House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal v. Daisy B. Panga-Vega, G.R. No.
228236, January 27, 2021
Doctrine/s:
Doctrine Description
Article 6 Section 17 - Both the Senate and the House of Representatives will each have an Electoral
of the 1987 Tribunal, which will be the only authority on all disputes related to the election,
Constitution returns, and qualifications of their respective Members.
- Each Electoral Tribunal will consist of nine Members, three of whom will be
Justices of the Supreme Court appointed by the Chief Justice, and the remaining
six will be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, depending
on the case.
- These six members will be chosen based on proportional representation from
the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-
list system represented therein. The most senior Justice in the Electoral
Tribunal will serve as its Chairman.
Creation of the - created by virtue of Section (Sec.) 17, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine
House of Constitution, which provides that the House of Representatives shall have its
Representatives own Electoral Tribunal that shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
Electoral Tribunal election, returns, and qualifications of its Members
- expanded judicial power to include the determination of "whether or not there
has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government”
Creation of the - serves as the law office of the Government and is responsible for duties
Office of the requiring the services of a lawyer
Solicitor General - represents the Government of the Philippines, its agencies, instrumentalities,
and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter
requiring the services of a lawyer
- represents the Government and its officers in all civil actions and special
proceedings in which the Government, or any officer thereof, in his official
capacity is a party
Arrangements that - may be excused from representing the Government, its agencies, and
the OSG may be instrumentalities under certain circumstances such as when there is an express
excused authorization by the OSG, naming therein the legal officers who are being
deputized in cases involving their respective offices, subject to its supervision
and control, or when the OSG takes a position different from that of the
agency it is duty bound to represent
Substantial facts:
• On February 2, 2011, Atty. Daisy B. Panga-Vega, then Secretary of the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (HRET), requested a 15-day special leave under the Magna Carta of Women to undergo a
hysterectomy.
• After a month of leave, Panga-Vega informed the HRET that she was reassuming her duties and presented a
medical certificate stating she was fit to work.
• The HRET directed Panga-Vega to consume her 2-month special leave given her need for prolonged rest
following her surgery and in view of a pending investigation on her alleged alteration of meeting minutes.
• The Civil Service Commission (CSC) granted Panga-Vega’s appeal, ruling that she only needed to present a
medical certificate attesting her physical fitness to return to work and need not exhaust the full leave she
applied for under RA No. 9710.
• The HRET filed a Petition for Review assailing the CSC’s decision with the Court of Appeals (CA), but the
CA dismissed the petition.
• The HRET argues that the CSC should not have applied suppletorily the rules on maternity leave to the
special leave benefit under RA No. 9710 and contends that Panga-Vega did not sufficiently comply with the
1|Pa ge
“CSC Guidelines on the Availment of the Special Leave Benefits for Women Under RA No. 9710”,
warranting her return to work.
Issue:
Issue #1 (MAIN)
Whether or not the petition should have been filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, not by the
Secretary or Deputy Secretary of the HRET (YES)
Issue #2 (APPENDIX)
Whether or not the rules on maternity leave under the Labor Code, provides that when the employee
returns to work before the expiration of her special leave, she may receive both the benefits granted under
the maternity leave law and the salary for the actual services rendered effective the day she reports for
work, may have suppletory application (CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED)
Ruling:
• The HRET was created by virtue of Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which provides that the
House of Representatives shall have its own Electoral Tribunal that shall be sole judge of all contests related
to elections, returns and qualifications of its members
• Office of the Solicitor General was constituted as law office of the Government and shall discharge duties
requiring the services of a lawyer as such; represents the Philippine government, agencies, instrumentalities
and officials and agents in any litigation services of a lawyer
• There was no express authorization by the OSG naming the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the HRET as
its deputized legal officers in filing the petition. There was no proof and allegation that the OSG took a
position different from the HRET case
• FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is DENIED.
Appendix
On Issue #2
• Similar to special benefit leave benefit under RA No. 7910, maternity leave under Omnibus Rules on Leave
seeks to protect health and welfare of women, specifically on working mothers
• Primary purpose is to afford measures of financial aid and grant them a period of rest and recuperation in
connection with pregnancies
• The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) recognizes
the necessity to ensure women’s basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. This is achieved through the
implementation of suitable measures, including legislation, in political, social, economic, and cultural fields to
guarantee their full development and progress. In line with this, the fundamental law obliges the State to
safeguard working women by offering safe and healthful working conditions, as well as facilities and
opportunities that enhance their welfare and empower them to reach their full potential in serving the
nation.
• Anent Panga-Vega's return to work, while RA No. 9710 and the CSC Guidelines do not require that the
entire special leave applied for be consumed, certain conditions must be satisfied for its propriety.
References:
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal v. Daisy B. Panga-Vega, G.R. No. 228236, January 27, 2021
retrieved from https://chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021januarydecisions.php?id=287
2|Pa ge
3|Pa ge
