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…

At the hub of the present controversy is Section 494 of Republic
Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, which
provides as follows:

“SECTION 494. Ex Officio Membership in Sanggunians. — The
duly elected presidents of the liga [ng mga barangay] 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.”

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
Gimaloto 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 of 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 9 September 1992, the trial court, per respondent Judge
Eudarlio B. Valencia, issued a temporary restraining order directing the SB of
Sorsogon “to desist from recognizing the participation of the old Ex Officio
membership of the President of the Association of Barangay Captains and to hold
in abeyance the taking and/or payment of salaries from the Municipal Government
of Sorsogon relative thereto.”^[4] It
set the hearing on the application for a writ of preliminary injunction on 22 September 1992. On the latter date, the court
heard LASAY and the SB of Sorsogon. It
then issued an order granting the parties thirty days within which to file
their memoranda in support of their respective positions, after which both the
incident on the preliminary injunction and the merits of the case shall be
deemed submitted for decision.^[5]

On 22 October 1992, the respondent Judge issued an order granting
the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon the
filing of a bond of P40,000.00.^[6]

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.

On 26 February 1993, the
respondent Judge issued an order noting the above pleading of GALAROSA and
directing LASAY to file his “comment and/or opposition thereto” within five
days from receipt of a copy of the said order, after which “the incident shall
be deemed submitted for resolution.”^[8]

The trial court never
resolved that “incident.”

On 24 March 1993, the
respondent Judge handed down a decision^[9] in favor of LASAY, the adjudicatory portion
of which reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing considerations,
judgment is hereby rendered:

(1)  Declaring the incumbent President of the Association of Barangay Captains of
Sorsogon as without any further right or legal basis to continue in office as
ex-officio member of the present Sangguniang Bayan of Sorsogon pursuant to and
conformably with Section 494 of Republic Act No. 7160; and

(2)  Ordering the respondent Sangguniang Bayan of
Sorsogon to cease and desist from recognizing the participation of the old
ex-officio membership of the President of the Association of Barangay Captains
of the town of Sorsogon.”

In holding for LASAY, the respondent Judge rejected the claims of
the SB of Sorsogon that (1) pursuant to DILG Memorandum Circular No. 92-38 dated
29 June 1992, Section 494 of the Local Government Code was reconciled with
Article 210(d)(3), Rule XXIX of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the said
Code which provides that incumbent ABC presidents shall continue to serve as ex
officio members of their respective sanggunians unless sooner
removed for cause or the new officers shall have been elected and qualified;
(2) LASAY is not the proper party in interest and even if he is, he did not
exhaust all available administrative remedies; and (3) what is involved is a
political question which is beyond the province of the trial court. As to the
first, the respondent Judge ruled that Article 210 of the Rules and Regulations
does not expressly provide that the term of office of the ABC presidents as ex
officio members of the SB shall go beyond the term of the SB concerned;
since the term of the sanggunian concerned expired on 30 June 1992, it
stands to follow that the ex officio membership of the liga
president in the said sanggunian, by express mandate of law, likewise
ended on the said date. As to the exhaustion of administrative remedies, the
respondent Judge ruled that it is not applicable since the issue involved is
“purely a legal one.” He rejected the “political question” issue by stating
that the interpretation of laws, rules, and regulations is a judicial function
and prerogative. Furthermore, he invoked Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution on the scope of judicial review. The respondent Judge did not
squarely tackle the issue regarding the locus standi of LASAY, although
he described LASAY as “the incumbent Barangay Captain of Gimaloto … a
declared aspirant for President of the [ABC] … as well as being a taxpayer claiming direct interest to complain, protest
and seek the proper relief.”

Unable to accept the decision, GALAROSA filed this petition which
we have decided to treat as one for certiorari under Rule 65. He submits therein that:

“THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED WHEN HE RULED THAT THE PETITIONER,
DESPITE HIS INCUMBENCY AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF BARANGAY
COUNCILS OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SORSOGON, HAS NO LONGER ANY LEGAL BASIS OR
RIGHT TO HIS EX-OFFICIO MEMBERSHIP IN THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF SORSOGON.”

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.

It must be stressed that the petition filed by LASAY with the
trial court is one for declaratory relief and injunction and not solely for the
former. The latter can be either prohibitory or mandatory in character. LASAY
sought to enjoin the SB of
Sorsogon from recognizing GALAROSA as an ex officio member of the SB and
from allowing him to participate in its deliberations, and to direct it to hold
in abeyance the payment of GALAROSA’s salaries. LASAY brought the action in his
capacity as a barangay captain who is seeking the presidency of the ABC of
Sorsogon and in his capacity as a taxpayer. This Court agrees with GALAROSA and
the Office of the Solicitor General that with respect to the first, LASAY does
not have the legal standing to institute the action for he is a mere aspirant
to the presidency of the ABC and his right thereto is a mere expectancy. We do
rule, however, that as a taxpayer he has a sufficient legal standing, because
the injunction he prayed for is founded on what he believed to be an illegal
disbursement of public funds of his municipal government. In this jurisdiction,
the strict rule relative to the determination of real parties in interest has
been sufficiently relaxed to allow a taxpayer to bring an action to restrain
the unlawful disbursement of public funds.^[10]

We also hold that the requisites for an action for declaratory
relief were present, namely: (a) that there is a justiciable controversy, (b)
that the controversy is between persons whose interests are adverse, (c) that
the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy, and (d) that the issue invoked is ripe for
judicial determination.^[11] The controversy is whether GALAROSA can continue
to serve as a member of the SB after 30 June 1992. LASAY, as a taxpayer, has
the locus standi to have it resolved because a decision
against GALAROSA would mean that he is not entitled to receive his salary and
other benefits as a member of the SB and any such payment to him beyond 30 June
1992 would be illegal.

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.

A remand of this case to the trial court for further proceedings
consistent with the above disquisition would be the natural course of action to
follow. However, considering that the principal issue posed is purely legal and
the pleadings of the parties have exhaustively discussed the main issue and all
collateral matters, the controversy could be forthwith resolved on the basis
thereof. The remand of the case to the trial court would only delay the final
disposition of the case and would not serve the public interest, especially
here where our decision would affect all ABC presidents throughout the country.
We have consistently ruled that the remand of a case to a lower court for the
reception of evidence is not necessary if this Court can already resolve the
dispute on the basis of the records before it.^[15]

We shall then take up the core issue.

Section 494 of the Local Government Code of 1991 provides for the
ex officio membership in
the respective sanggunians
of the duly elected presidents of the liga
at the municipal, city and provincial levels, including the component cities
and municipalities of Metropolitan Manila. The liga referred to therein is the liga ng mga barangay.
Section 491 of the Code provides for its creation and purpose:

“SECTION 491. Purpose of
organization. — There shall be an organization of all barangays to be
known as the Liga ng mga Barangay for the primary purpose of determining the
representation of the liga in the sanggunians and for ventilating, articulating
and crystallizing issues affecting barangay government administration and
securing, through proper and legal means, solutions thereto.”

Every barangay is represented in the liga
ng mga barangay by
the punong barangay, or in his absence or incapacity, by
a sanggunian member duly
elected for the purpose among its members.^[16] The
principal aim of the liga ng mga
barangay is to promote the development of barangays and secure the
general welfare of their inhabitants.^[17]

The forerunner of the liga
ng mga barangay is the katipunan ng mga barangay under
Section 108 of B.P. Blg. 337, which was known as the katipunang bayan in municipalities, katipunang panglungsod in cities, katipunang panlalawigan in
provinces, and katipunan ng mga
barangay on the national level. Each barangay therein was
represented by the punong barangay. The katipunang bayan was also referred to as the Association of
Barangay Councils or ABC for short. Pursuant to the first paragraph of Section
146 of B.P. Blg. 337, the president of the said organization was among the
members of the sangguniang bayan — the legislative body of the
municipality — subject, however, to appointment by the President of the
Philippines. Under Section 110(3) thereof, the term of office of all officers
of the katipunang bayan, including its president, was to be governed by
“the by-laws of the organization, without prejudice, however, to their term of
office as member of the sanggunian to which they may be correspondingly
appointed.” Section 25 of the By-Laws of the Katipunan ng mga Barangay^[18] provides that “the term of office of all
officers of the katipunan at all levels shall be from the date of their
elections until the next katipunan elections following general barangay
elections, subject to the limitations of Section 4 and the succeeding sections
hereof.”^[19]

On 7 March 1988, then
President Corazon C. Aquino issued Memorandum Circular No. 51 providing for
policy guidelines on the representation of certain sectors, including the
president of the katipunang bayan, in the legislative bodies of local
governments. Then on 28 November 1988 she issued E.O. No. 342 delegating to the
Secretary of Local Government
the power to appoint certain local offices under certain sections, including
Section 146(1) of B.P. Blg. 337. Thereafter, appointments of the presidents of
the katipunang bayan as members of the sangguniang bayan
were made by the Secretary of
Local Government.

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.

On 7 April 1989, the Department of Local Government issued
Circular No. 89-09 providing for the reorganization of the katipunan ng mga
barangays in all levels and prescribing the guidelines for the election of
their officers. Guideline 2.2 thereof on terms
of office reads:

“The terms of office of all officers of the katipunan at all levels
shall be from the date of their election until their successors shall have been
duly elected and qualified, without prejudice, however, to the terms of their
appointments as member of the sanggunian, to which they may be correspondingly
appointed.”

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.

In short, there is no indication at all that Section 491 and
Section 494 should be given retroactive effect to adversely affect the
presidents of the ABC. They should thus be applied prospectively. There is a
substantive rationale for this. The Local Government Code significantly altered
the previous law and rules relative to the membership of the presidents of the katipunang
bayan or the ABC. In the first
place, a prior appointment by the President, as required under Section 110(3)
of B.P. Blg. 337 or by him through the Secretary of Interior and Local
Government pursuant to E.O. No. 342, is no longer necessary. It may be pointed
out that B.P. Blg. 337 has been expressly repealed under paragraph (a), Section
534 of the Local Government Code of 1991. Accordingly, E.O. No. 342 is likewise
deemed repealed either as a consequence thereof or under paragraph (f) of the
said section which repeals, inter alia, executive orders inconsistent
with any provisions of the said Code. In the second place, Section 494
specifically provides that the term of office of the liga presidents
shall in no case go “beyond the term of office of the sanggunian
concerned.” Consequently, the expiration of their terms of office as ex
officio members of the sanggunian concerned coincides with the
expiration of the term of office of the regular members thereof. The section,
however, does not fix the specific duration of their term as liga
president. This is left to the by-laws of the liga pursuant to Article
211(g) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code (IRR
for brevity). It may be recalled that under R.A. No. 6679, the term of office
of the punong barangay
elected in the 28 March 1989 election for barangay officials was five years
commencing on 1 May 1989 and ending on 31 May 1994. It also provides that the
next regular election of barangay officials shall be on the second Monday of
May 1994 and on the same day every five years thereafter and that their term of
office shall begin on the first day of June following their election and until
their successors shall have been elected and qualified. On the other hand,
Section 43(c) of the Local Government Code of 1991 fixes the term of elective
barangay officials at three years which, insofar as those first elected under
it are concerned, shall begin “after the regular election x x x on the second
Monday of May 1994.”

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.

There is, however, no law which prohibits them from holding
over as members of the sangguniang
bayan. On the
contrary, the aforementioned IRR, prepared and issued by the Oversight
Committee upon specific mandate of Section 533 of the Local Government Code,
expressly recognizes and grants that hold-over authority to ABC presidents.
Pertinent portions of paragraphs (d)
and (f), Article 210 of the IRR read as follows:

“ART. 210. Liga ng mga
barangay. —

x x x

(d)  Ex officio membership in the sanggunian
—

x x x

(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.

x x x

(f)   Organizational structure -?

(1)  x x x
Pending election of the presidents of the municipal, city, provincial, and
metropolitan chapters of the liga, the incumbent presidents of the association
of barangay councils in the municipality, city, province, and Metropolitan
Manila shall continue to act as presidents of the corresponding liga chapters
under this Rule.”

This was further elaborated in an
unnumbered Circular of the DILG dated
15 June 1992 on the subject “Clarifying the Term of Office of Liga
Chapter Presidents (ABC) as Members of the Sanggunian” which reads:

“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.

4.   The ratification of the Liga Constitution and
by-laws shall be within six (6) months (not to go beyond September 9, 1992)
from the promulgation of the Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) of the
Local Government Code on March 9, 1992.”

And
on 29 June 1992, the DILG issued Memorandum Circular No. 92­-38 which
reads as follows:

“In view of the numerous issues and concerns reaching this
Department requesting for a clarificatory ruling regarding the term of office
of the incumbent ABC Presidents as ex-officio members of the respective
sanggunian pending the reorganization and election of the new liga chapter, the
following guidelines are hereby promulgated for the guidance and reference of
all concerned:

Section 494, Local
Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160)

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.

Article 210 (d)(3), Rule
XXIX of the IRR

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 vs. Santos, G.R. No. 83520, June 23, 1988; Cadungon vs. 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.

This principle is buttressed by Article 210 (f), Rule XXIX of the
IRR which declares, in part, that ‘pending election of the presidents of the
municipal, city, provincial, and metropolitan chapters of the liga, the
incumbent presidents of the association of barangay councils in the
municipality, city, province, and Metropolitan Manila shall continue to act as
presidents of the corresponding liga chapters under this Rule.”

x x x

The application of the hold-over doctrine in both the
aforementioned provisions of the IRR and the issuances of the DILG should be
upheld. The rule is settled that unless “holding over be expressly or impliedly
prohibited, the incumbent may continue to hold over until some one else is
elected and qualified to assume the office.”^[22] This
rule is demanded by the “most obvious requirements of public policy, for
without it there must frequently be cases where, from a failure to elect or a
refusal or neglect to qualify, the office would be vacant and the public
service entirely suspended.”^[23]
Otherwise stated, the purpose is to prevent a hiatus in the government pending
the time when the successor may be chosen and inducted into office.^[24]
Section 494 of the Local Government Code could not have been intended to allow
a gap in the representation of the barangays, through the presidents of the
ABC, in the sanggunian. Since the term of office of the punong
barangays elected in the 28 March 1989 election and the term of office of
the presidents of the ABC have not yet expired and taking into account the
special role conferred upon and the broader powers and functions invested in
the barangays by the Code as a basic political unit, as a primary planning and
implementing unit of government policies in the community, and as a forum
wherein the collective views of the people may be expressed and considered and
where disputes may be amicably settled,^[25] it
would be in harmony with sound logic to infer that the Code never intended to
deprive the barangays of their representation in the sangguniang bayan
during the interregnum when the liga has yet to be formally organized
with the election of its officers.

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.

SO ORDERED.

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 vs. Secretary of Public Works, 110 Phil. 331 [1960]; Gonzales vs.
Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230 [1963]; Gonzales vs. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835 [1969];
City Council of Cebu City vs. Cuizon, 47 SCRA 325 [1972].

^[11]
International Hardwood and Veneer Company of the Philippines vs.
University of the Philippines, 200 SCRA 554 [1991].

^[12]
REGALADO, F.D., Remedial Law Compendium, vol. 1, 5th
Revised ed., 56.

^[13]
Espiritu vs. Court of Appeals, 58 SCRA 195 [1974].

^[14]
Cortez vs. Avila, 101 Phil. 205 [1957]; National Development Co. vs.
Court of Appeals, 211 SCRA 422 [1992].

^[15]
Dimayuga vs. Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank, 200 SCRA 143
[1991]; Board of Liquidators vs. Zulueta, 115 SCRA 548 [1982];
Quisumbing vs. Court of Appeals, 122 SCRA 703 [1983].

^[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.

^[20]
Said Section 2 reads in part: “The Senators, Members of the House of
Representatives, and the local officials first elected under this Constitution
shall serve until noon of June 30, 1992.”

^[21]
Said Section 5 provides in part: “Local officials duly elected shall assume
office at noon on the second day of February 1988 and shall serve until noon of
June 30, 1992.”

^[22]
MECHEM, F.R., A Treatise On The Law of
Public Offices and Officers, § 397 (1890).

^[23]
Id.

^[24]
63 AM. JUR. 2D Public Officers and
Employees § 160 (1972).

^[25]
Section 384, Local Government Code of 1991.

^[26]
Grapilon vs. Municipal Council of Carigara, Leyte, 2 SCRA 103 [1961];
Tan vs. Municipality of Pagbilao, Quezon, 7 SCRA 887 [1963]; University
of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 37 SCRA 64 [1971]; Cagayan
Valley Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 218 [1989].