Sample Procedure in the Conduct of Administrative Investigation – Private Corporations

1. Acts and omissions by employees meriting administrative action, under the company’s code for employee discipline, must be reported immediately and formally to the concerned employee’s immediate superior.

2. The immediate superior of the reported employee will review, study and validate the report submitted to him.

3. After establishing the validity of the submitted report, the immediate superior must endorse the same to the Department Manager, if applicable. Evidence such as affidavits, photographs and documents supporting the report, must be included.

4. The Department Manager, after a thorough evaluation and as may be deemed proper, must refer the matter to the proper disciplinary/investigating authority of the company.

4. The disciplinary authority must immediately issue a Notice to Explain (NTE) to the reported employee stating clearly the charges, purpose, reason and basis of such. It must also determine whether or not the case merits preventive suspension. If so, the NTE may include the order of preventive suspension.

5. The employee must submit his written response to the disciplinary authority within the allowable time provided as stated in NTE. If the penalty is termination, the period to answer must be at least 5 days. If the penalty is from reprimand to suspension, less than 5 days will suffice.

6. When the penalty is termination, there must always be a hearing scheduled for the purpose.

7. Upon receipt of the employee’s written explanation, and after hearing (in case of termination), the disciplinary authority will make the decision either to excuse or impose disciplinary action (DA) on the reported employee. The basis of their decision must always be in consonance with Philippine labor laws (i.e., just causes) and the code of discipline.

7. Should the disciplinary authority impose the DA, the decision will be issued to the reported employee, and explained to him or her. The decision must show that all circumstances have been considered and the grounds have been established to justify the penalty.

8. Where the disciplinary authority excuses the imposition of DA, the employee will receive a copy of the decision.

Sale of property without consideration is void ab initio; imprescriptible

In a case, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed between respondent and petitioner was simulated and fictitious, and therefore, did not convey title over the subject property to petitioner. Apparently, respondent was convinced by petitioner to sign the said deed of sale because it was intended to be a mere proposal subject to the approval of the trial court wherein the proceedings for the settlement of the estate owning the property was still pending. The Supreme Court also agreed to the observation that the deed lacked consideration because respondent never received the stipulated purchase price for the subject property.

According to the Supreme Court, a sale that lacks consideration is void from the beginning and produces no legal effect. The right to declare it as such does not prescribe either:

It is a well-entrenched rule that where the deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is null and void ab initio for lack of consideration. Moreover, Article 1471 of the Civil Code, provides that “if the price is simulated, the sale is void,” which applies to the instant case, since the price purportedly paid as indicated in the contract of sale was simulated for no payment was actually made.

Since it was well established that the Deed of Sale is simulated and, therefore void, petitioners’ claim that respondent's cause of action is one for annulment of contract, which already prescribed, is unavailing, because only voidable contracts may be annulled. On the other hand, respondent's defense for the declaration of the inexistence of the contract does not prescribe. (Please see Catindig vs. Vda de Meneses, GR No. 165851/Roxas Sr. vs. CA, GR No. 168875, 02 February 2011)

Where to borrow money (for local government units) – the Municipal Development Fund

Some Philippine cities, provinces and towns may not be aware of this, but there is a special law (PD 1914), establishing the Municipal Development Fund (MDF) as a revolving fund made available for the local government units. Initially capitalized and funded by proceeds of foreign loans, assistance or grants, the amortizations of LGUs accrue to MDF and made available for re-lending for LGU projects.

The Fund may be used for the following:

1. Public Economic Enterprise/ Revenue Generating Projects such as public market, trading post (bagsakan center), slaughterhouses, land transportation terminals, municipal wharves and fish ports, dry port, sea port, cargo port, barge, roll-on roll-off (Ro-RO), airport strip, post harvest facilities, cold storage facilities, ice plants, public memorial parks, water supply level III, toll roads, local electrification such as mini-hydro electric power plant, wind power and solar energy, income generating policy reform-related initiatives (i.e. RPTA computerization, one-stop shop taxpayers system, etc.), cemetery, crematorium, columbarium, funeral services, microfinance and livelihood projects, food processing facility, OTOP Programs, commercial centers and other public economic enterprise/revenue generating projects, breeding station, agro-industrial facilities, establishment of seed farm and seed banks, purchase of fries and fingerlings, solar dryer, and other related facilities and equipment.

2. Social and Environmental Projects such as water supply, health centers, lying-in clinics and hospitals, nursery, day care center, orphanage/ home for the aged facilities, school buildings, public library and information centers, communal irrigation, farm-to-market roads, rural roads and bridges, municipal hall, policy reform-related initiatives (computerization programs such as of Financial Management Information System, Community-Based Information and Monitoring System, etc.), training center, non-formal education facility, sports complex, gymnasium, basketball court, housing project, traffic management systems, multi-purpose pavement, and other related facilities and equipment; reforestation, forest-related activities, soil conservation, mangrove and watershed protection, river and seashore protection, ecotourism project, freedom parks, reforestation and agro-forestry, watershed protection, and biodiversity conservation and other related facilities and equipment.

3. Solid Waste Management Facilities including materials recovery facilities, recycling plant, sanitary landfills, drainage system, sewerage and sanitation support facilities, waste water treatment facility, public sanitary toilets, waste-to-energy facilities, septage management and other related facilities and equipment.

An interested LGU must be able to show its net borrowing capacity and must be prepared with a project or feasibility study.

Maximum repayment period is 20 years, and total interest rates hover between 6%-8% depending on the LGU category. The Fund is available for full cost financing and provides free technical assistance.

Of eviction and demolition: A tale of 2 cities and RA 7279

The recent news about the mayor of Davao City raining fists and fury on a hapless sheriff because of his refusal to wait for “Inday Sara” Duterte to arrive before ordering the demolition of the houses in a shanty town brought flurries of comments and reactions both negative and positive. The demolition was made due to a court order.

On the other end of the spectrum, this brings to mind the summary (sans court order) demolition of houses in a private compound in Makati City with the blessings, so it would appear from the news, of the mayor, Junjun Binay. He reportedly even had an altercation with the DILG secretary, Jesse Robredo. The demolition was enforced days after a raging fire engulfed the compound. It happened a few months ago and also elicited various reactions and criticisms.

Since most if not all the affected people were poor and underprivileged, is there a special law that addresses the matter of their eviction and the demolition of their houses?

Yes, it is Republic Act (RA) 7279, or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992. Under this law, demolition is a last recourse:

“Sec. 28. Eviction and Demolition. — Eviction or demolition as a practice shall be discouraged. Eviction or demolition, however, may be allowed under the following situations:

(a) When persons or entities occupy danger areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines, waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks, and playgrounds;

(b) When government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented; or

(c) When there is a court order for eviction and demolition.

In the execution of eviction or demolition orders involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, the following shall be mandatory:

(1) Notice upon the effected persons or entities at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of eviction or demolition;

(2) Adequate consultations on the matter of settlement with the duly designated representatives of the families to be resettled and the affected communities in the areas where they are to be relocated;

(3) Presence of local government officials or their representatives during eviction or demolition;

(4) Proper identification of all persons taking part in the demolition;

(5) Execution of eviction or demolition only during regular office hours from Mondays to Fridays and during good weather, unless the affected families consent otherwise;

(6) No use of heavy equipment for demolition except for structures that are permanent and of concrete materials;

(7) Proper uniforms for members of the Philippine National Police who shall occupy the first line of law enforcement and observe proper disturbance control procedures; and

(8) Adequate relocation, whether temporary or permanent: Provided, however, That in cases of eviction and demolition pursuant to a court order involving underprivileged and homeless citizens, relocation shall be undertaken by the local government unit concerned and the National Housing Authority with the assistance of other government agencies within forty-five (45) days from service of notice of final judgment by the court, after which period the said order shall be executed: Provided, further, That should relocation not be possible within the said period, financial assistance in the amount equivalent to the prevailing minimum daily wage multiplied by sixty (60) days shall be extended to the affected families by the local government unit concerned.”

According to the law’s implementing rules, “Any person or group identified as professional squatter and squatting syndicates shall be summarily evicted and their dwellings or structures demolished…” Also included are "new squatter families" whose structures were built after the effectivity of RA 7279.

It is important to remember that violation of this law carries a penalty of not more than six (6) years of imprisonment or a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (P5,000) but not more than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000), or both, at the discretion of the court.