This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-06-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that an oath of office is a qualifying requirement for a public office, a prerequisite to the full investiture of the office. [16] Since petitioner took his oath and assumed office only on February 26, it was only then that his right to enter into the position became plenary and complete. [17] Prior to such oath, Gasgonia still had the right to exercise the functions of her office. It is also well to note that per certification issued by Raymond C. Santiago, Accountant of PCUP, Gasgonia received her last salary for the period covering February 1-25, 2001; and petitioner received his first salary for the period covering February 26 to March 7, 200[1].[18] | |||||
|
2007-04-24 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Labo, Jr. v. COMELEC,[22] which enunciates the doctrine on the rejection of the second placer, does not apply to the present case because in Labo there was no final judgment of disqualification before the elections. The doctrine on the rejection of the second placer was applied in Labo and a host of other cases[23] because the judgment declaring the candidate's disqualification in Labo and the other cases[24] had not become final before the elections. To repeat, Labo and the other cases applying the doctrine on the rejection of the second placer have one common essential condition the disqualification of the candidate had not become final before the elections. This essential condition does not exist in the present case. | |||||