the Sangguniang Barangay’s action, respondents filed a complaint for quo warranto, mandamus, and prohibition with the RTC of Lanao del Norte to enjoin Alquizola from terminating their services. The RTC found in favor of respondents and ordered Alquizola to cease and desist from dismissing them, on the ground that their dismissal had been effected without the corresponding approval of the Sangguniang Barangay.

• Power to Remove/Replace Appointive Barangay Officials: Whether the punong barangay may terminate or replace the barangay treasurer, barangay secretary, and other appointive barangay officials without the approval or concurrence of a majority of all the members of the Sangguniang Barangay.

• Power to Remove/Replace Appointive Barangay Officials: No. The power to appoint or replace, which includes the power to remove, is exercised conjointly by the punong barangay and a majority of all the members of the Sangguniang Barangay; without such conjoint action, the dismissal is not legally justified.

• Power to Remove/Replace Appointive Barangay Officials: Section 389(b)(5) of the Local Government Code provides that the punong barangay shall, upon approval by a majority of all the members of the Sangguniang Barangay, appoint or replace the barangay treasurer, barangay secretary, and other appointive barangay officials. The SC held that the term “replace” embraces not only the appointment of the replacement but also the prior removal of, or the vacation by, the official currently occupying the appointive position; to replace, the prior holder must first have been removed or the office must have been rendered vacant. No other provision in the Local Government Code treats of the punong barangay’s power to remove the barangay secretary, barangay treasurer, or other appointive barangay official, and the duration of their term of office has not been fixed by the Code. Where the tenure of office is not fixed by law, the SC applied the rule that the power of removal is incident to the power of appointment; the power to remove is deemed implied in the power to appoint. The Code explicitly vests on the punong barangay, upon approval by a majority of all the members of the Sangguniang Barangay, the power to appoint or replace the barangay treasurer, barangay secretary, and other appointive barangay officials, and Sections 394 and 395 reinforce this for the secretary and treasurer by requiring the concurrence of the majority of all the Sangguniang Barangay members. The power of appointment is therefore exercised conjointly by the punong barangay and a majority of all the members of the Sangguniang Barangay; without such conjoint action, neither an appointment nor a replacement can be effectual. Applying the rule that the power to appoint includes the power to remove, the SC held that the dismissal of the barangay officials by the punong barangay without the concurrence of the majority of all the members of the Sangguniang Barangay cannot be legally justified. To rule otherwise would create an absurd situation of Sangguniang Barangay members refusing, as in this case, to approve the replacements selected by the punong barangay who had unilaterally terminated the incumbents; the legislature did not intend that absurdity.

• Power to appoint includes power to remove — Where the tenure of an appointive office is not fixed by law, the power of removal is incident to the power of appointment. The SC applied this to the punong barangay’s power to appoint or replace the barangay treasurer, barangay secretary, and other appointive barangay officials, holding that removal is included in the power to replace.
• Conjoint exercise of the power to appoint or replace — Under Sections 389(b)(5), 394, and 395 of the Local Government Code, the punong barangay exercises the power to appoint or replace the barangay treasurer and barangay secretary with the approval or concurrence of a majority of all the members of the Sangguniang Barangay. Without such conjoint action, neither an appointment nor a replacement can be effectual.
• Statutory interpretation avoiding absurdity — The SC rejected an interpretation that would allow the punong barangay to unilaterally terminate incumbents while the Sangguniang Barangay refuses to approve replacements, because the legislature did not intend that absurd result.

• “The term "replace" would obviously embrace not only the appointment of the replacement but also the prior removal of, or the vacation by, the official currently occupying the appointive position concerned.” — The SC defines “replace” under Section 389(b)(5) to include the removal or vacation of the incumbent, which is central to holding that removal is part of replacement.
• “Where the tenure of the office is not fixed by law, it is a sound and useful rule to consider the power of removal as being an incident to the power of appointment.” — The SC uses this rule to imply the removal power from the appointing power.
• “Verily, the power of appointment is to be exercised conjointly by the punong barangay and a majority of all the members of the sangguniang barangay. Without such conjoint action, neither an appointment nor a replacement can be effectual.” — The SC states the conjoint requirement and the consequence of its absence.
• “Applying the rule that the power to appoint includes the power to remove, one that the Court finds no cogent reason to now depart from, the questioned dismissal from office of the barangay officials by the punong barangay without the concurrence of the majority of all the members of the Sangguniang Barangay cannot be legally justified.” — The SC applies the rule to invalidate the dismissal.

• Section 389(b)(5), Local Government Code — The punong barangay shall, upon approval by a majority of all the members of the Sangguniang Barangay, appoint or replace the barangay treasurer, barangay secretary, and other appointive barangay officials. The SC read “replace” to include removal and required the approval for the dismissal.
• Section 394, Local Government Code — The barangay secretary is appointed by the punong barangay with the concurrence of the majority of all the Sangguniang Barangay members, and the appointment is not subject to Civil Service Commission attestation. The SC used this to reinforce the conjoint appointing power.
• Section 395, Local Government Code — The barangay treasurer is appointed by the punong barangay with the concurrence of the majority of all the Sangguniang Barangay members, and the appointment is not subject to Civil Service Commission attestation. The SC used this to reinforce the conjoint appointing power.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The petition was filed as a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45; the SC entertained and denied it.