Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=33841:g-r-no-109455-november-11,-1993-raul-a-galarosa-v-eudarlio-b-valencia,-et-al&amp;catid=1308&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 21:52:08+00:00

Document:
RAUL A. GALAROSA, in his capacity as the incumbent President and Representative of the Association of Barangay Captains of the Municipality of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, Petitioner, v. HON. EUDARLIO B. VALENCIA, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Branch 52; SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF SORSOGON; and RODOLFO LASAY; respondents.
Villanueva, Bernardo & Gabionza for Petitioner.
Elizalde D. Diaz for Private Respondent.
Petitioner Raul A. Galarosa (hereinafter GALAROSA) is the incumbent president of the katipunang bayan or Association of Barangay Councils (ABC)1 of the municipality of Sorsogon, province of Sorsogon, and was appointed as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Sorsogon pursuant to Executive Order No. 342 in relation to Section 146 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, the quondam local government code. The salient issue in this case is whether or not GALAROSA can continue to serve as a member of the SB beyond 30 June 1992, the date when the term of office of the elective members of the SB of Sorsogon expired. The respondent Judge ruled that GALAROSA could not; GALAROSA thinks otherwise and asks us to set aside the decision of the court a quo.
In August 1992, private respondent Rodolfo Lasay (hereinafter LASAY), the incumbent barangay captain of barangay Gimoloto of the municipality of Sorsogon and an aspirant for the position of president of the ABC of the said municipality, filed with the court a quo against the public respondent SB of Sorsogon a petition for declaratory relief and injunction with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. LASAY sought the determination by the court of the "appropriate, proper interpretation of the Provision of Sec. 494 of Republic Act No. 7160" and of "whether or not the President of the Association of Barangay Captains can continue holding office despite the termination of the Terms of Office of the Sangguniang Bayan of Sorsogon on June 30, 1992." 2 He posited the theory that the term of office of GALAROSA as an ex officio member of the SB of Sorsogon is coterminous with that of the said SB which expired on 30 June 1992; hence, there was a need for the new election of an ABC representative. He further alleged that during its session, the SB of Sorsogon accepted and recognized the participation of GALAROSA over his (LASAY’s) protest allegedly on the basis of the memorandum of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) allowing the ABC presidents elected before 30 June 1992 to continue in office until the election of new ones. LASAY then prayed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining the SB of Sorsogon from recognizing GALAROSA as an ex officio member thereof and from allowing him to participate in its deliberations, for the holding in abeyance of GALAROSA’S salaries, and, after hearing, for a judgment "embodying the literal interpretation of Sec. 494 of the New Local Government Code to the effect that the term of office of the ex officio membership to the Sangguniang Bayan of the President of [the] ABC should in no case be beyond the term of office of said Sangguniang Bayan." The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 5755.
In its Answer, 3 the SB of Sorsogon, represented by the Provincial Prosecutor, asked for the dismissal of the petition because (a) LASAY "has no legal right to file the" petition or the petition "is based on pure speculative rights," and (b) the petition is premature since the resolution of the issues raised may still be the subject of rules and regulations to implement Section 494 of the Code.
On 26 January 1993, GALAROSA filed with the court a quo an Appearance with Motion to Annul Injunction Order. 7 He prayed therein that the 22 October 1992 Order be annulled, that the SB of Sorsogon be directed to recognize his participation as an ex officio member thereof, that he be allowed to enjoy all the benefits and emoluments of the office, and that his appearance be noted.
We required the respondents to comment on the petition, and on 3 June 1993 we issued a temporary restraining order directing the respondent Judge to cease and desist from implementing and effecting the challenged decision.
In his comment, LASAY states that GALAROSA, not being a party to the case before the trial court, has no right to file the instant petition. LASAY argues that although GALAROSA had filed a motion for intervention, that pleading was not acted upon by the trial court. As to the merits of the petition, he asks that we sustain the challenged decision because it is in accord with existing jurisprudence and the principles of statutory construction; he also avers that Memorandum Circular No. 92-38 of the DILG, which is relied upon by GALAROSA, violates and contravenes the clear mandate of Section 494 of the Code which provides that in no case shall the membership of the ex officio members of the SB extend beyond the term of the SB concerned, which ended on 30 June 1992. GALAROSA filed a Reply to this Comment to which LASAY filed a Rejoinder. Not to be outdone, the former filed a Sur-rejoinder.
On 14 July 1993, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its comment. While not explicitly saying so, it asks us to grant the petition and to set aside the challenged decision because the respondent Judge should have dismissed the action on the following grounds: (a) LASAY failed to present a justiciable controversy since he is not an ABC president but a mere aspirant thereto, or, elsewise stated, his right to an ex officio membership in the SB is purely anticipatory; (b) not being an ABC president, LASAY is not a proper party to assail the ex officio membership of GALAROSA; and (c) the latter, who was to be directly affected by the petition of LASAY, was not named a party-respondent; in view of this "non-joinder of proper part[y]," respondent Judge should have dismissed the petition outright pursuant to Section 5, Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Court.
We resolved to give due course to the petition and required the parties to submit their respective memoranda, which they subsequently complied with.
Before proceeding to the main issue, we will address some collateral issues which the parties have raised, to wit: (a) the legal personality of LASAY to file the petition for declaratory relief and injunction with the trial court, (b) the absence of a justiciable controversy, (c) the non-joinder of an indispensable party in the said petition, and (d) the precipitateness of the trial court’s decision.
Nonetheless, the form and nature of the action filed by LASAY required the inclusion of GALAROSA as an adverse party. It is his right to his office that is challenged and he is the person who would be directly affected by any decision therein. No final determination of an action can be had unless he is joined therein. He is, therefore, an indispensable party. Under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court, the joinder of indispensable parties is compulsory; consequently, no action can proceed unless they are joined. 12 The absence of an indispensable party in a case renders ineffectual all the proceedings subsequent to the filing of the complaint including the judgment. 13 LASAY should have been required to implead GALAROSA and should he fail to do so, the petition should be dismissed. 14 GALAROSA in fact sought to intervene in the case by filing on 26 January 1993 an "Appearance with Motion to Annul the Injunction Order." Unfortunately, after it was noted and LASAY was directed to file his "comment and/or opposition thereto" after which the incident would be submitted for resolution, the respondent Judge, for reasons known only to him, never did resolve it. Then, with undue and precipitate haste, he rendered the challenged decision on 24 March 1993. That decision must be set aside for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction since an indispensable party, GALAROSA, was not effectively impleaded and recognized as a party in the case and given the opportunity to file a responsive pleading.
We shall then take up the core issue.
Immediately prior to the passage of the Local Government Code of 1991, the katipunang bayan or ABC in a municipality was composed of the barangay captains who were elected in the barangay elections of 28 March 1989 held pursuant to R.A. No. 6679. In the case at bar, it is presumed that GALAROSA was an elected punong barangay in the municipality of Sorsogon and was later elected president of the ABC of Sorsogon.
Accordingly, the president of the katipunang bayan became, after an appointment extended by the President through the Secretary of the Department of Local Government, a member of the first sangguniang bayan organized under the 1987 Constitution following the local elections held on 18 January 1988. That GALAROSA was extended such an appointment is not disputed.
The Local Government Code of 1991 does not explicitly provide that upon its effectivity the katipunan ng mga barangay under B.P. Blg. 337 automatically became the liga ng mga barangay under the Local Government Code and that the president of the ABC automatically became the president of the liga whose term as ex officio member of the first sangguniang bayan under the 1987 Constitution is coterminous with that of the other regular members of the SB or until 30 June 1992 pursuant to Section 494 of the Local Government Code in relation to Section 2, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution 20 and Section 5 of R.A. No. 6636. 21 Absent such explicitness and considering (1) that the opening clause of Section 491 is expressed in the future tense such that the liga can only be deemed to exist upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code of 1991 and (2) that Section 494 speaks of "duly elected presidents of the liga" thereby clearly implying an election after the organization of the liga, the conclusion to be drawn is that the legislature never intended that Section 494 would apply to the incumbent presidents of the katipunang bayan.
Nonetheless, notwithstanding the prospective character of Section 494 of the Local Government Code of 1991, the fact remains that the presidents of the katipunang bayan or ABC who were appointed as members of the sangguniang bayan by the President through the Secretary of Local Government by virtue of E.O. No. 342 were appointed to the sangguniang bayan whose regular members were elected in the 18 January 1988 local elections and whose term expired on 30 June 1992. It is to be presumed that they could not have been appointed for a term beyond that of the sangguniang bayan. This is evident from both Section 110(3) of B.P. Blg. 337 and Circular No. 89-09 of the Department of Local Government which respectively provide that the term of office of the ABC presidents therein determined is "without prejudice to their term of office as member of the sanggunian to which they may be accordingly appointed" and "without prejudice however, to the terms on [sic] their appointments as member of the sanggunian, to which they may be correspondingly appointed." Accordingly, while ABC presidents could remain as such after 30 June 1992 because their term of office as ABC presidents have not yet ended, their term of office as members of the sangguniang bayan had expired.
(3)	The incumbent presidents of the municipal, city, and provincial chapters of the liga shall continue to serve as ex officio members of the sanggunian concerned until the expiration of their term of office, unless sooner revoked for cause.
"In order to clarify issues arising from various interpretations of pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991 and the Implementing Rules and Regulations relative to the term of office of the Liga chapter presidents as members of the sanggunian, the following guidelines are hereby issued.
1.	The incumbent presidents of the ABC at the municipal, city, province and Metropolitan Manila shall continued [sic] to act as presidents of the corresponding Liga chapters.
2.	To ensure continued representation of the barangay in the sanggunian, they shall continue to serve as ex-officio members of the sanggunian concerned, unless sooner removed for cause, pending the election of the first set of officials of the national Liga and local chapters.
3.	The election of the first set of officials of the national Liga and local chapters shall be within six (6) months (not to go beyond March 9, 1993) from ratification by the National Liga and its constitution and by-laws.
The duly elected presidents of the liga at the municipal, city and provincial levels, including the component cities and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila, shall serve as ex-officio members of the sangguniang bayan, sangguniang panglungsod, [and] sangguniang panlalawigan, respectively. They shall serve as such only during their term of office as presidents of the liga chapters which in no case shall be beyond the term of office of the sanggunian concerned.
The incumbent presidents of the municipal, city and provincial chapters of the Liga shall continue to serve as ex officio members of the sanggunian concerned until the expiration of their term of office, unless sooner removed for cause.
The aforequoted provisions of the Code and its IRR clearly provide that upon the cessation from office of the elective sanggunian members, these ex-officio members shall likewise cease to hold office upon the election and qualification of their successors since they cannot serve beyond the end of the term of office of the elective members (See Laspinas v. Santos, G.R. No. 83520, June 23, 1988; Cadungon v. Singuat-Guerra, G.R. No. 85884, March 9, 1989).
Be that as it may, following the generally accepted principle that laws shall have prospective effect unless the contrary is expressly provided (Section 19, Chapter 5, Introductory Provisions, Administrative Code of 1987), the applicability of the aforequoted provisions does not contemplate of the incumbent sanggunian members, appointive or elective.
Besides, the promulgation of the IRR by the Oversight Committee and the pertinent issuances of the DILG are in the nature of executive construction and are thus entitled to great weight and respect by the Court, 26 especially that of the former since the composition of the Oversight Committee includes six Members of the Congress of the Philippines — three Senators, one of whom was the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Local Government, and three Congressmen, one of whom was the Chairman of the House Committee on Local Government — who are presumed to know the intent of the law.
We therefore hold that GALAROSA, as president of the ABC of Sorsogon, can legally and validly hold over as a member of the sangguniang bayan of Sorsogon, Sorsogon, until the election of the first set of officers of the liga ng mga barangay, unless he is sooner removed for cause.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE the Decision of the respondent Judge in Civil Case No. 5575 of Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon, Sorsogon.
Costs against private respondent Rodolfo Lasay.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno and Vitug, JJ., concur.
1.	The appropriate name under Section 108 of B.P. Blg. 337, the old Local Government Code, is katipunang bayan. Circular No. 89-09 of the Department of Local Government, dated 7 April 1989, used the name Association of Barangay Councils or ABC for short. Some quarters also refer to it as Association of Barangay Captains, probably because the councils are represented by barangay captains.
2.	Annex "B" of Petition.
3.	Annex "C" of Petition.
4.	Annex "E" of Petition.
5.	Annex "F" of Petition.
6.	Annex "G" of Petition. The writ was never issued as LASAY failed to put up the required bond.
7.	Annex "I" of Petition.
8.	Annex "J" of Petition.
9.	Annex "A" of Petition.
10.	Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, 110 Phil. 331 ; Gonzales v. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230 ; Gonzales v. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835 ; City Council of Cebu City v. Cuizon, 47 SCRA 325 .
11.	International Hardwood and Veneer Company of the Philippines v. University of the Philippines, 200 SCRA 554 .
12.	REGALADO, F.D., Remedial Law Compendium, vol. 1, 5th Revised ed., 56.
13.	Espiritu v. Court of Appeals, 58 SCRA 195 .
14.	Cortez v. Avila, 101 Phil. 205 ; National Development Co. v. Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 422 .
15.	Dimayuga v. Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank, 200 SCRA 143 ; Board of Liquidators v. Zulueta, 115 SCRA 548 ; Quisumbing v. Court of Appeals, 122 SCRA 703 .
16.	Section 492, Local Government Code of 1991.
17.	PIMENTEL, JR., A.Q., The Local Government Code of 1991, the Key to National Development, 1993 ed., 552.
18.	Ratified on 20 March 1985 during the 5th National ABC Convention.
19.	Section 4 refers to representation in the katipunang bayan, katipunan panglungsod, katipunan panlalawigan, katipunan Pampook and the Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Barangay. The succeeding sections refer to removal and suspension, and resignation.
22.	MECHEM, F.R., A Treatise On the Law of Public Offices and Officers, @ 397 (1890).
24.	63 AM. JUR. 2D Public Officers and Employees @ 160 (1972).
25.	Section 384, Local Government Code of 1991.
26.	Grapilon v. Municipal Council of Carigara, Leyte, 2 SCRA 103 ; Tan v. Municipality of Pagbilao, Quezon, 7 SCRA 887 ; University of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 37 SCRA 64 ; Cagayan Valley Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 218 .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.