Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer commission, administration, authority, board or bureau x x x ." INTRODUCTION
I.
Conc Concep ept/ t/de defi fini niti tion on of admi admini nist stra rati tive ve law law
The branch of public law that fixes the organization of the govern governmen mentt and determ determine ines s compe competen tence ce of author authoriti ities es who execut execute e the law and and indica indicates tes to indivi individua duall remedi remedies es for the violations of his rights. II.
Scope of of ad admini st strative la law
Administrative law embraces all the law that controls, or is inte intend nded ed to cont contro rol, l, the the admi admini nist stra rati tive ve oper operat atio ions ns of the the government. III. III.
Clas Classi sifi fica cati tion on of admi admini nist stra rati tive ve law law body of statutes setting up or creating administra administrative tive agencies and endowing endowing them with power and duties; B. That body of agency-made law, i.e., rules, regulations and orders promulgated in the exercise of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions; C. That body of legal principles governing the acts of public agents which conflict with private rights; D. That body of determinations, decisions and orders of admi admini nist stra rati tive ve bodi bodies es made made in the the sett settle leme ment nt of controversies arising in their particular fields. A. That
IV. IV.
Orig Origin in and and deve develo lopm pmen entt of admin adminis istr trat ativ ive e law law
V.
Adva Advant ntag ages es of the the adm admin inis istr trat ativ ive e pro proce cess ss NATURE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
I.
Concept A. Def in in it it io io n of adm in in is ist ra rat iv iv e agenc y - An administrative agency is defined as "[a] government body charged charged with administer administering ing and implementi implementing ng particular particular legi legisl slat atio ion. n. Exam Exampl ples es are are work worker ers' s' comp compen ensa sati tion on commissions, x x x and the like. x x x The term 'agency' includes includes any departmen department, t, independe independent nt establish establishment, ment,
Republic v. Court of Appeals 200 SCRA 226 Facts: Sugar Regulatory Administration and Republic Planters Bank questioned the decision of the CA which dismissed the petition of the former on the ground of lack of capacity to sue. Issue: Issue: WON admin administ istrat rative ive agency agency has only only such such power powers s as expressl expressly y granted granted to it by law and those that are necessari necessarily ly implied in the exercise thereof? RULING: The SC ruled in the negative. Administrative agency has only such powers as are expressly granted to it by law and those that are necessarily implied in the exercise thereof? In this this case, case, admini administr strati ative ve agency agency is judici judiciall ally y define defined d as “gov “gover ernm nmen entt body body char charge ged d with with the the admi admini nist ster erin ing g and and implem implement enting ing partic particula ularr legisl legislati ation” on” exampl examples es are worker workers s compen compensat sation ion commis commissio sions ns and the like. like. The term term “agenc “agency” y” includes any department, i ndependent ndependent establishment, commission, administration, authority or bureau.
B.
Test Test for for dete determ rmin inin ing g adm admin inis istr trat ativ ive e natu nature re
1. Mandatory Mandatory – statutory statutory requirement requirement intended intended for the protection of the citizens and by a disregard of which their rights are injuriously affected; 2. Directory – if no substantial right depend on it and no injury can result from ignoring it and purpose of legislature can can be acco accomp mpli lish shed ed in a mann manner er othe otherr than than that that prescribed and substantially, the same results attained. C. Administrative function, defined Admini Administr strati ative ve functi functions ons are those those which which involv involve e the regulatio regulation n and control control over over the conduc conductt and affairs affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the Policy of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of i ts existence
1|Page
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
In Re: Rodolfo Manzano 166 SCRA 246 Facts: It’s a petition file by judge manzano allowing him to accept the appointment by executive order by the governor of ilocos sur Rodolfo farinas as the member of ilocos norte provincial committee on justice justice created created pursuan pursuantt to preside presidenti ntial al order. order. That That his membe membersh rship ip in commit committee tee will not in any any way amount amount to an abandonment to his present position as executive judge of branch branch xix, RTC, first judicial region and as a member of judiciary. Issue: What is an administrative agency? Ruling: Ruling: Administrat Administrative ive functions functions are those which which involve involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the Policy of the legislatur legislature e or such as are devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence The petition is denied. The Constitution Constitution prohibits the designation of members of the judiciary to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. (Section 12, Article VIII, Constitution.) Insofar Insofar as the term "quasi-ju "quasi-judicial dicial"" is concerned, concerned, it has a fairly clear meaning and Judges can confidently refrain from participating in the work work of any admin administ istrat rative ive agenc agency y which which adjud adjudica icates tes disputes and controversies involving the rights of parties within its jurisdiction. The issue involved in this case is where to draw the line insofar as administrative functions are concerned. "Administra "Administrative tive functions" functions" as used in Section Section 12 refers refers to the executive machinery of government and the performance by that machinery machinery of governmen governmental tal acts. It refers refers to the management management actions, determinations, and orders of executive officials as they administer the laws and try to make government effective. There is an element of positive action, of supervision or control. In the dissenting opinion of Justice Gutierrez: Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carry out the policy of the legislature or such as are devolved upon
the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence "we can can read readil ily y see see that that memb member ersh ship ip in the the Prov Provin inci cial al or City City Committee on Justice would not involve any regulation or control over over the condu conduct ct and and affair affairs s of indivi individua duals. ls. Neith Neither er will will the Commit Com mittee tee on Justic Justice e promul promulgat gate e rules rules and and regula regulatio tions ns nor nor exercise any quasi-legislative functions. Its work is purely advisory. A memb member er of the the judi judici ciar ary y join joinin ing g any any stud study y grou group p whic which h concentrates on the administration of justice as long as the group merely deliberates on problems involving the speedy disposition of cases particularly those involving the poor and needy litigants-or detainees, pools the expertise and experiences of the members, and limits itself to recommend recommendation ations s which may be adopted adopted or rejected by those who have the power to legislate or administer the particular function involved in their implementation. D. Public office, administrative law
defined
in
relation
to
Fernandez vs Sto. Tomas 248 SCRA 194 Facts: In this Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with Prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order, petitioners Salvador C. Fernandez and Anicia M. de Lima assail the validity of Resolution No. 94-3710 of the Civil Service Commission and the authority of the Commission to issue the same. Petiti Petitione onerr Ferna Fernande ndez z was servin serving g as Direct Director or of the Office Office of Person Personnel nel Inspe Inspecti ction on and Audit Audit while while petiti petitione onerr de Lima Lima was serving as Director of the Office of the Personnel Relations, both at the Central Office of the Civil Service Commission in Quezon City, Metropolitan Manila. While petitioners were so serving, Resolution No. 94-3710 signed by public respondents Patricia A. Sto. Tomas and Ramon Ereneta, Jr., Chairman and Commissioner, respectively, of the Commission, was issued . Issues : (1)Whether or not the Civil Service Commission had legal authority to issue Resolution No. 94-3710 to the extent it merged the OCSS [Office [Office of Career Career Systems Systems and Standard Standards], s], the OPIA [Office [Office of Personnel Inspection and Audit] and the OPR [Office of Personnel Relations], to form the RDO [Research and Development Office]; and
2|Page
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer (2)Whethe (2)Whetherr or not Resolutio Resolution n No. 94-37 10 violated violated petitioner petitioners' s' constitutional right to security of tenure. Ruling Ruling:: Public Public office office is freque frequentl ntly y used used to refer refer to the right, right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for a given period either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovere sovereign ign functi functions ons of govern governmen ment, t, to be exerc exercise ised d by that that individual for the benefit of the public (radlapsbip) Examination of the foregoing statutory provisions reveals that the OCSS, OPERA and ORR, and as well each of the other Offices, consist of aggregations of Divisions, each of which Divisions is in turn a grouping grouping of Sections. Sections. Each Section, Division Division and Office comprises groups of positions within the agency called the Civil Service Commission, each group being entrusted with a more or less definable function or functions these functions are related to one another another,, each each of them them being being embrac embraced ed by a common common or genera generall subjec subjectt matter matter.. These These office offices s relate relate to the intern internal al structure of the Commission. The objectives sought by the Commission in enacting Resolution No. 94-3710 were described in that Resolution in broad terms as "effec "effect[i t[ing] ng] chang changes es in the organi organizat zation ion to strea streamlin mline e [the [the Commission's] operations and improve delivery of service." These changes in internal organization were rendered necessary by, on the the one one hand hand,, the the dece decent ntra raliz lizat atio ion n and and devo devolu luti tion on of the the Commission's functions effected by the creation of fourteen (14) Regi Region onal al Offi Office ces s and and nine ninety ty-f -fiv ive e (95) (95) Fiel Field d Offi Office ces s of the the Comm Commis issi sion on thro throug ugho hout ut the the coun countr try, y, to the the end end that that the the Commission and its staff may be brought closer physically to the government employees that they are mandated to serve. N.B. We (SC) note, note, firstly, that appointme appointments nts to the staff of the Commission are not appointments to a specified public office but rather appointments to particular positions or ranks. Thus a person may be appointed to the position of Director III or Director IV; or to the position of Attorney IV or Attorney V; or to the position of Records Officer I or Records Officer II; and so forth. In the instant case, petitioners were each appointed to the position of Director IV, without specification specification of any particular particular office or station. station. The same is true with respect to the other persons holding the same position or rank of Director IV of the Commission.
E. Reasons agencies -
for
creation
of
administrative
Lianga Bay Logging, Inc. vs Judge Enage 16 July 1987 Ruling: As recently stressed by the Court, "in this era of cl ogged court dockets, the need for specialized administrative boards or commissions with the special knowledge, experience and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on technical matters or essentially factual matters, subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion, has become well nigh indispensable.
Solid Homes vs Payawal 29 August 1989 Ruling Ruling:: As a result result of the growing growing comple complexit xity y of the modern modern societ society, y, it has become become necess necessary ary to create create more more and more administra administrative tive bodies to help in the regulation regulation of its ramified ramified activities. activities. Specialized Specialized in the particular particular fields assigned assigned to them, them, they can deal with the problems thereof with more expertise and dispatch than can be expected from the legislature or the courts of justice. Reyes vs Caneba Ruli Ruling ng:: "(T) "(T)he he thru thrust st of the the rela relate ted d doct doctri rine nes s of prim primar ary y admin administ istrat rative ive jurisd jurisdict iction ion and exhau exhausti stion on of admini administr strati ative ve remedies is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialize specialized d areas areas of their respective respective competence competence.. Acts Acts of an administrative agency must not casually be overturned by a court, and a court should as a rule not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency acting within the perimeters of its own competence." Blue Bar Coconut Phil. Vs Tantuico 29 July 1988 Ruling: The petitioners also question the respondents' authority to audit audit them. them. They They conten contend d that that they they are outside outside the ambit of responde respondents' nts' "audit" power power which is confined confined to governmen governmenttowned owned or controlled controlled corporation corporations. s. This argument argument has no merit. Section 2 (1) of Article IX-D of the Constitution provides that "The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenues and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property,
3|Page
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer owned or held in trust by or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdiv subdivisi isions ons,, agenci agencies es or instru instrumen mental talitie ities, s, includ including ing government-owned government-owned or controlled corporation with original charters, and on a post-audit basis. x x x (d) such nongovernmental entities receiving subsidy or equity directly or indirectly from or through the Govern Governmen mentt which which are requir required ed by law or the granting granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity." (Italics supplied) The Constitution formally embodies the long established rule that private entities who handle government funds or subsidies in trust may be examined or audited in their handling of said funds by government auditors.
E.
Types of administrative agencies
1. Those created to function in situations wherein the government is offering offering some gratuity, gratuity, grant, or special special privilege; privilege; (SSS, (SSS, GSIS,PAO) 2. Those set up to function in situations wherein the government is seeking to carry on certain functions of government; (BIR, LRA, BoC, BI) 3. Those set up to function in situations wherein the government is performing performing some business business service for the public; (Bureau of Posts, PNR, MWS) 4. Those set up to function in situations wherein the government is seeking seeking to regulate regulate business affected affected with public interest; interest; (LTFRB, ERB, HLURB) 5. Those set up to function in situations wherein the government is seeking under the police power to regulate private business and individuals; (MTRCB, GAB, DDB) 6. Those agencies to set up to function in situations wherein the gover governme nment nt is seekin seeking g to adjust adjust indivi individua duall contro controver versie sies s because because of some strong social policy policy involved involved.. (NLRC, (NLRC, ECC, DAR, COA)
Relation Relation between between administrati administrative ve F. courts
agencies agencies and
Findings of these administrative agencies are rendered conclusive on the courts. Admini Administra strativ tive e framew framework ork (Executive Order No. 292)
G.
of
the
Phili Philippi ppines nes
Iron and Steel Authority vs CA 249 SCRA 538 1. Definition Definition of of Governmen Governmentt of the Repub Republic lic of the the Phils. - refers to the corporate corporate governmental entity through through which the functions of governmen governmentt are exercised exercised throughou throughoutt the Philippine Philippines, s, including including,, save as the contrary appears from the context, the various various arms through which political political authority authority is made made effe effect ctiv ive e in the the Phili Philipp ppin ines es,, whet whethe herr pert pertai aini ning ng to the the auto autono nomo mous us regi region ons, s, the the provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government. 2. Definition Definition of Agency Agency of of the gover governmen nmentt - refers refers to any of the various units of the Governmen Government, t, incl includ udin ing g a depa depart rtme ment nt,, burea reau, offic ffice e, inst instru rume ment ntal alit ity, y, or gove govern rnme ment nt-o -own wned ed or controlled corporations, or a local government or a distinct unit therein. 3. Defi Defini niti tion on of Inst Instru rume ment ntal alit ity y - refe refers rs to any any agency of the National Government, not integrated within within the departmen departmentt framework framework vested within within special special functions functions or jurisdiction jurisdiction by law, endowed with with some some if not all corp corpo orate rate powers wers,, admin adminis iste teri ring ng spec specia iall fund funds, s, and and enjo enjoyi ying ng operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutio institutions ns and governmen government-own t-owned ed or controlle controlled d corporations. 4. Defini Definitio tion n of Admini Administr strati ation on US vs Dorr 2 Phil 332
Administrative agencies have certain quasi-judicial powers which allows them to interpret and apply rules and regulations.
4|Page
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Facts: Facts: Dorr is the owner of newspape newspaperr “manila “manila freedom” charge with the crime of libel together with Eduard O’Brian. The defendants were tried and found guilty of the offense charged in the the comp compla lain int, t, and and each each was was sent senten ence ced d to six six mont months hs’’ imprisonment at hard labor and a fine of $1,000, United States currency. From this judgment the defendants have appealed to this court. During the course of the proceedings a motion was made by the defendants asking that they be granted a trial by jury, as provided for in Articl Article e 111, 111, sectio section n 2, of the Constitu Constitutio tion n of the United United States, and under the sixth amendment to the Constitution, which motion was denied by the court, and an exception was also taken to this ruling. Issue : The issue is to determine determine whether these provisions provisions of the Constitution of the United States relating to trials by jury are in force in the Philippine Islands. Ruling: Administration is the aggregate of those persons in whose hands the reins of government are for the time being. 1. That while the Philippine Islands constitute territory which has been acquired acquired by and belongs belongs to the United States, States, there is a difference between such territory and the territories which are a part-of the United States with reference to the Constitution of the United States. 2. That the Constitution was not extended here by the terms of the treaty of Paris, under which the Philippine Islands were acquired from Spain. By the treaty the status of the ceded territory was to be determined by Congress. 3. That the mere act of cession of the Philippines to the United States did not extend the Constitution here, except such parts as fall within the general principles of fundamental limitations in favor of pers person onal al right rights s form formul ulat ated ed in the the Cons Consti titu tuti tion on and and its its amendments, and which exist rather by inference and the general spirit of the Constitution, and except those express provisions of the Constitution which prohibit Congress from passing laws in their contra contraven ventio tion n under under any circum circumsta stance nces; s; that that the provis provision ions s contained in the Constitution relating to jury trials do not fall within
either of these exceptions, and, consequently, the right to trial by jury has not been extended here by the mere act of the cession of the territory. 4. That Congress has passed no law extending here the provision of the Constitution relating to jury trials, nor were any laws in existence in the Philippine Islands, at the date of their cession, for trials by jury, and consequently there is no law in the Philippine Islands entitling the defendants in this case to such trial; that the Court Court of First Instance Instance committed committed no error in overrulin overruling g their their application for a trial by jury The act of Congress of July 1, 1902, entitled “An Act temporarily to provide for the administration of the affairs of civil government in the Philippine Islands, and for other purposes,” in section 5 extends to the Philippi Philippine ne Island Islands s nearl nearly y all of the provisi provisions ons of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights. But there was excepted from it the provisions provisions of the Constitution Constitution relating relating to jury trials contained in section 2, Article 111, and in the sixth amendment. The court reach the conclusion that the Philippine Commission is a body expressly expressly recognized recognized and sanctione sanctioned d by act of Congress, Congress, having the power to pass laws, and has the power to pass the libel law under which the defendants where convicted.
II. II. Crea Creati tion on,, reor reorga gani niza zati tion on,, and and abol abolit itio ion n of admi admini nist stra rati tive ve agencies A.
Crea Creati tion on of admi admini nist stra rati tive ve agen agenci cies es Eugenio vs CSC 243 SCRA 196
Facts: Petitioner is the Deputy Director of the Philippine Nuclear Research Rese arch Institute. Institute. She applied for a Career Career Executive Executive Service (CES) Eligibility and a CESO rank, On August 2, 1993, she was give given n a CES CES elig eligib ibili ility ty.. On Sept Septem embe berr 15, 15, 1993 1993,, she she was was recommend recommended ed to the President President for a CESO rank by the Career Career Executive Service Board. All was not to turn well for petitioner. On October October 1, 1993, 1993, responde respondent nt Civil Service Commission2 Commission2 passed passed Resolution No. 934359. The resolution became an impediment to the appointment of petitioner as Civil Service Officer, Rank IV.
5|Page
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
Issue: WON the CSC had the power to abolish the career executive service board. Rulin Ruling: g: No. No. "Exc "Excep eptt for for such such offi office ces s as are are crea create ted d by the the Constitution, the creation of public offices is primarily a legislative function, In so far as the legislative power in this respect is not restricted restricted by constituti constitutional onal provisions, provisions, it is supreme, supreme, and the legisl legislatu ature re may decide decide for itself itself what what office offices s are suitab suitable, le, necessary, or convenient. When in the exigencies of government it is necessary to create and define duties, the legislative department has the discretion to determine whether additional offices shall be created, or whether these duties shall be attached to and become ex-off ex-offici icio o duties duties of existi existing ng office offices. s. An office office create created d by the legislatur legislature e is wholly wholly within the power of that body, body, and it may prescribe the mode of filling the office and the powers and duties of the incumbent, and, if it sees fit, abolish the office." B.
Abol Abolit itio ion n of admi admini nist stra rati tive ve agen agenci cies es
Facts: Facts: The petitioners petitioners question questioned ed the constituti constitutional onality ity of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 by imputing the lack of good faith in its enactment and characterizing as an undue delegation of legislative power to the president his authority to fix compensation and allowance of the justices and judges thereafter appointed and the determination of the date when the reorganization shall be deeme deemed d comple completed ted.. On the other other hand, hand, the solici solicitor tor gener general al interposed a defense of legitimate exercise of the power vested in the Batasang Pambansa. Issue: WON the enactment into law of BP 129 was done in good faith. Ruling: Yes, it was done in good faith and is valid. This conclusion flows from the fundamental proposition that the legislature may abolish courts inferior to the Supreme Court and therefore may reorganiz reorganize e them territorial territorially ly or otherwise otherwise thereby thereby necessita necessitating ting new appointments and commissions. Section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution vests in the National Assembly the power to define, prescribe prescribe and apportion apportion the jurisdiction jurisdiction of the various courts, subject to certain limitations in the cage of the Supreme Court.
Busacay v. Buenaventura 93 Phil 787 Facts: Facts: Plaintiff Plaintiff Marcelino A. Busacay Busacay was a duly-app duly-appointe ointed d and qualified pre-war toll collector, classified as permanent by the Civil Service Commission, but was laid off due to the destruction of the bridge caused by flood. When the bridge was reconstructed and reopened reopened to traffic, traffic, Busacay Busacay notified notified the responde respondent nt Provincial Provincial Treasurer of his intention and readiness to resume his duties, but he was refused reinstatement. Issue: Whether or not the total destruction of the bridge abolished the position of toll collector. Held: The SC ruled in the negative. All offices created by statute are more or less temporary, temporary, transitory transitory or precarious precarious in that they are subject to the power of the legislature to abolish them. But this is not saying that the rights of the incumbents of such positions may be impaired while the offices exist, except for cause. De la Llana v. Alba 112 SCRA 294
Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals 258 SCRA 134
Facts Facts:: Presid Presiden entt Ferdin Ferdinand and E. Marcos Marcos issued issued P.D. P.D. No. 1341 1341 conver convertin ting g the Phil Phil Colleg College e of Com Commer merce ce into into a Polyte Polytechn chnic ic Universit University, y, defining defining its objective objectives, s, organizat organizationa ionall structure structure and functions, and expanding its curricular offerings. Issue: Whether or not P.D. 1341 did not abolish but only changed, the former PCC into what is now the PUP. Held: Held: No, No, what took took place place was a chang change e in academi academic c status status of the educational institution not in its corporate life. When the purpose is to abolish a department or an office or an organization and to replace it with another one, the lawmaking authority says so. Neither Neither the addition addition of a new course course offerings nor changes changes in its existing structure and organization bring about the abolition of an
6|Page
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer education educational al institution institution and the creation creation of a new one only an express declaration to that effect by the lawmaking authority will. “Stand “Stand transferre transferred” d” simply means that lands transferred transferred to the PCC were to be understood as transferred to the PCC were to be understoo understood d as transferre transferred d to the PUP as the new name of the institution. But these are hardly indicia of an intent to abolish an existing institution and to create a new one. New course offerings can be added added to the curriculum curriculum of a school without affecting affecting its legal exis existe tenc nce. e. Nor Nor will will chan change ges s in its its exis existi ting ng stru struct ctur ure e and and organizat organization ion bring about its abolition abolition and the creation creation of a new one. Only an express declaration to that effect by the lawmaking authority will. C.
Reor Reorga gani niza zati tion on of of admi admini nist stra rati tive ve age agenc ncie ies s 1.
Reorga Reo rganiz nizati ation on,, defin defined ed
National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration vs CSC 221 SCRA 145
Facts: he records show that in 1977, petitioner Garcia, a Bachelor of Laws Laws gradua graduate te and a First First grade grade civil civil servic service e eligib eligible le was appointed Deputy Register of Deeds Deeds VII under permanent status. status. Said position was later reclassified to Deputy Register of Deeds III pursua pursuant nt to PD 1529, 1529, to which which positi position, on, petition petitioner er was also appointe appointed d under permanent permanent status up to September September 1984. She was for two years, more or less, less, designate designated d as Acting Branch Register of Deeds of Meycauayan, Bulacan. By virtue of Executive Order Order No. 649 (which (which took took effect effect on Februa February ry 9, 1981) 1981) which which authorized the restructuring of the Land Registration Commission to National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration and regionalizing the Offices of the Registers therein, petitioner Garcia was issued an appointme appointment nt as Deputy Deputy Register of Deeds Deeds II on October 1, 1984, under temporary status, for not being a member of the Philippine Bar. She appealed to the Secretary of Justice but her her requ reques estt was was deni denied ed.. Peti Petiti tion oner er Garc Garcia ia move moved d for for reconsideration but her motion remained unacted. On October 23, 1984, petitioner Garcia was administratively charged with Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. While said case was pendi pending ng decisi decision, on, her tempor temporary ary appoi appointm ntment ent as such such was renewed in 1985. In a Memorandum dated October 30, 1986, the then Minister, now Secretary, of Justice notified petitioner Garcia of the termination of her services as Deputy Register of Deeds II on the the grou ground nd that that she she was was "rec "recei eivi ving ng brib bribe e mone money" y".. Said Said Memorand Memorandum um of Termination Termination which took effect on February February 9, 1987, 1987, was the subject of an appeal to the Inter-Agenc Inter-Agency y Review Review Committee which in turn referred the appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Issue: Issue: Whether Whether or not members membership hip in the Bar, which is the quali qualific ficati ation on requir requireme ement nt prescr prescribe ibed d for appoin appointme tment nt to the position of Deputy Register of Deeds under Section 4 of Executive Order Order No. 649 (Reorgan (Reorganizing izing the Land Registration Registration Commission Commission (LRC) (LRC) into into the Nation National al Land Land Titles Titles and Dee Deeds ds Regist Registrat ration ion Administration or NALTDRA) should be required of and/or applied only to new applicants and not to those who were already in the service of the LRC as deputy register of deeds at the time of the issuance and implementation of the abovesaid Executive Order. Ruling: If the newly created created office has substantially substantially new, different or additional functions, duties or powers, so that it may be said in fact to create create an office different from the one abolished, abolished, even though it embraces all or some of the duties of the old office it will be considered as an abolition of one office and the creation of a new or different one. The same is true if one office is abolished and its duties, for reasons of economy are given to an existing officer or office. Executive Order No. 649 was enacted to improve the services and bette betterr system systemati atize ze the operat operation ion of the Land Land Regist Registrat ration ion Commission. A reorganization is carried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. To this end, the requirement of Bar membership to qualify for key positions positions in the NALTDRA was imposed imposed to meet the changing changing circum circumsta stance nces s and new new develo developme pment nt of the times. times. Priva Private te respo responde ndent nt Garcia Garcia who former formerly ly held held the positio position n of Deputy Deputy Register of Deeds II did not have such qualification. It is thus clear that that she cannot cannot hold hold any key positi position on in the NILTDRA. NILTDRA. The additional qualification was not intended to remove her from office. Rathe Rather, r, it was a criter criterion ion impose imposed d concom concomita itant nt with with a valid valid reorganization measure.
7|Page
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Executive power III. III. Powe Powerr of cont contro rol, l, super supervi visi sion on and and inve invest stig igat atio ion n by the the President A.
Executive power, defined Marcos vs Manglapus 177 SCRA 668
The issue is basically one of power: whether or not, in the exercise of the powers powers granted by the Constitution, Constitution, the President President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. Whether or not the President has the power under the Constitution, to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines. Then, we shall determine, pursuant to the express power of the Court under the Constitu Constitutio tion n in Articl Article e VIII, VIII, Sectio Section n 1, whethe whetherr or not the Presid Presiden entt acted acted arbitra arbitraril rily y or with with grave grave abuse abuse of discre discretio tion n amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when she determined that the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return. The case for petitioners is founded on the assertion that the Tight of the marcose’s to return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the following provisions of the Bill of Rights, to wit: Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Respondents argue for the primacy of the right of the State to national security over individual rights. In support thereof, they cite Article II of the Constitution, to wit: Sectio Section n 4. The prime duty of the Governm Government ent is to serve serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, required, under condition conditions s provided provided by law, to render render personal, personal, military, or civil service. The parties are in agreement that the underlying issue is one of the scopes of presidential power and its limits.
As stated above, the Constitution provides that "[t]he executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines." (Art. VII, Sec. 1]. However, it does not define what is meant by "executive power" although in the same article it touches on the exercise of certain powers by the President, i.e., the power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, the power to execute the laws, the appointing power, the powers under the commanderin-chief clause, the power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, pardons, the power power to grant-amn grant-amnesty esty with the concurrence concurrence of Congress, the power to contract or guarantee foreign loans, the power to enter into treaties or i nternational agreements, agreements, the power to submit submit the budget budget to Congre Congress, ss, and the power power to addres address s Congress [Art. VII, Secs. 14-23]. The inevitable question question then arises: by enumerating enumerating certain powers of the President did the framers of the Constitution intend that the President shall exercise those specific powers and no other? Are these these enumerat enumerated ed powers powers the breadth breadth and scope scope of "executiv "executive e power"? Petitioners advance the view that the President's powers are are limit limited ed to thos those e spec specifi ifica cally lly enum enumer erat ated ed in the the 1987 1987 Constitut Constitution. ion. Thus, Thus, they assert: "The President President has enumerate enumerated d powers, and what is not enumerated is impliedly denied to her. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius." On these these premis premises, es, we hold hold the view that that althou although gh the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive power." Corollary, the powers of the President President cannot be said to be limited limited only to the specific specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated. It has been advanc advanced ed that that whatev whatever er power power inhere inherent nt in the gover governme nment nt that that is neithe neitherr legisl legislati ative ve nor nor judici judicial al has to be executive. The Power Involved Involved The Constitution declares among the guiding principles that "[t]he prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people" and that "[t]he maintenance of peace and order, the protection of
8|Page
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy." [Art. H, Secs. 4 and 5.] Admittedly, service and protection of the people, the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essentially ideals to guide governmental action. But such does not mean that they are empty words. Thus, in the exercise of presidential functions, in drawing a plan of government, and in directing implementing action for these plans, or from another point of view, in making any decision as President President of the Republic, Republic, the President President has to consider consider these principles, among other things, and adhere to them. Faced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the Marcoses to return to the Philippines, the President is, under the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at a decision. More than that, having sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, the President has the obligation under the Constituti Constitution on to protect protect the people, promote their welfare welfare and advance the national interest. It must be borne in mind that the To the President, the problem is one of balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. The power involved is the President's residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the duty of the President, as steward of the people. Ruling: Ruling: As stated stated above, above, the Constitut Constitution ion provides provides that "[t]he "[t]he exec execut utiv ive e powe powerr shal shalll be vest vested ed in the the Pres Presid iden entt of the the Philippines." (Art. VII, Sec. 1]. However, it does not define what is meant by "executive power" although in the same article it touches on the exercise of certain powers by the President, i.e., the power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, the power power to execute the laws, the appointin appointing g power, power, the powers under under the comman commande der-i r-in-c n-chie hieff clause clause,, the power power to grant grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, the power to grant-amnesty with with the concurre concurrence nce of Congre Congress, ss, the power to contra contract ct or guaran guarantee tee foreig foreign n loans, loans, the power power to enter enter into into treati treaties es or internatio international nal agreemen agreements, ts, the power to submit submit the budget budget to Congress, and the power to address Congress [Art. VII, Secs. 1423]. (more than the sum of the powers enumerated)
B. Powe Powerr of con contr trol ol,, defi define ned d – powe powerr of the the pre presi side dent nt to nullify nullify,, modify modify,, alter alter or set aside the decisi decisions ons of a subordinate. Section 17 Article VII, 1987 Constitution Section 17. The President shall have have control of all the executive executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
Carpio vs Executive Secretary 206 SCRA 290 Facts: The petitioner questioned the constitutionality of R.A. 6975 otherwise otherwise known as the PNP Organic Organic law placing placing the Philippine Philippine National Police under the reorganized Department of Interior and Local Government in pursuant to the provision of the constitution that the state shall establish and maintain one police force which is national in scope and civilian in character. The petitioner alleged that that the said law limits limits only the power power of the National National Police Police Commissio Commission n into an administra administrative tive control over the PNP, thus, control remained with the Department Secretary under whom both the PNP and NAPOLCOM were placed. Issue Whether or not the control over the PNP is vested soley to the Department Secretary of the DILG. Ruling The Presidential Power of control was held to mean the power of the President to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordina subordinate te officer had done in the performan performance ce of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former with that of the latter. This Presidential power of control over the executive branch of governmen governmentt extends extends over all executive executive officers from Cabinet Cabinet Secretary to the lowliest clerk and has been held by us. Thus, and in short, the President’s President’s power of control is directly directly exercised exercised by him over the members of the Cabinet who, in turn, and by his autho authorit rity, y, contro controll the burea bureaus us and other other office offices s under under their their respective jurisdictions in the executive department.
9|Page
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Pelaez vs Auditor General 15 SCRA 569
Facts: The President of the Phil., pursuant to section 68 of the Revised Administrative code, issued E.O nos. 93 to 121,124 and 126 to 129 creating municipalities. However, Emmanuel Pelaez, as Vice President of the Phil and as a taxpayer instituted a writ of prohibition with prelim injunction against the Auditor general from passing passing in audit any public public funds. funds. The petitioner petitioner alleges alleges that executive orders are null and void, upon the ground Sec. 68 has been impliedly impliedly repealed by R.A no 2370 and constitutes constitutes undue delegation of legislative power Issue: Issue: Whethe Whetherr or not the E.O nos issue issued d consti constitut tutes es undue undue delegation of legislative power.
it may be. He may not even suspend suspend an electiv elective e offici official al of a regular municipality or take any disciplinary action against him, except on appeal from a decision of the corresponding provincial board. Araneta vs Gatmaitan 101 101 Phil 238 Facts: Facts: The President President of the Philippines Philippines issued issued Executive Executive Orders restri restricti cting ng the bannin banning g of trawl trawl fishin fishing g from from San San Miguel Miguel Bay. Bay. However, However, a group group of other other trawl operators operators questioned questioned the said executive orders alleging the same as null and void. Issue: WON the executive orders in question are null and void. Held: Since the secretary of agriculture was empowered to regulate or ban
Held Held:: Yes, Yes, the the auth author orit ity y to crea create te muni munici cipa pall corp corpor orat atio ions ns is essentially legislative in nature. Although congress may delegate to another branch of the government the power to fill in the details in the execution execution,, enforceme enforcement nt or administra administration tion of a law, it is essential, to forestall a violation of the separation of powers, the said law: a. be complete in itself- it must set forth the policy to be executed executed,, carried carried out or implemented implemented by the delegate; delegate; b. fix a standa standardrd- the limits limits of which which are suffic sufficien iently tly determ determina inate te of determinable The power of control under this provision implies the right of the President to interfere in the exercise of such discretion as may be vested vested by law in the office officers rs of the execut executive ive depart departmen ments, ts, bureaus, or offices of the national government, as well as to act in lieu of such officers. This power is denied by the Constitution to the Executive Executive,, insofar insofar as local governments governments are concerne concerned. d. With respect to the latter, the fundamental law permits him to wield no more more auth author ority ity than than that that of chec checki king ng whet whethe herr said said loca locall govern governmen ments ts or the office officers rs thereo thereoff perfor perform m their their duties duties as provided provided by statutory statutory enactments. enactments. Hence, Hence, the President President cannot interfere with local governments, so long as the same or its officers act within within the scope scope of their their author authority ity.. He may not enact enact an ordinance ordinance which the municipal municipal council has failed or refused to pass, even if it had thereby violated a duty imposed thereto by law, although he may see to it that the corresponding provincial officials take appropriate disciplinary action therefor. Neither may he veto, set aside or annul an ordinance passed by said council within the scope of its jurisdiction, no matter how patently unwise
trawl fishing, the President, in the exercise of his power of control, can take over from him such authority and issue the executive order to exercise it. The President’s power of control means that if a cabinet secretary or a head of a bureau or agency can issue rules and regulations, as authorized by law, the President has the power not only to modify or amend the same but can also supplant the rules by another set entirely different from those issued by his subordinate.
C. Doctri ctrine ne of qua qualifi lifie ed politi litica call agen gency, cy, defin fined – alter ego doctrine;
Noblejas vs Salas 67 SCRA 47 Facts: It appears that on several occasions prior to 1968, various land land titles titles (Torre (Torrens ns titles titles)) coveri covering ng lands lands situat situated ed within within the Provin Province ce of Rizal Rizal were were ame amende nded d on the basis of suppos supposed ed corrective resurveys, by increasing the respective areas covered by said titles. The corresponding certifications of the verifications of these these resurvey resurveys s were issued by the Land Registrati Registration on Office, Office, headed then by petitioner Noblejas, and subsequently approved approved by the court, in instances where the subdivision plans were complex, the action of the office being sufficient where the subdivision plans were simple. Allegedly, however, it turned out that the increases in said various various amendment amendments s were far in excess of the respective respective corresponding real areas of the lands involve, so much so that even vast portions of lands and waters of the public domain not
10 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer capable of appropriation by any private person or entity have been included within the expanded titles. Noblejas Noblejas contention: contention: That the State is stopped to prosecute prosecute the accused because it used him as a prosecution witness in cases similar to this case and because Fiscal Benjamin H. Aquino, with the approval of the Secretary of Justice, exonerated the defendant from any criminal complicity in resurveys with expanded areas. As a matter of fact, Section 83 of the Revised Administrative Code places places him under the 'general 'general supervision supervision and control' of the Department of Justice together with other prosecuting officers and under Section 74 of the same Code, the Secretary of Justice as 'Department Secretary shall assume the burden and responsibility of all all acti activi vitie ties s of the the Gove Govern rnme ment nt unde underr his his cont contro roll and and superv supervisi ision. on. Conseq Consequen uently tly,, the consti constitut tution ional al power power of the President President of control control of all executive executive departments departments,, bureaus bureaus or offices (sec. 10, Art. VII, Constitution of the Philippines) should be considered as embracing his office. Issue: Can the agent act for and in behalf of the principal. Ruling: T he power of control . . . . implies the right of the President
(and naturally of his alter ego) to interfere in the exercise of such discretion as may be vested by law in the officers of the national gove govern rnme ment nt,, as well well as to act act in lieu lieu of such such offic officer ers. s. The The provision provisions s of the existing law to the contrary contrary notwithstandi notwithstanding, ng, whenever a specific power, authority, duty, function, or activity is entrusted to a chief of bureau, office, division or service, the same shall be understood as also conferred upon the proper Department Head who shall have authority to act directly in pursuance thereof, or to review, modify or revoke any decision or action of said chief of bureau, office, division or service. Accordingly, the law confers upon the Secretary only 'general supervision and control' may not be cons constr true ued d as limi limiti ting ng or in any any way way dimi dimini nish shin ing g the the perva pervasiv sivene eness ss of the Secret Secretary ary's 's power power of control control which which is consti constitut tution ionall ally y based based,, since since he acts acts also also as alter alter ego of the President. Acts President. Acts of the (alter ego) secretary is presumed to be that of the president. D.
Limi Limita tati tion ons s on on th the po power wer of of con contr tro ol
Does not include:
1. the abolition or creation of an executive office; 2. the suspension or removal of career executive officials or employees without due process of law; 3. the settin setting g aside aside,, modific modificati ation, on, or suppla supplanti nting ng of decisions of quasi-judicial agencies, including the office of the President, President, on contested contested cases cases to have become become final pursuant to law or to rules and regulations promulgated to implement the law; E.
Power of supervision Mondano vs Silvosa 97 Phil 143
Facts : The petitioner is the duly elected and qualified mayor of the municipality of Mainit, province of Surigao. On 27 February 1954 Consolaci Consolacion on Vda. de Mosende filed a sworn complaint complaint with the Presidential Complaints and Action Committee accusing him of (1) rape rape commit committed ted on her her daught daughter er Carida Caridad d Mosen Mosende; de; and (2) concubinage for cohabiting with her daughter in a place other than the conjug conjugal al dwelli dwelling. ng. On 6 March March the Assist Assistan antt Execut Executive ive Secretary Secretary indorsed the complaint complaint to the responde respondent nt provincia provinciall governor governor for immediate immediate investigat investigation, ion, appropria appropriate te action action and report. On 10 April the petitioner appeared before the provincial governor in obedience to his summons and was served with a copy of the complaint filed by the provincial governor with the provincial boar board. d. On the the same same day, day, the the prov provin inci cial al,, gove govern rnor or issu issued ed Administrative Order No. 8 suspending the petitioner from office. Thereafter, the Provincial Board proceeded to hear the charges preferred against the petitioner over his objection. The petitioner prays for a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction to enjoin the respondents from further proceeding with the hearing hearing of the administra administrative tive case against against him and and for a declaration that the order of suspension issued by the respondent provincial governor is illegal and without legal effect. Issue : Whether or not the departmen departmentt head as agent has the direct control and supervision over all bureaus and offices under his jurisdiction Ruling : The department head as agent of the President has direct control control and supervisi supervision on over all bureaus and offices under his jurisdiction as provided for in section 79(c) of the Revised
11 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Administrative Code, but he does not have the same control of local governments governments as that exercised exercised by him over bureaus bureaus and, offices under his jurisdiction. Likewise, his authority to order the investigation of any act or conduct of any person in the service of any bureau or office under his department is confined to bureaus or office offices s under under his jurisd jurisdict iction ion and does not extend extend to local local governmen governments ts over which the President President exercises exercises only general supervision as may be provided by law (section 10, paragraph 1, Article VII of the Constitution). If the provisions of section 79(c) of the Revised Administrative Code are to be construed as conferring upon the corresponding department head direct control, direction, and supervision over all local governments and that for that reason he may order the investigation of an official of a local government for malfeasance in office, such interpretation would be contrary to the provisio provisions ns of paragr paragraph aph 1, sectio section n 10, article article VII, VII, of the Constitution. In administrative law supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform these duties. Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. The power to oversee that the officials concerned performs
Ruling: Ruling: The court granted granted the petition. petition. While the Secretary Secretary of Finance has the power to revise their budget, local governments should should be given given a large degree of freedom freedom in determinin determining g for themselves the propriety and wisdom of the expenses that they make provided provided that the expenses expenses contemplated contemplated are within their financial capacity. The supervisory authority of the President over local governments is limited by the phrase “as provided by law” and where there is no law in accordance with which said authority is to be exercised, exercised, it must be exercised exercised in accord with general principles principles of law. The Secretary Secretary of Finance Finance is an official of the central central governmen government, t, not of provincia provinciall governmen governments, ts, which are distinct and separate. The power of general supervision granted to the Presid President ent over over local local govern governmen ments, ts, in the absenc absence e of any express provision of law, may not generally be interpreted to mean that hem or his alter ego the Secretary of Finance, may direct the form and manner in which local officials shall perform or comply with with their their dutie duties. s. Furthe Further, r, the court court ruled ruled that that the act of the provincia provinciall board board in suppress suppressing ing the positions positions of three special counsel not being contrary to law, nor an act of maladministration, nor an act of abuse, the same may not be disapproved by the Secretary of Finance acting as a representative of he President by virtue virtue of the latter latter’s ’s power power of genera generall superv supervisi ision on over over local local governments.
their duty and if they later fail or neglect to fulfill them, to take such action or steps as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties.
Rodriguez vs Montinola 94 Phil 973 Facts: Facts: An original original action of certiorari certiorari instituted instituted in the Supreme Cour Courtt by the the Prov Provin inci cial al Gove Govern rnor or and and the the memb member ers s of the the Provincia Provinciall Board Board of Pangasina Pangasinan n to nullify the disapproval disapproval of the Secretary of Finance of their Resolution abolishing the positions of three special special counsel counsel in the province, province, to prohibit the provincia provinciall treasurer and the district from paying the salaries if three special counsel and to prevent the latter from continuing to occupy and exercise the functions incident to their positions. Issue: Whether or not the said resolution requires the approval of the Secretary of Finance.
Taule vs Santos 200 SCRA 512
Facts: The Federation of Associations of Barangay Councils (FABC) of Catanduanes decided to hold the election of katipunan despite the absence of five (5) of its members, the Provincial Treasurer and the Provincial Election Supervisor walked out. The President elect Ruperto Taule Vice-President- Allan Aquino Secretary- Vicente Avila Treasurer- Fidel Jacob Jacob Auditor- Leo Sales Respondent Leandro L Verceles, Governor of Catanduanes sent a letter letter to respon responden dentt Luis Luis T. Santo Santos, s, the Secret Secretary ary of Local Local Government,** protesting the election of the officers of the FABC and and seek seekin ing g its its mull mullifi ifica cati tion on in view view of seve severa rall flag flagra rant nt irregularities in the manner it was conducted.
12 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Respondent Secretary issued a resolution nullifying the election of the officers of the FABC in Catanduanes held on June 18, 1989 and ordering a new one to be conducted as early as possible to be presided by the Regional Director of Region V of the Department of Local Government.
A.
Legislativ Legislative e power i s the power to 1. propose, enact, amend and repeal laws. Executive power is the power to execute 2. and implement the laws. Judicial power is the power of the courts 3. of justice justice to settle settle actual actual controver controversies sies involving involving legal rights which are demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been grave grave abuse abuse of discretion discretion amounting amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution but it was denied by respondent Secretary. Issue: Whether or not the respondent Secretary has jurisdiction to entertain an election protest involving the election of the officers of the Federation of Association of Barangay Councils. Assuming that the respondent Secretary has jurisdiction over the election protest, whether or not he committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in nullifying the election? Ruling: Ruling: The Secretary Secretary of Local Local Governmen Governmentt is not vested vested with jurisdiction to entertain any protest involving the election of officers of the FABC. There is no question that he is vested with the power to promulgate rules and regulations as set forth in Section 222 of the Local Government Code. President Presidential ial power power over over local governments governments is limited limited by the Constitution to the exercise of general supervision "to ensure that local local affair affairs s are admini administe stered red accord according ing to law." law." The The genera generall supervision is exercised by the President through the Secretary of Local Government. F.
Powe Powerr of of rev revie iew w of of oth other er exec execut utiv ive e offi office cers rs,, def defin ined ed
Phil. Gamefowl Commission vs IAC 146 SCRA 294 Ruling: The power of review is exercised to determine whether it is necessary to correct the acts of the subordinate. If such correction is necessary, it must be done by the authority exercising control over the subordinate or through the instrumentality of the courts of justice, unless the subordinate motu proprio corrects himself after his error is called to his attention by the official exercising the power of supervision and review over him.
Dist Distri ribu buti tion on of powe powers rs of gove govern rnme ment nt::
The Doctrine of Separation of Powers, though not mentioned anywhere by such name in the 1987 Constitution, can be inferred from its provisions. provisions. The heart of the doctrine doctrine is that the basic powers of the government must be kept separate from each other, each each power power being under under the principa principall contro controll of a branch branch of government. The legislative power is granted to the Congress, the executive executive power to the President, President, and the judicial judicial power to the Judiciary. The President as Chief Executive exercises control over agencies agencies and offices offices which perform rule-makin rule-making g or adjudicat adjudicatory ory functions. If the agency is created by Congress, consider the law that that create created d it. If the law is silent silent as to the contro controll which which the President may exercise, the President can only supervise, i.e., to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed. B.
Purpose of doctrine
So that the power of the government would not be concentrated in one department (one person or group of persons) that would lead to abuse. C. Blen Blendi ding ng of of powe powers rs – tho thoug ugh h each each dep depar artm tmen entt has has their own duties and functions, they nevertheless exercise the the same same in conc concer ertt that that they they can can work work with with othe otherr departments and conduct checks and balances regarding the actions of each. •
Basis for blending of powers:
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
No function is capable of exact definition. Description is only a generalization concerning its principal but not all of its characteristics;
1.
I.
Doctrine of separation of powers
13 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer The Constitution allocated to the several departments specific powers which in their nature did not ordinarily pertain to them. 3. Practical Practical necessity necessity of exercising exercising powers inci incide dent ntal al to thos those e that that are are expr expres ess s or are are appropria appropriate te to it, even if such incidental incidental powers shou should ld fall fall with within in the the cate catego gory ry of func functi tion ons s pertaining to another department. 2.
II. Doctrine of non-delegation of powers what has been delegated cannot be delegated. A.
-
General rule US vs Barrias 11 Phil 327
Ruling: One of the settled maxims in constitutional law is, that the power power conferred conferred upon the legislatur legislature e to make laws cannot be delegated delegated by that department department to any other body or authority. authority. Where the sovereign power of the State has located the authority, there it must remain; and by the constitutional agency alone the laws must be made until the constitution itself is changed. B.
Exception to the general rule Calalang vs Williams 70 Phil 726
Facts: Facts: Calala Calalang ng,, in his capaci capacity ty as taxpay taxpayer er questi questione oned d the constitutionality of Commonwealth Act 548. The Secretary of Public works and highways with the recommendation of the Director of Public Works and the Chairman of the National Traffic Commission promulgate promulgated d a rule closing closing a certain certain road in Manila for animal drawn vehicle for a specific time. The petitioner, in his contention, empowers the Secretary of Public Works with the recommendation of the Director of Public works to legislate legislate rules and laws relative relative to the regulatio regulation n of traffic in the country. Further, the petitioner contended that such act is invalid delegation of legislative power.
Issue: WON the said constitute an invalid delegation of legislative power. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the said act is not an invalid delegation of power. The authority therein conferred upon them and under which they promulgated the rules and regulations now complained of is not to determine what public policy demands but merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down by the National Assembly in said Act, to wit, "to promote safe transit upon, and avoid avoid obstructio obstructions ns on, roads roads and streets designat designated ed as national national roads by acts of the National Assembly or by executive orders of the President of the Philippines" and to close them temporarily to any or all classes of traffic "whenever the condition of the road or the traffic thereon makes such action necessary or advisable in the public convenience and interest." The delegated power, if at all, therefore, is not the determination of what the law shall be, but merely merely the ascertain ascertainment ment of the facts and circumstances circumstances upon whic which h the the appl applic icat atio ion n of said said law law is to be pred predic icat ated ed.. To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads and to determine when and how long a national road should be closed to traffic, in view of the condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the requireme requirements nts of public public convenie convenience nce and interest, interest, is an administrative function which cannot be directly discharged by the National Assembly, It must depend on the discretion of some other government official to whom is confided the duty of determining whether the proper occasion exists for executing the law. But it cannot be said that the exercise of such discretion is the making of the law. C. Prohibition against re-delegation; exceptions KMU vs Garcia, Jr. 239 SCRA 386 Facts Facts:: Petiti Petitione onerr KMU KMU questi question on the consti constitut tution ionali ality ty of the memoranda memoranda no. 92-009 92-009 issued by the DOTC and LTFRB LTFRB which, which, among others, to authorize provincial bus and jeepney operators to increase or decrease the prescribed transportation fares without applicati application on there there for with the LTFRB and without hearing and approval thereof by said agency and other matters. Issue: WON the Memoranda issued is constitutional?
The respondent public official asserted that such promulgation of rules is in connection with the powers vested to them by the said law.
Ruling: Ruling: Petition Petition granted and held the memoranda memoranda No. 92-009 92-009 invali invalid. d. Legisl Legislatu ature re deleg delegate ated d to the defunc defunctt Public Public Servic Service e Commis Com missio sion n the power of fixing fixing the rates of public public servic services. es.
14 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Respondent LTFRB, the existing regulatory body today, is likewise vested with the same under Executive Order No. 202 dated June 19, 1987. Section 5(c) of the said executive order authorizes LTFRB "to determine determine,, prescribe, prescribe, approve and periodical periodically ly review review and adjust reasonable fares, rates and other related charges, relative to the operation of public land transportation services provided by motorized vehicles."
of said office to hear “inter partes” proceedings. Moreover, the rule also provided that judgment on the merits shall be personally and directly prepared by the Director and signed by him. Petitioners contend that the amendment made by the Director on the Rule vesting hearing officers authority to hear their cases was illegal and void because because under the law, it is the Director Director who should personally hear the cases of petitioners.
Such delegation of legislative power to an administrative agency is permitted in order to adapt to the increasing complexity of modern life. As subjects for governmental regulation multiply, so does the difficulty of administering the laws. Hence, specialization even in legislation has become necessary. Given the task of determining sensitive and delicate matters as route-fixing and rate-making for the transport sector, the responsible regulatory body is entrusted with the power of subordinate legislation. With this authority, an administrative body and in this case, the LTFRB may implement broad broad policies laid down in a statute by neither “filling in" the deta detail ils s whic which h the the Legi Legisl slat atur ure e may may neith neither er have have time time nor nor competence competence to provide. provide. However, However, nowhere nowhere under under the aforesaid aforesaid provisions of law are the regulatory bodies, the PSC and LTFRB alike, authorized to delegate that power to a common carrier, a transport operator, or other public service.
Issue: Whether or not the Director has the power to delegate his functions.
The authority given by the LTFRB to the provincial provincial bus operators to set a fare range over and above the authorized existing fare is illegal and invalid as it is tantamount to art undue delegation of legislative authority. Potestas delegata non delegari potest. What has been delegated cannot be delegated. Given the complexity of the nature of the function of rate fixing and its far-reaching effects on millions of commuters, government must not relinquish this important function in favor of those who would benefit and profit from the industry. American Tobacco vs Director Director of Patents 67 SCRA 287 GRN L26803 Oct. 14, 1975 Fact Facts: s: This This is an orig origin inal al acti action on in the the Supr Suprem eme e Cour Courtt for for Mandamus Mandamus with preliminar preliminary y injunction injunction.. Petitione Petitioners rs herein, herein, who have pending interference and cancellation proceedings, questions the validity of Rule 168 of the Revised Rules of Practice before the Philippine Philippine Patent Office in Trademark Trademark Cases as amended amended which authorized the Director of Patents to designate any ranking official
Ruling Ruling : It has been held that the power power confer conferred red upon an administrative agency to which the administration of a statute is entrusted to issue such regulations and orders as may be deemed necessary or proper in order to carry out its purpose and provisions may be an adequate source of authority to delegate a particular function, unless by express provisions of the Act or by implication it has been withheld. There is no provision under the general law and RA 165 and 166 which prohibits such authority insofar as the designation of hearing examiners is concerned. The nature of the power and authority entrusted to the Director suggests that the aforementioned laws should be construed so as to give aforesaid official the administrative flexibility necessary for the prompt and expeditious discharge of his duties in the administration of said laws. Judgment and discretion will still be exercised by him since that the parties will still be able to adduce evidence. Due process of law nor the requireme requirements nts of fair hearing hearing require require the actual actual taking taking of testimony testimony before the same officer officer who will make the decision. III. III.
Powe Powers rs of admin adminis istr trat ativ ive e age agenc ncie ies, s, in gene genera rall A.
Sour Source ces s of powe powers rs of of an an admi admini nist stra rati tive ve agen agency cy 1. Cons Consti titu tuti tion on – is the the body body of rule rules s and and principles by which the fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and defined. 2. Statu tatute tes s – rule rules s and and reg regula ulation tions s promulgated by the legislature.
B. Limi Limita tati tion ons s to the the po powers wers of of an adm admin inis istr trat ativ ive e agency
15 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Matienzon vs Abellera 162 SCRA 1 Facts : Petitioners and private respondents are taxicab operators. Private respondents filed their petitions with the respondent board for the legalizati legalization on of their unauthorize unauthorized d taxicab taxicab units citing citing PD 101 in order order “to eradica eradicate te the harmful harmful and unlawful unlawful trade of clandestin clandestine e operator operators, s, by replacing replacing or allowing allowing them to become become legitimate and responsible operators. Petitioners contend that the BOT does not have jurisd jurisdict iction ion over the case since since the law provided a period of six (6) months which limited the time period to legiti legitimiz mize e such such clande clandesti stine ne operat operation ions s by certai certain n taxica taxicab b operators. Issues : Whether or not the BOT had the power to legalize illegal taxicab operators under PD 101 even after the lapse of six (6) months. Ruling : There was nothing in said law to suggest the expiration of such such powe powers rs gran grante ted d to the the BOT, BOT, six six (6) (6) mont months hs afte afterr its its promulgation. It is a settled principle of law that in determining whether a board or commission has a certain power, the authority given should be liberally construed in the light of the purposes for which it was created, and that which is incidentally necessary to a full implementation of the legislative intent should be upheld as being germane to the law.
Issues : Whether or not the secretary had the power to order an investigation and order the removal of the encroachment made on the river. Ruling : Section 1 of Republic Act 2056 is explicit in that "Any provision or provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the construction or building of dams, dikes x x x which encroaches into any public navigable river, stream, coastal waters and any other navig navigabl able e public public waters waters or waterw waterways ays x x x shall shall be ordere ordered d removed as public nuisance or as prohibited construction as herein provided x x x. The record shows that the petitioners' fishpond permit was issued in 1948 while the Act took effect on June 3, 1958. Therefore, the Secretary's more specific authority to remove dikes constructed in fishponds whenever they obstruct or impede the free passage of any navigable river or stream or would cause inundatio inundation n of agricultur agricultural al areas areas (Section (Section 2, Republic Republic Act 2056) 2056) takes precedence. Moreover, the power of the Secretary of Public Works to investigate and clear public streams from unauthorized encroachments and obstructions was granted as early as Act 3708 of the old Philippine Legislature and has been upheld by this Court in the cases cases of Palanc Palanca a v. Com Common monwea wealth lth (69 Phil. Phil. 449) 449) and Meneses Meneses v. Commonwea Commonwealth lth (69 Phil. 647). The same rule was applied in Lovina v. Moreno, (supra) Santos etc., et al. v. Secretary of Public Works and Communications (19 SCRA 637). C.
Heirs of Santiago Pastral vs Secretary of Public Works 162 SCRA 619
Facts : Private respondent herein led a group of residents in filing a case against herein petitioner with the Department of Public Works and Communications for the reason that latter were encroaching a part of the river with their fishpond. The petitioner countered that they they were were given given permis permissio sion n by the Burea Bureau u of Fisher Fisheries ies.. The The secretary of public works designated the City Engineer to conduct hearin hearings gs on the same and eventua eventually lly ordere ordered d the same same be removed. removed. Petitioners Petitioners went to the Court of First Instance Instance to assail assail the decision of the secretary and obtain an injunction which were ruled in their favor. The secretary secretary appealed appealed the lower court’s decision.
•
•
Natu Nature re of the the pow power ers s of of adm admin inis istr trat ativ ive e agen agencie cies s
Quasi legislative – consists of issuance of rules and regulations; general applicability; and prospective in application; Quasi Judicial – refers to orders, rewards or decision; applies to a specific situation; and determination of rights, privileges,etc. (fact finding investigate) Depends on the enabling statute D.
Express an and im impli ed ed po powers Villegas vs Subido 30 SCRA 498
Facts : The commissioner on Civil Service issued a memorandum which provided for the procedure of removal and suspension of
16 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer policemen policemen.. Petitione Petitionerr herein herein contends contends that the Civil Service Service Act impliedly impliedly repealed RA 557 which provides, provides, among others, that charges charges against against policemen policemen shall be referred referred by the mayor and investigated by the city or municipal council. Issues : Whether or not RA 2260 impliedly repealed RA 557 and Sec. 22 of RA 409 so as to vest in the Commissioner of Civil Service exclusive and original jurisdiction to remove, suspend and separate policemen policemen and employees employees of the City of Manila in competitiv competitive e service. Ruling : Republic Act 2260, particularly Section 16 (i) thereof, is not inconsistent with the power of the City Council under Republic Act 557 to decide cases against policemen and the power of the City Mayor of Manila under Section 22 of Republic Act 409 to remove city employees in the classified service. Sectio Section n 16 (i) of Republ Republic ic Act 2260 leaves leaves no doubt that the removal, suspension or separation effected by said City Council or City Mayor, can be passed upon or reviewed by the Commissioner of Civil Service. Nonetheless, the Commissioner's "final authority to pass upon the removal, separation and suspension" of classified service employees presupposes, rather than negates, the power vested vested in anothe anotherr offici official al to origin originall ally y or initia initially lly decide decide the removal, removal, separatio separation n or suspensio suspension n which the Commission Commissioner er is thereunder empowered to pass upon. Such Such power, power, furthe furthermo rmore, re, is subjec subjectt to an expres express s limitat limitation ion contained in Section 16(i), namely, the saving clause "Except as otherwise provided by law." Accordingly, it does not obtain at all in those instances where the power of removal is by law conferred on another another body alone, with no appeal therefrom, therefrom, as in the case provided for in Section 14 of Republic Act 296. LLDA v. Court of Appeals 231 SCRA 292 Ruling : LLDA has a special charter that gives it the responsibility to protec protectt the inhab inhabita itants nts of the laguna laguna lake lake region region from the deleterious effect of pollutants emanating from the discharge of wastes from the surrounding area. It has the power and authority to issu issue e a ceas cease e and and desi desist st orde orderr unde underr RA 4850 4850 and and its its amendatory laws. Moreover, the power to make, alter, or modify orders requiring the discontinuance of pollution is also impliedly bestowed upon LLDA by EO 927.
Necessarily implied in the exercise of its express powers It is a fundamental power rule that an administrative agency has only such power as are expressly granted to it by law, likewise an administra administrative tive agency has also such power as are necessarily necessarily implied in the exercise of its express powers.
Polloso vs Gangan 335 SCRA 750 Facts : Petitioner was the project manager of NPC who filed a letter of explanation and appeal from the notice of disallowance issued by the COA. The case stemmed from the hiring of a private lawyer, Atty. Atty. Sator Satorre, re, who was compen compensat sated ed by virtue virtue of a contra contract ct entered by the NPC and the former. The COA held several persons liable for payment of the amount due to said lawyer which included herein petitioner. Petitioner contends the nature of services that was contracted with the lawyer. Respondent contends that there was a memora memorandu ndum m prohib prohibitin iting g the hiring hiring of priva private te lawyer lawyers s without following the necessary procedures required by the COA. Issue : Was the issuance of the COA circular valid and applicable in this case? Ruling : What can be gleaned from a reading of the circular is that government agencies and instrumentalities are restricted in their hiring of private lawyers to render legal services or handle their cases. No public funds will be disbursed for the payment to private lawyers unless prior to the hiring of said lawyer, there is a written conformity conformity and acquiesce acquiescence nce from the Solicitor General or the Govern Governmen mentt Corpor Corporate ate Counse Counsel. l. It bears bears repeat repeating ing that that the purp purpos ose e of the the circu circula larr is to curt curtai aill the the unau unauth thor oriz ized ed and and unnecessary disbursement of public funds to private lawyers for servic services es render rendered ed to the governm government ent.. This This is in line line with with the Commissio Commission n on Audit’s Audit’s constituti constitutional onal mandate mandate to promulgate promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations including those for the preven preventio tion n and disall disallowa owance nce of irregu irregular lar,, unnece unnecessa ssary, ry, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties.
Blaquera vs Alcala 295 SCRA 411
17 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Fact Facts s : Petit Petitio ione ners rs are are offic officia ials ls and and empl employ oyee ees s of seve severa rall government departments and agencies who were paid incentive benefits for the year 1992, pursuant to Executive Order No. 292 1 ("EO 292"), otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, and the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V 2 of EO 292. On January 19, 1993, then President Fidel V. Ramos ("President Ramos") issued Administrative Order No. 29 ("AO 29") authorizing the grant of productivity incentive benefits for the year 1992 in the maximum amount of P1,000.00 3 and reiterating the prohibition 4 under Section 7 5 of Administrative Order No. 268 ("AO 268"), enjoining the grant of productivity incentive benefits without prior approv approval al of the Presiden President. t. Sectio Section n 4 of AO 29 direct directed ed "[a]ll "[a]ll departments, offices and agencies which authorized payment of CY 1992 1992 Produc Productiv tivity ity Incent Incentive ive Bonus Bonus in exces excess s of the amo amount unt author authorize ized d under under Sectio Section n 1 hereo hereoff [are [are hereb hereby y direct directed] ed] to immediately cause the return/refund of the excess within a period of six months to commence fifteen (15) days after the issuance of this Order." In compliance therewith, the heads of the departments or agencies of the government government concerned, concerned, who are the herein herein responden respondents, ts, caused caused the deduction deduction from petitioner petitioners' s' salaries salaries or allo allowa wanc nces es of the the amou amount nts s need needed ed to cove coverr the the alle allege ged d overpaym overpayments ents.. To prevent prevent the responde respondents nts from making making further further deductions from their salaries or allowances, the petitioners have come before the Supreme Court to seek relief.
amount of the incentives. Such function belongs to the President or his duly empowered alter ego. RCPI vs NTC 215 SCRA 455 GRN 93237 Buenaseda vs Flavier 226 SCRA 645 Facts : The petition seeks to nullify the Order of the Ombudsman directing the preventive suspension of petitioners for violations of graft and corruption. Issues : Whether or not the ombudsman has power to suspend governmen governmentt officials officials and employees employees pending pending investiga investigation tion of administrative complaints. Ruling : The Ombudsman is vested with authority to preventively suspend officers as contained in sec. 24 of the Ombudsman Act.
E.
Disc Discre reti tion onar ary y pow power ers s vs. vs. mini minist ster eria iall dut duty y
Issues : Whether or not the issued Administrative Orders are valid. Carino vs Capulong 222 SCRA 593 Ruling Ruling : In accordanc accordance e with rules, regulation regulations, s, and standards standards promulgated by the Commission, the President or the head of each department or agency is authorized to incur whatever necessary expenses expenses involved in the honorary honorary recognition recognition of subordina subordinate te offi office cers rs and and empl employ oyee ees s of the the gove govern rnme ment nt who who by thei theirr suggestio suggestions, ns, invention inventions, s, superior superior accomplish accomplishment, ment, and other other personal personal efforts efforts contribut contribute e to the efficiency, efficiency, economy, economy, or other other improveme improvement nt of governmen governmentt operations operations,, or who perform such other other extrao extraordi rdinar nary y acts acts or servic services es in the public public intere interest st in conne connectio ction n with, with, or in relati relation on to, their their offici official al employ employmen ment." t." (Chapter 5, Subtitle A, Book V). Conformably, it is "the President or the head of each department or agency who is authorized to incur the necessary expenses involved in the honorary recognition of subordinate officers and employees of the government." It is not the duty of the Commission to fix the
Facts: Facts: The petitione petitionerr filed the present case to annul annul the order issu issued ed by the the resp respon onde dent nt Judg Judge e and and prev preven entt the the same same in conduc conductin ting g furthe furtherr hearin hearing g thereo thereof. f. AMA Com Comput puter er Colleg College e situated situated in Davao Davao city operated as an Education Educational al Institution Institution without without the required authorizati authorization on that must be secured first before the DECS. As a consequence thereof, the DECS issued an order for the closure of the said school with the aid of the military as per agreement of the two governmental agencies. The private respondent filed a case before the RTC Davao to enjoin DECS from implementing the said closure pending the approval of the request to operate of the said school. The said request was denied by the DECS DECS for not comply complying ing the requir requireme ements nts prescr prescribe ibed d by the Department. The said case was dismissed, undaunted the private respondent appeal before the CA which later affirmed the decision of the lower court. court. The private responden respondentt then filed a petition petition before the RTC of Makati with the same cause of action now using
18 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer the organization of the parents of their students. The said court presided by the respondent Judge issued the preliminary injunction sought by the private respondent. Hence, this petition. The private responden respondentt contended contended that the same should should be permitted permitted to operate because DECS is only performing a ministerial power over the circumstance. The DECS on the other hand contended that it exercises a discretionary power in pursuant to the provisions of law with respect to educational institutions. Issues : Whether or not the public petitioner exercised ministerial or discretionary function. Rulin Ruling g : The The SC rule ruled d that that the the publ public ic peti petiti tion oner er exer exerci cise sed d discretion discretionary ary power with respect respect to the issuance issuance of permit to oper operat ate e as an educ educat atio iona nall inst instit itut utio ion. n. The The Cour Courtt furt furthe herr distinguish distinguished ed ministeria ministeriall and discretion discretionary ary powers. powers. A purely ministerial act or duty to a discretional act, is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authori authority, ty, without without regard regard to or the exercise exercise of his own judgment , upon the propriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment. Accordingly, the granting of license to operate is vested upon the judgment of the DECS in securing the quality education that an educ educat atio iona nall inst instit itut utio ion n shou should ld prov provid ide e purs pursua uant nt to the the consti constitut tution ional al provis provision ion on educat education ion and the organi organic c law author authorizi izing ng said said depar departme tment nt to issue issue rules rules and regula regulatio tions ns pertinent thereto. Mateo vs CA 196 SCRA 280 Facts : Petitioners filed an action for the recovery of a parcel of land. land. RTC ruled in favor favor the petitio petitioner ner.. Issued Issued executio execution n of judgment for private respondent. Petitioner filed relief from judgment. Judge denied petition petition for relief from judgment. Petitioner filed mandamus.
Ruling : Ministerial duty in granting appeal. But deciding on judging on the appeal is discretionary. 1. Ministerial du duty, defi ne ned - is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of fact facts, s, iin n a pres prescr criibed bed mann manner er,, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment (remedy mandamus) 2. Discretionar y po power, d ef efined - If the law impose imposes s a duty duty upon a public public officer, officer, and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed (remedy certiorari) 3. Importance of k no nowing d is istincti on on – to determine the remedies available… 4. Dele Delega gati tion on of of mini minist ster eria iall and and disc discre reti tion onar ary y power Binamira vs Garrucho 188 SCRA 154 Facts : Petitioner herein filed a quo warranto seeking reinstatement to the Office of General Manager in the Department of Tourism. In 1986, 1986, petitione petitionerr was designated designated by then Minister Gonzales Gonzales as General Manager of the PTA. The Minister sought the approval of the president which was favored by the latter. In 1990, respondent was the new Secretary of Tourism and asked for the resignation of the petitioner. The president issued a memorandum to Garrucho designating him as General Manager for the reason that petitioner was not appointed by the President as required by PD 564 but only by the Secretary of Tourism which was invalid. Petitioner contends that he was validly appointed to the position since that the act of then Minister Gonzales was also the act of the president which presumes that the act of the department heads were the act of the president. Issue : Whether Whether or not petitioner petitioner was validly validly appointed appointed to his position.
Issues Issues : Whether Whether or not granting granting of the petition petition for relief from judgment is ministerial?
19 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Ruling Ruling : PD 564 clearly clearly provid provides es that that the appoint appointmen mentt of the General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority shall be made by the Presiden Presidentt of the Philip Philippin pines, es, not by any other other office officer. r. Appointment involves the exercise of discretion, which because of its nature nature cannot cannot be deleg delegate ated. d. Legall Legally y speaki speaking, ng, it was not possible possible for Minister Minister Gonzales Gonzales to assume the exercise exercise of that discretion as an alter ego of the President. The appointment (or designatio designation) n) of the petitione petitionerr was not a merely merely mechanical mechanical or ministerial act that could be validly performed by a subordinate even if he happened as in this case to be a member of the Cabinet. An officer to whom a discretion is entrusted cannot delegate it to another, the presumption being that he was chosen because he was deemed fit and competent competent to exercise exercise that judgment judgment and discretion, and unless the power to substitute another in his place has been given to him, he cannot delegate his duties to another.
F. Mand Mandat ator ory/ y/pr proh ohib ibito itory ry and and perm permis issi sive ve/d /dir irec ecto tory ry duties and powers Article 5 Civil Code Art. 5. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity. 1. effect
Mand Mandat ator ory/ y/pr proh ohib ibit itor ory y stat statut ute, e, def defin ined ed and and
Sarina vs CFI of Bukidnon 24 SCRA 715 Ruling: A mandatory statute is a statute which commands either positively that something be done, or performed in a particular way, or negatively that something be not done, leaving the person concerned no choice on the matter except to obey.
Fact Facts: s: This This case case soug sought ht to set set asid aside e and and annu annull the the writ writ of mandamus issued by Judge Savellano, ordering petitioner Meralco Securitie Securities s Corporatio Corporation n to pay and petitione petitionerr Commission Commissioner er of Internal Revenue to collect from the former the amount of 51M by way of alleged deficiency corporate income tax, plus interests and surcharges due thereon and to pay private respondents 25% of the total amount collectible as informers’ reward. Issue: WON the writ of mandamus is correct. Ruling : Thus, after the Commissioner who is specifically charged by law with the task of enforcing and implementing the tax laws and the collection of taxes has after a mature and thorough study rendered his decision or ruling that no tax is due or collectible, and his decision is sustained by the Secretary, now Minister of Finance (whose (whose act is that that of the Presid Presiden entt unless unless reprob reprobate ated), d), such such deci decisi sion on or rulin ruling g is a valid valid exer exerci cise se of disc discre retio tion n in the the performance of official duty and cannot be controlled much less reversed by mandamus. A contrary view, whereby any stranger or inform informer er would would be allowe allowed d to usurp usurp and control control the official official functions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue would create disorder disorder and confusion, confusion, if not chaos chaos and total disruption disruption of the operations of the government. Agpalo: A direct directory ory statute statute is a statue statue which is permis permissiv sive e or discretionary in nature and merely outlines the act to be done in such a way that no injury can result from ignoring it or that its purpose can be accomplished in a manner other that prescribed and substantially the same result obtained. G.
Erro rror in in the the exerc xercis ise e of po powers wers 1. Doct Doctri rine ne of nonnon-su suab abil ilit ity y of the the stat state e inapplicable – the state cannot be sued without its consent. Shauf vs CA 191 SCRA 713
2. effect
Perm Permis issi sive ve/d /dir irec ecto tory ry sta statu tute te,, defi define ned d and and
Meralco Securities Corp. vs Savellano 117 SCRA 804
Facts Facts : Petiti Petitione onerr was applying applying for a posit position ion for guidan guidance ce counselor in a school (navy based) which was denied even though she was qualifi qualified ed.. Filed Filed a case case again against st the militar military y offici officials als concerned because of discrimination. The military invoked the nonsuability of the state.
20 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
Issue : Whether or not the non-suability clause applies. Ruling : The principle of non-suability does not apply because the petitioner is questioning the personal judgment or discretion of the officials not their office by virtue of their official capacity.
2.
Estoppel inapplicable
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs CTA 234 SCRA 348 Ruling : Illegal or invalid acts which are in excess of the jurisdiction of administrative agency cannot bind the government, therefore estoppels does not apply. 3.
Presumption of regul ar arity
Blue Bar Coconut vs Tantuico 163 SCRA 716 Facts: The President issued PD 232 creating the Philippine Coconut Autho Authority rity and and estab establish lished ed a coconu coconutt stabil stabiliza izatio tion n fund. fund. The The membe members rs were were origin originall ally y 11 but reduce reduced d to 7. There Thereaft after, er, respondent chairman of the coconut authority initiated a special coconut coconut end-user end-user companies companies which included the petitione petitioner. r. The chairman directed to collect short levies and overpriced subsidies to apply the same to settlement of short levies should they fail to pay. COA agreed to release the subsidy provided they post a bond equal to the amount of the disputed claim. Petitioner contended that it is unacceptable that the COA Chairman and Auditor had no jurisdiction. They caused the withholding of the subsidy case endorsed to the court. Issue: WON respondent COA chairman may disregard the PCA rules and decision had became moot. Ruling : The legal presumption is that official duty has been duly performed; and it is 'particularly strong as regards administrative agencies x x vested with powers said to be quasi-judicial in nature, in connectio connection n with the enforceme enforcement nt of laws affecting affecting particula particularr fields of activity, the proper regulation and/or promotion of which requir requires es a techni technical cal or specia speciall traini training, ng, 'aside 'aside from from a good good knowledge and grasp of the overall conditions, relevant to said fields, containing in the nation. The consequent policy and practice
underlying our Administrative Law is that courts of justice should respect the findings of fact of said administrative agencies, unless there is absolutely no evidence in support thereof or such evidence is clearly, manifestly and patently insubstantial. Acts done by an official are presumed to be valid.
IV .
Investi ga gatory Powers A.
Scope and extent of powers
De Leon : Investigatory or inquisitorial powers include the power to inspect, secure, require the disclosure of information by means of accounts accounts,, records, records, reports, reports, statement statements, s, testimony testimony of witnesses, witnesses, productio production n of documents documents,, or otherwise otherwise.. They are conferred conferred on practically practically all administra administrative tive agencies. In fact, the investiga investigatory tory powers of administrative agencies, or their power and facilities to investigate, initiate action, and control the range of investigation, is one of the distinctive functions which sets them apart from the court.
Carino vs CHR CHR 204 SCRA 483 Facts: Facts: Manila Manila public public school school teachers teachers associatio association n (MPSTA) (MPSTA) and allian alliance ce of concer concerne ned d teache teachers rs (ACT) (ACT) undert undertook ook what what they they described as “mass concerted actions” to dramatize and highlight their their plight plight result resulting ing from from the allege alleged d failur failure e of the public public authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been bought to the latter’s attention. As a result of the said action, the DECS secretary secretary dismissed dismissed from the service service one of the private respondents and the other nine were suspended. Issue: WON the CHR has jurisdiction over certain specific type of cases. 2. Won the CHR can try and decide cases as court of justice even quasi-judicial bodies do? Ruling : The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining facts of controversy is not a judicial function. To be considered such, the faculty faculty of receiving receiving evidence and making making factual factual conclusion conclusion in
21 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer controversy may be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those factual conclusions. Court declared that CHR has no jurisdiction on adjudicatory power over over certai certain n specif specific ic type type of cases cases like like allege alleged d human human rights rights violation involving civil or political rights. The most that may be conceded to the CHR in the way of adjudi adjudicat cation ion power power is that that it may invest investiga igate, te,.eg .eg,. ,. Receiv Receive e evidence evidence and make findings findings of facts as regard claimed human rights violation involving civil and political rights. The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining facts of controver controversy sy is not judicial function. function. To be considere considered d such, the faculty faculty of receiving receiving evidence evidence and making factual conclusion conclusion in controversy may be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or determined authoritively, finally and definitely, subject to such appeals or modes or review as may be provided by law. The power to investigate does not carry with it the power to adjudicate.
Does the power of quasi-legislative carries with it the power to investigate? Quasi-legislative may or may not possess the power to investigate depending on the law granting such power. Can an administrative agency perform investigation with or without quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial power? Yes. For the reason that some agencies are formed for the sole purpose of investigation only (fact finding, etc.)
Concerned Officials of MWSS vs Vasquez 240 SCRA 502 Facts: Facts: MWSS MWSS launch launched ed the Angat Angat Water Water Supply Supply Optimi Optimizat zation ion Project in order to provide about 1.3 million liters of water daily to about 3.8 million people in the Metropolitan area. The project was financed by funds loaned by the Overseas Economic Coop Fund of Japan to the National National Government.
MWSS caused the publication or an “invitation for pre-qualification and bids.” The major factors considered in the evaluation were the appli applican cants’ ts’ finan financia ciall condit condition ion,, techni technical cal qualif qualifica icatio tion n and and experienc experience e to undertake undertake the project. project. Private Private Responde Respondent nt Phil. Large Large Diameter Diameter Pressure Pressure Pipes Manufacturers Manufacturers’’ Associatio Association n sent letters offering suggestions on the technical specifications. Thereafter 3 lowest bidders for the project were known PBAC-CSTE recommended F.F Cruz and Inc. but other members both disagreed and opted for a rebidding bating the contract to be awarded to Joint Venture. But MWSS Board Committee on construction Management and Board Committee on Engineering that contract be awarded to F.F. Cruz and Co., Inc. being the lowest complying bidder. PLDPPM PLDPPMA, A, throug through h its Presid President ent filed filed with with the office office of the Ombuds Ombudsman man a letter letter-co -compl mplain aintt protes protestin ting g the public public biddin bidding g conducted by the MWSS to favor suppliers of fiberglass pipes and urging the Ombudsman to conduct an investigation there on. Ombudsma Ombudsman, n, in its fact-find fact-finding ing investiga investigation tion pursuant pursuant to power, power, functions and duties of the office under Sec. 15 of R.A 6670 MWSS was diverted to set aside the recommendation of MWSS to award contract. Petiti Petitione onerr filed filed a specia speciall civil, civil, action action in the SC and and cited cited that that resp respon onde dent nt Ombu Ombuds dsma man n acte acted d beyo beyond nd the the juri jurisd sdic icti tion on notwithsta notwithstandin nding g that Section Section 20 of the Ombudsman Ombudsman Act, which enumerated the administrative act, or omission that may not be the subject of investigation clearly among the cases exempts the same by his office. Issue: Issue: Whether Whether or not the Ombudsman Ombudsman has jurisdiction jurisdiction to take cognizance of PLDPPMA’s complaint and to correspondingly issue its challenged orders directing the Board of Trustees of the MWSS to se aside the recommendation of the PBAC-CTSE. Ruling : No, the particular aspect in question is the investigatory power and public assistance duties that can be found in the first and second part of Sec.13, Art. XI of the Constitution. While the broad broad autho authorit rity y of the Ombud Ombudsma sman n to invest investiga igate te any act or omission which xxx appears illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient may be yielded, it is difficult to equally concede however, that the constitution and the Ombudsman Act have intended to confer upon
22 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer it veto veto or provis provisory ory power power over over an exerc exercise ise of judgme judgment nt or discretion is lawfully vested. Secretary of Justice vs Lantion 322 SCRA 160 While the authority of the ombudsman to investigate any act or omissi omission on of any public public office officerr or employ employee, ee, other other than than those those specifically excepted under the Constitution and Republic Acts No. 6770, 6770, which appears appears illegal, illegal, unjust, unjust, improper, improper, or inefficien inefficient, t, is broad, the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act did not intend to confer confer upon upon the Ombudsma Ombudsman n veto veto or reviso revisory ry power power over over an exercise of judgment or discretion is lawfully vested. Thus, on the question of whether to accept or reject a bid and award contract vested by law in a government agency, which involves the exercise of discre discretio tion, n, the Ombuds Ombudsman man has exceed exceeded ed his power power by reviewing the award and granting it to another bidder.
Facts: A request for extradition was filed against Mark Jimenez for alleged violation of many criminal laws in the US. The DOJ formed a panel panel of lawyers to review review and study the request. request. Pending the review, MJ requested copies of all documents and papers relative to the request request that that the procee proceedin dings gs be suspen suspende ded d for the meantime. The DOJ denied the request, hence MJ fil ed a petition for mandamus before the RTC of Manila to compel the DOJ to furnish him the documents. The RTC of Manila issued a TRO to maintain a status quo ante, hence the DOJ filed an appeal to the SC. Issue: Whether or not not MJ is entitled to notice notice and hearing during the preliminary or the evaluation stage of the extradition treaty against him.
Deloso vs Domingo 191 SCRA 545 Facts : An alleged ambushed led to the prosecution of Governor Dellos Delloso o who was charge charged d before before the Specia Speciall Prosec Prosecuto utorr with with multiple murder. Governor Delloso questioned the said referral to the Ombudsman alleging that the same has no jurisdiction over the case for being irrelevant of the crime he committed to his official function as governor. Issue : Whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over the case. Ruling : The Court ruled in positive manner. As protector of the people, the office of the Ombudsman has the power, function and duty to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials and to investigate any act or omission of any public officials when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. Ombudsman is also empowered to direct the officer concerned, in this case the Special Prosecutor, to take appropriate action against a public official and to recommend his prosecution. prosecution. Further, Further, the court ruled that the law does not required that the act or omission be related to or be connected with or arise from the performance of official duty. B. Requ Requir ire ement ment of noti notice ce and hea hearing ring – when the law is silent, notice and hearing may be dispensed with, which depends upon the stage of the proceedings. (substantial right – can be given notice and hearing)
Ruling : From the procedures earlier abstracted, after the filing of the extradition petition and during the judicial determination of the propriety of extradition, the rights of notice and hearing are clearly granted to the prospective extradite. However, prior thereto, the law is silent as to these rights. Reference to the U.S. extradition procedures also manifests this silence. Ruiz vs Drilon 209 SCRA 695 Facts Facts : GR No. 103570 103570 refers refers to a petiti petition on for review review on the decision of the court of appeals consolidated with GR No. 101666 for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the executive secretary. Petiti Petitione onerr herein herein was the presid president ent of Centra Centrall Luzon Luzon State State University who was dismissed by the President of the Philippines from his position position after investiga investigation tion of a committee committee on several several char charge ges s agai agains nstt him. him. Peti Petiti tion oner er unde undert rtoo ook k to ask ask for for a reconsideration on the same which respondent Drilon, as executive secret secretary ary denie denied. d. Petitio Petitioner ner filed filed with with the CA a petitio petition n for prohibition with a prayer for TRO which granted the latter prayer. After eight days, petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for TRO. The CA dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition was not meritorious and a case of forum shopping. The SC dispensed with the comment of the Solicitor General for the public respondents it being that the
23 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer pleadings and papers already filed were already adequate for them to act on said petition. Issue : Whether or not the public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion or any act without or in excess of jurisdiction in rendering the assailed administrative orders. / Was the petitioner enti entitl tled ed to be info inform rmed ed of the the find findin ings gs of an inve invest stig igat ativ ive e committee created to inquire into charges against him? Ruling : Petitioner is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recomm recommend endati ations ons of any invest investiga igatin ting g commit committee tee create created d to inquire into charges filed against him. He is entitled only to an administrative decision that is based on substantial evidence made of record and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges made against him and the evidence presented against him during the hearings of the investigating committees.
Pefianco vs Moral 322 SCRA 439 Facts: Facts: Ma. Luisa Moral instituted instituted an action for mandamus mandamus and injunction before the regular courts against against Secretary Gloria, who was later replaced replaced by Secretary Secretary Pefianco, Pefianco, praying praying that she be furnished a copy of the DECS Investigation Committee Report and that the DECS Secretary be enjoined from enforcing the order of dismissal until she received a copy of the said report. Moral was ordered dismissed from the government service. Respondent did not appeal the judgement .
based on substantial evidence made of record, and a reasonable opportuni opportunity ty to meet the charges charges and the evidence evidence presented presented against against her during during the hearings hearings of the investiga investigation tion committee. committee. Respondent no doubt had been accorded these rights. C. Right to counsel in administrative investigations – a counsel may or may not assist a person under investigation. (Remolona v. CSC) D.
Importance of administrative investigations
Evangelista vs Jarencio 68 SCRA 99 Facts: Petitioner filed a case before the SC seeking to annul the order order of the respon responden dentt judge judge in civil civil case case manala manalasta stas s vs. bagatsing et, al. which order that preliminary injunction restraining respondent from further issuing subpoena in connection with the fact finding investigation against petitioner. Pursuant to his special powers and duties under Section 64 of the Revised Revised Administrative Administrative Code, 1 the President of the Philippine Philippines s created created the President Presidential ial Agency Agency on Reforms Reforms and Government Government Operation Operations s (PARGO) (PARGO) under Executive Executive Order No. 4 of January 7, 1966. For a realistic performance of these functions, the President vested in the Agency all the powers of an investigating committee under Sections 71 and 580 of the Revised Administrative Code, including the power to summon witnesses by subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, take testimony or evidence relevant to the investigation.
Secretary Gloria moved to dismiss the mandamus case for lack of cause of action but the trial court denied his motion, thus elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on certiorari which sustained the trial court.
Issue: Issue: Whether Whether the Agency, Agency, acting thru its officials, officials, enjoys enjoys the autho authorit rity y to issue issue subpoe subpoenas nas in its conduc conductt of fact-f fact-find inding ing investigations.
Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for Certiorari for failure of petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the motion to dismiss.
Ruling : Since the only purpose of investigation is to discover facts as a basis of future action, any unnecessary extension of the privilege would thus be unwise.
Ruling : A respondent in an administrative case is not not entitled to be info inform rmed ed of the the find findin ings gs and and reco recomm mmen enda datio tions ns of any any investiga investigating ting committee committee created to inquire inquire into charges filed against against him. He is entitled entitled only to the administra administrative tive decision decision
E.
Executive power to investigate, source Section 64c Revised Administrative Code
24 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer •
Power of the president –to order, when in his opinion the good of the public service so requires, an investigation of any action or the conduct of any person in the Government servic service, e, and and in connec connectio tion n therew therewith ith to design designate ate the official, committee, or person by whom such investigation shall be conducted. Section 20 Book III, 1987 Administrative Code
•
Residual Powers – unless congress provides otherwise, the President shall exercise such other powers and functions vested in the President which are provided for under the laws and which are not specifically enumerated above, or which are not delegated by the President in accordance with law. Larin vs Executive Secretary 280 SCRA 713
Facts: Facts: Petitioner Petitioner herein was an assistant assistant commission commissioner er of the excise tax service of the BIR being appointed by then President Aquino Aquino.. Somet Sometime ime in 1992, 1992, a decisi decision on was render rendered ed by the Sandiganbayan convicting petitioner of grave misconduct. Acting on a report by then acting Finance Secretary Leong, the President, through its executive secretary, issued a memorandum creating an executive executive committee committee to investiga investigate te the administra administrative tive charge charge against against petitione petitioner. r. Thereafte Thereafter, r, petitione petitionerr submitted submitted a position position paper as required by the committee. Consequently, the president issued a memorandum which streamlined the operations of the BIR abolishing some of the offices which included the office of excise tax and another memorandum dismissing herein petitioner from office as a result of the investigation. Petitioner contends that he is a Career Executive Service officer and he cannot be removed. On the other hand, respondents contended that since petitioner is a presidential appointee, he falls under the disciplining authority of the president. Issue: Issue: Who has the power to discipline discipline the petitioner petitioner or does the president have the power to order an investigation against herein petitioner? Ruling : The position of Assistant Commissioner of the BIR is part of the Career Executive Service under the law which is appointed by
the president. As a presidential appointee who belongs to career service of the Civil Service, he comes under the direct disciplining authority of the president in line with the principle that the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint conferred by the Constitut Constitution. ion. The memorandum memorandum issued issued by the president president which created created a committee committee to investiga investigate te the administrat administrative ive charge against petitioner was pursuant to the power of removal by the president. However, the power of removal is not absolute since the petitioner herein is a career service officer who has in his favor the security security of tenure tenure who may only be removed removed through a cause enumerated by law.
Evangelista vs Jarencio 68 SCRA 99 Facts: Petitioner filed a case before the SC seeking to annul the order order of the respon responden dentt judge judge in civil civil case case manala manalasta stas s vs. bagatsing et, al. which order that preliminary injunction restraining respondent from further issuing subpoena in connection with the fact finding investigation against petitioner. Pursuant to his special powers and duties under Section 64 of the Revised Revised Administrative Administrative Code, 1 the President of the Philippine Philippines s created created the President Presidential ial Agency Agency on Reforms Reforms and Government Government Operation Operations s (PARGO) (PARGO) under Executive Executive Order No. 4 of January 7, 1966. For a realistic performance of these functions, the President vested in the Agency all the powers of an investigating committee under Sections 71 and 580 of the Revised Administrative Code, including the power to summon witnesses by subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, take testimony or evidence relevant to the investigation. Issue : Whether or not PARGO has the power to issue subpoenas Ruling : The subpoena issued by petitioner Quirico Evangelista to resp respon onde dent nt Fern Fernan ando do Mana Manala last stas as is well well with within in the the lega legall competence of the Agency to issue. Administra Administrative tive agencies agencies may enforce subpoena subpoenas s issued issued in the course of investigations, whether or not adjudication is involved, and whether or not probable cause is shown and even before the issuance of a complaint.
25 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Requirements in issuing a subpoena:
quasi-legislative, and in practical effect, with the power to make law. However, the essential legislative functions may not be delegated delegated to administra administrative tive agencies agencies and in this sense, sense, it is said said that that admini administr strati ative ve agenci agencies es have have no legislative power and are precluded from legislating in the strict sense.
1. Withi ithin n the the auth uthorit ority y of the the agency 2. Info Inforrmati matio on is reas reason onab ably ly relevant 3. Deman Demand d is not indefi indefinit nite e
People vs Maceren 79 SCRA 450 V.
Quas Quasii-le legi gisl slat ativ ive e /Ru /Rule le-M -Mak akin ing g Pow Power ers s Remolona vs CSC 362 SCRA 304
Facts: Esrelito Romolona was the post master at the postal office servic service e in Infanta, Infanta, Quezon, Quezon, Distri District ct Superv Superviso isorr of the DECS DECS inquired from the Civil Service Commission as to the status of the Civil Civil Servic Service e eligib eligibilit ility y of Mrs. Mrs. Rem Remolo olona na who got a rating rating of 81.25% of as per report of rating issued by the National Board for Teachers. After an investigation, Remolona’s name is not in the list of passing and failing examinees. Remolona admitted that he was responsible in acquiring the alleged fake eligibility, that his wife has no knowledge and that he did it because he wanted them to be together. A formal formal charge charge was filed against against petitione petitionerr Remolona, Remolona, Nery C. Remolo Rem olona na and and Atty. Atty. Hadji Hadji Sdupa Sdupadin din for posses possessio sion n of fake fake eligib eligibili ility, ty, falsif falsifica icatio tion n and dishon dishonest esty. y. CSS found found Esteli Estelito to Remolo Rem olona na and Nery Nery remolo remolona na guilty guilty but Nery Nery Remol Remolona ona was was absolved from legibility. On appeal, CA dismissed the petition and therefore a review by the SC. Issue : Whether or not the CSC can dismiss the petitioner despite of the fact that the offense offense committe committed d was not done done in the performance of his official duty. Ruling : If the government officer or employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are not connected with his office, they affect his right to continue in office. Rule making power - the power to issue rules and regulations. A. Natu Nature re of powe power, r, defi defini niti tion on – Admi Admini nist stra rati tive ve agencies are endowed with powers legislative in nature or
Facts: Facts: The case at bar involves involves the validity validity of a 1967 regulation, regulation, penalizing electro fishing in fresh water. Issue: Issue: Whether Whether or not the Fishery Fishery Administra Administrative tive Order No. 84 penalizing electro fishing. Ruling: The fishery laws did not expressly prohibit electro fishing. The lawmaking body cannot delegate to administrative official the power to declare what act constitute a criminal offense. Electro fish fishin ing g is now now puni punish shab able le by virt virtue ue of PD 704. 704. Thus Thus,, an administrative regulation must be in harmony with law; it must not amend an act of the legislature. In a prosecution for violation of an administra administrative tive order it must clearly appear that the order order falls within the scope of the authority conferred by law. 1. Ordinance power of President/Delegation President/Delegation to the President -
the
The The preside president nt has the the power power to issue issue rules rules and and regulat regulation ions s (executive orders, proclamations, etc.) Sections 23.2, 28.2, Article VI, Constitution
Section 23. 2. - In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers powers necessary necessary and proper proper to carry out a declared declared national policy. policy. Unless Unless sooner sooner withdrawn withdrawn by resolution resolution of the Congress, Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof. Section 28. 2 - The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restri restricti ctions ons as it may impose, impose, tariff tariff rates, rates, import import and expor exportt quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts
26 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer within the framework of the national development program of the Government. Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Book III, Title I, Chapter 2, 1987 Admin. Code
Chapter 2 ORDINANCE POWER Sec. 2. Executive Orders. - Acts of the President providing for rules of a general general or permanent permanent character character in implementa implementation tion or exec execut utio ion n of cons consti titu tuti tion onal al or stat statut utor ory y powe powers rs shal shalll be promulgated in executive orders. Sec. 3. Administra Administrative tive Orders. Orders. - Acts of the President President which rela relate te to part partic icul ular ar aspe aspect ct of gove govern rnme ment ntal al oper operat atio ions ns in purs pursua uanc nce e of his his dutie duties s as admi admini nist stra rati tive ve head head shal shalll be promulgated in administrative orders. Sec. 4. Proclamations. - Acts of the President fixing a date or declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest, upon the existence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend, shall be promulgated in proclamations which shall have the force of an executive order. Sec. 5. Memorandum Orders. - Acts of the President on matters of administrat administrative ive detail detail or of subordina subordinate te or temporary temporary interest which only concern a particular officer or office of the Government shall be embodied in memorandum orders. Sec. Sec. 6. Memora Memorandu ndum m Circul Circulars ars.. - Acts Acts of the Presiden Presidentt on matters matters relating relating to internal internal administra administration, tion, which the President President desires to bring to the attention of all or some of the departments, agencies, bureaus or offices of the Government, for information or compliance, shall be embodied in memorandum circulars. Sec. 7. General or Special Orders.- Acts and commands of the President President in his capacity as Commander Commander-in-C -in-Chief hief of the Armed Forces Forces of the Philippines Philippines shall be issued issued as general or special special orders.
Araneta v. Gatmaitan 101 Phil Phil 328 Facts: Facts: The President President of the Philippines Philippines issued issued Executive Executive Orders restri restricti cting ng and and bannin banning g trawl trawl fishin fishing g from from San San Miguel Miguel Bay. Bay. However, However, a group group of other other trawl operators operators questioned questioned the said executive orders alleging that the same is null and void. Issue Issue valid.
: Whether Whether or not not the issuan issuance ce of the execu executiv tive e order order was
Ruling Ruling : Befor Before e the issuanc issuance e of the eo, a resolu resolutio tion n by the munici municipal pality ity allowe allowed d thrall thrall fishin fishing. g. Such Such law is not not deemed deemed complete complete unless it lays down a standard standard or pattern pattern sufficiently sufficiently fixed or determinate, or, at least, determinable without requiring another legislation, to guide the administrative body concerned in the performance of its duty to implement or enforce said policy. EO issued by the secretary was valid since that it was part of the agencies functions.
Olsen & Co. vs Aldanese, 43 Phil. 259 Facts: Walter Olsen, a duly licensed domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and export of cigars made of tobacco grown in the Philippines assailed the constitutionality of Act 2613, allegedly depriving depriving them of their right of exporting exporting cigars to the United States due to the refusal of the Collector of Internal Revenue to issu issue e cert certif ific icat ate e of orig origin in and and that that the the ciga cigars rs were were not not manufactu manufactured red of long filler tobacco produced produced exclusivel exclusively y in the province of Cagayan, Isabela or Nueva Viscaya. Issue: Issue: Whethe Whetherr or not the Collecto Collectorr of Interna Internall Revenu Revenue e is authorized to make rules and regulations which are not within the scope of Act 2613. Ruling Ruling:: The only only power power confer conferred red to the Collec Collector tor of Intern Internal al Revenue Revenue was that a proper proper standard of the quality quality of tobacco tobacco should be fixed and defined and that all of these who produce tobacc tobacco o of the same standa standard rd would would have have equal equal rights rights and opportuni opportunities. ties. Such delegated delegated power power the rules and regulations regulations promul promulgat gated ed should should be confin confined ed to and and limited limited by the power power conferred by the legislative act.
27 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
The authority of the Collector of Internal Revenue to makes rules and regulations is specified and defined to the making of rules and regulations for the classification, marking and packing of leaf or manufactured tobacco of good quality and the handling of it under sanitary conditions.
2.
Dele elegati gation on to the the Sup Supreme reme Cou Court
Section 5.5, Article VIII, Constitution Promulgate Promulgate rules concerning concerning the protection protection and enforceme enforcement nt of constituti constitutional onal rights, rights, pleading pleading,, practice, practice, and procedure procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistanc assistance e to the under-priv under-privilege ileged. d. Such rules shall provide provide a simplified simplified and inexpens inexpensive ive procedure procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, grade, and shall not diminish, increase, increase, or modify modify substanti substantive ve rights. rights. Rules of procedure procedure of special special courts courts and quasi-judicia quasi-judiciall bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
First Lepanto Ceramics vs CA 231 SCRA 30 Facts: BOI granted First Lepanto to amend certificate of recognition by changing scope of its reg product from glazed floor tiles to ceramic stiles. Mariwasa oppose filed motion for reconsideration. Mariwa Mariwasa sa filed filed petit petition ion for review review with with respo responde ndent nt CA. it is temporarily temporarily restrained restrained BOI from implementi implementing ng decision, decision, 20 days lapsed lapsed without without responde respondent nt court court issuing issuing preliminar preliminary y injunction injunction.. Lepanto filed motion to dismiss, court appellate. Jurisdiction over BOI vested with SC. Issue: Whether or not CA has jurisdiction. Held: Yes, E.O 226 grants grants the right of appeal from from decisions of BOI. It simply deals deals with procedural procedural aspects aspects with court has the power to regulate by virtue of its cons rule-making power. Circular 1-91 repealed or suspended EO 226 in so far as the manner of appeal. Appeals from decisions of BOI, which statutes allowed to be filed with SC, are brought to CA.
3.
Delegation to LGUs
Sections 5 and 9, Article X, Constitution Section 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments. Section Section 9. Legislativ Legislative e bodies bodies of local local governmen governments ts shall have sectoral representation as may be prescribed by law.
Sections 54, 55, 56, 57, Republic Act No. 7160 SECTION SECTION 54. Approval of Ordinances Ordinances. - (a) Every ordinance enac enacte ted d by the the Sang Sanggu guni nian ang g Panl Panlal alaw awig igan an,, Sang Sanggu guni nian ang g Panlungs Panlungsod, od, or Sangguniang Sangguniang bayan shall be presented presented to the provincial governor or city or municipal mayor, as the case may be. If the local chief executive concerned approves the same, he shall affix his signature on each and every page thereof; otherwise, he shall shall veto veto it and return return the same with his objecti objection ons s to the Sanggunia Sanggunian, n, which may proceed proceed to reconside reconsiderr the same. The Sanggunia Sanggunian n concerned concerned may override override the veto of the local chief executive executive by two-thirds two-thirds (2/3) vote of all its members, members, thereby making the ordinance or resolution effective for all legal intents and purposes.
(b) The veto shall be communicated by the local chief executive concerned to the Sanggunian within fifteen (15) days in the case of a province, and ten (10) days in the case of a city or a municipality; otherwise otherwise,, the ordinance ordinance shall be deemed deemed approved approved as if he had signed it. (c) ordinances enacted by the Sangguniang Barangay shall, upon approval approval by the majority majority of all its members, members, be signed signed by the Punong Barangay.
28 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer SECTION 55. Veto Power of the Local Chief Executive . - (a) The local chief executive may veto any ordinance of the Sang Sanggu guni nian ang g Panl Panlal alaw awig igan an,, Sang Sanggu guni nian ang g Panl Panlun ungs gsod od,, or Sang Sanggu guni nian ang g baya bayan n on the the grou ground nd that that it is ultr ultra a vire vires s or prejudicia prejudiciall to the public public welfare, welfare, stating his reasons reasons therefor in writing.
(b) The local chief executive, except the Punong Barangay, shall have have the the powe powerr to veto veto any any part particu icula larr item item or item items s of an appropria appropriations tions ordinance, ordinance, an ordinance ordinance or resolution resolution adopting adopting a local development development plan and public investmen investmentt program, program, or an ordinance directing the payment of money or creating liability. In such a case, the veto shall not affect the item or items which are not objected to. The vetoed item or items shall not take effect unless unless the Sanggunian Sanggunian overrides overrides the veto in the manner herein provid provided ed;; otherw otherwise ise,, the item item or items items in the approp appropria riatio tions ns ordinance of the previous year corresponding to those vetoed, if any, shall be deemed reenacted. (c) The local chief executive may veto an ordinance or resolution only once. The Sanggunian may override the veto of the local chief executive concerned by two-thirds (2/3) vote of all its members, thereby making the ordinance effective even without the approval of the local chief executive concerned. SECTIO SECTION N 56. Review Review of Compone Component nt City City and Municip Municipal al Ord Ordinan inance ces s or Reso Resolu luti tion ons s by the the Sang Sanggu guni nian ang g Panlalawigan. - (a) Within Within three three (3) days days after after appro approval val,, the secretary secretary to the Sanggunia Sanggunian n Panlungso Panlungsod d or Sangguni Sangguniang ang bayan bayan shall forward to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for review, copies of approved approved ordinances ordinances and the resolutions resolutions approving approving the local development plans and public investment programs formulated by the local development councils.
(b) (b) With Within in thir thirty ty (30) (30) days days afte afterr rece receip iptt of copi copies es of such such ordinance ordinances s and resolutio resolutions, ns, the Sanggunia Sangguniang ng Panlalawig Panlalawigan an shall examin examine e the docume documents nts or transm transmit it them them to the provin provincia ciall attorn attorney, ey, or if there there be none, none, to the provin provincia ciall prosec prosecuto utorr for prompt prompt examin examinati ation. on. The provin provincia ciall attorn attorney ey or provin provincia ciall prosecutor shall, within a period of ten (10) days from receipt of the documents, inform the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in writing of his comments or recommendations, which may be considered by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in making its decision.
(c) If the Sangguniang Panlalawigan finds that such an ordinance or resolution is beyond the power conferred upon the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang bayan concerned, it shall declare such ordi ordina nanc nce e or reso resolu luti tion on inva invali lid d in whol whole e or in part part.. The The Sangguniang Sangguniang Panlalawigan shall enter its action in the minutes and shall advise the corresponding city or municipal authorities of the action it has taken. (d) If no action has been taken by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan within thirty (30) days after submission of such an ordinance or resolution, the same shall be presumed consistent with law and therefore valid. SECT SECTIO ION N 57. 57. Revi Review ew of Bara Barang ngay ay Ordi Ordina nance nces s by the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan . - (a) Within ten (10) days after its enactment, the Sangguniang Barangay shall furnish furnish copies copies of all Barangay Barangay ordinance ordinances s to the Sangguniang Sangguniang Panlungs Panlungsod od or Sangguni Sangguniang ang bayan concerned concerned for review as to whether the ordinance is consistent with law and city or municipal ordinances.
(b) If the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, fails to take action on Barangay ordinances within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, the same shall be deemed approved. (c) If the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang bayan, as the case may be, finds the Barangay ordinances inconsistent with law or city or municipal ordinances, the Sanggunian concerned shall, within thirty (30) days from receipt thereof, return the same with its comments and recommendations to the Sangguniang Barangay concerned for adjustment, amendment, or modification; in which case, the effectivity of the Barangay ordinance is suspended until such time as the revision called for is effected.
B. Rationale for the delegation of quasi-legislative power
Tatad vs Secretary of DOE 281 SCRA 330
29 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Facts: Facts: This This is a petiti petition on to challe challeng nge e the consti constitut tution ionali ality ty of Repu Republ blic ic Act No. No. 8180 8180 enti entitl tled ed "An "An Act Act Dere Deregu gula lati ting ng the the Downstream Oil Industry and For Other Purposes".R.A. No. 8 180 ends ends twenty twenty six (26) (26) years years of govern governmen mentt regula regulatio tion n of the downstream of industry. In 1992, Congress enacted R.A. No. No. 7638 which created the Department of Energy to prepare, the law also aimed to encourage free and active participation and investment by the private sector in all energy activities. Section 5(e) of the law states that "at the end of four (4) years from the affectivity of this Act, the Department shall, upon approval of the President, institute the programs and timetable of deregulation of appropriate energy projects and activities of the energy industry." On Febr Februa uary ry's 's,, 1997 1997,, the the Pres Presid iden entt imple impleme ment nted ed the the full full deregulation of the Downstream Oil Industry through E.O. No.372. Petitioner contends that that the inclusion of the tariff provision in Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 8 180 violates Section 26(l) Article VI of the Constitution requiring every law to have only one subject which shall be expressed in its title. That the imposition of tariff rates in Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 8180 is foreign to the subject of the law which is the deregulation of the downstream oil industry. Section 15 of R.A. No. 8180 constitutes an undue delegation of legislativ legislative e power power to the President President and the Secretary Secretary of Energy becau because se it does does not provid provide e a determ determina inate te or deter determin minabl able e standard standard to guide the Executive Branch Branch in determinin determining g when to implement the full deregulation of the downstream oil industry. Issue: WON RA No. 8180 is unconstitutional? Ruling: The court ruled that RA No. 8180 is declared unconstitutional unconstitutional and ED. No. 372 void.The rational of the Court annulling RA No. 8180 is not because it disagrees with deregulation as an economic policy but because as cobbled by Congress in its present form, the law violates the Constitution. There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power, viz: the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete complete in all its terms and conditions conditions when it leaves the legislative such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it. Under the sufficient standard test, there must be adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundarie boundaries s of the delegate's delegate's authority authority and prevent prevent the delegation from running not. Both tests are intended to prevent a
total transference of legislative authority to the delegates who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative. The validity of delegating legislative power is now a quiet area in our constituti constitutional onal landscape landscape.. As sagely sagely observed observed,, delegatio delegation n of legisl legislati ative ve power power has has become become an inevit inevitab abilit ility y in light light of the increasing complexity of the task of government. To cede to the Executive the power to make law is to invite tyranny, indeed, to transgress the principle of separation of powers. The exercise of deleg delegate ated d power power is given given a strict strict scruti scrutiny ny by courts courts for the delegate is a mere agent whose action cannot infringe the terms of agency. Eastern Shipping Lines vs POEA 166 SCRA 533
Facts: Davao pilot association filed a petition against the Eastern shipping lines for sum of money and attorney’s fee claiming that herein herein responde respondent nt rendered rendered pilotage service to petitione petitioner, r, the lower court ruled in favor of the respondent; herein petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the CA. The factual antecedents of the controversy are simple. Petitioner insists insists on paying paying pilotage pilotage fees prescribed prescribed under PPA circulars. Because Because EO 1088 sets a higher higher rate, petitioner petitioner now assails assails its constitutionality. Issue: won EO 1088 is unconstitutional Ruling: Ruling: it is axiomatic axiomatic that administra administrative tive agency like Philippine Philippine port authority has no discretion whether or not to implement the law. Its duty is to enforce the law, thus, there is a conflict between PPA circular and a law like EO 1088, the latter prevails. Petition is dismissed. Pangasinan Transportation Transportation Co., Inc. vs Public Service Commission, 70 Phil. 221 Facts Facts:: Pangas Pangasina inan n Transp Transport ortati ation on Co. has been been engage engaged d in transporting passengers in Pangasinan and Tarlac to Nueva Ecija and Zambales by means of TPU buses for 20 years. It filed with Public Public Servic Service e Com Commis missio sion n to be autho authoriz rized ed to opera operate te ten
30 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer additiona additionall new Brockway Trucks Trucks on the ground ground that they were needed needed to comply comply with the terms and condition conditions s of its current current certificates. As a result of the application of the Eight Hour Labor Law. Law. The The Publ Public ic Serv Servic ice e Comm Commis issi sion on deni denied ed it. it. Motio Motion n for for Reconsideration denied. Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. Issues: (1) Whether or not the legislative powers granted to the Public Service Commission by Sec.1 of the Commonwealth Act No. 454 constitute a complete and total abdication of the Legislatures’ functions and thus unconstitutional and void. (2) (2) Whet Whethe herr or not not Publ Public ic Serv Service ice Comm Commis issi sion on has has exceeded its authority. Held: (1) No, No, Com Common monwea wealth lth Act no. 454 is consti constitut tution ional. al. Section 8 of Art. XIII of the Constitution provides that no franchise, certificate or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be “for a longer period than fifty years” and when it was ordained. While in Sec. 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 146 as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 454 that the Public Service Commission may prescribe as a condition for the issuance of a certificate. That it shall be valid only for a period of time it has been declared that the period shall not be longer than 50 years. Therefore, all that has been delegated to the commission is the admin function\, including the use of discretion, to carry out the will of the National National Assemb Assembly ly having having in view, view, in additio addition, n, the promotion of “public interests in a proper and suitable manner.” With With the the grow growin ing g comp comple lexi xity ty of mode modern rn life life,, the the multiplication of the subjects of governmental regulation and the increased difficulty of administering the laws, there is a constantly growing tendency towards the delegation of greater powers by the legislative and towards the approval of the practice by the courts. (2) No, this right of the state to regulate public utilities is founded upon the police power, applicable not only to those public utilities utilities coming into existence existence after its passage, passage, but likewise likewise to those already established and in operation. Calalang vs Williams 70 Phil 726
Facts: Facts: Calala Calalang ng in his capaci capacity ty as taxpay taxpayer er questi questione oned d the constitutionality of Commonwealth Act 548. The Secretary of Public works and highways with the recommendation of the Director of
Public works and the Chairman of the National Traffic Commission promulgat promulgated ed a rule closing a certain road in Manila Manila for animal animal drawn vehicle for a specific time. The petitioner, in his contention, empowers the Secretary of Public Works with the recommendation of the Director of Public works to legislate legislate rules and laws relative relative to the regulatio regulation n of traffic in the country. country. Further, Further, the petitioner petitioner contended contended that such act is an invalid delegation of legislative power. The respondent public official asserted that such promulgation of rules is in connection with the powers vested to them by the said law. Issue: Whether or not the said Act constitute an invalid delegation of legislative power. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the said act is not an invalid delegation of power. The authority therein conferred upon them and under which they promulgated the rules and regulations now complained of is not to determine what public policy demands but merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down by the National Assembly in said Act, to wit, "to promote safe transit upon, and avoid avoid obstructio obstructions ns on, roads roads and streets designat designated ed as national national roads by acts of the National Assembly or by executive orders of the President of the Philippines" and to close them temporarily to any or all classes of traffic "whenever the condition of the road or the traffic thereon makes such action necessary or advisable in the public convenience and interest." The delegated power, if at all, therefore, is not the determination of what the law shall be, but merely merely the ascertain ascertainment ment of the facts and circumstances circumstances upon whic which h the the appl applic icat atio ion n of said said law law is to be pred predic icat ated ed.. To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads and to determine when and how long a national road should be closed to traffic, in view of the condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the requireme requirements nts of public public convenie convenience nce and interest, interest, is an administrative function which cannot be directly discharged by the National Assembly, It must depend on the discretion of some other government official to whom is confided the duty of determining whether the proper occasion exists for executing the law. But it cannot be said that the exercise of such discretion is the making of the law.
31 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
C.
Limitations on the rule-making power
Smart Communications vs NTC G.R. No. 151908, 12 August 2003 Facts: Facts: petiti petitione oners rs Isla Isla Com Commun munica icatio tions ns Co., Co., Inc. Inc. and Pilipin Pilipino o Telephone Corporation filed against the National Telecommunications Commission, Commissioner Joseph A. Santiago Santiago,, Deputy Deputy Commission Commissioner er Aurelio Aurelio M. Umali and Deputy Deputy Commission Commissioner er Nestor Nestor C. Dacanay, Dacanay, an action action for declaration declaration of nullity nullity of NTC Memorandum Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-200 13-6-2000 0 (the Billing Circular). Circular). Petitioners Petitioners allege that the NTC has no jurisdiction jurisdiction to regulate the sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since such jurisdiction belongs to the Department of Trade and Industry under the Consumer Act of the Philippines; that the Billing Circ Circul ular ar is oppr oppres essi sive ve,, conf confis isca cato tory ry and and viol violat ativ ive e of the the constitutional prohibition against deprivation of property without due process of law; that the Circular will result in the impairment of the viability of the prepaid cellular service by unduly prolonging the validity and expiration of the prepaid SIM and call cards; and that the requirements of identification of prepaid card buyers and call balance announcement are unreasonable. Hence, they prayed that the Billing Circular be declared null and void ab initio. Issue :WON the RTC has jurisdiction of the case Held Held:: Peti Petiti tion ons s are are gran grante ted. d. The The issu issuan ance ce by the the NTC NTC of Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 and its Memorandum dated October October 6, 2000 was pursuant pursuant to its quasi-legisla quasi-legislative tive or rulemaking power. As such, petitioners were justified in invoking the judicial power of the Regional Trial Court to assail the constitutionality and validity of the said issuances. What is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the admini administr strati ative ve agency agency in the perfo performa rmance nce of its quasiquasilegislativ legislative e function, function, the regular regular courts courts have jurisdiction jurisdiction to pass upon the same. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution constitution is within within the jurisdiction jurisdiction of the regular courts. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the powe powerr to decl declar are e a law, law, trea treaty ty,, inte intern rnat atio iona nall or exec execut utiv ive e
agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts.25 This is within the scope of judicial power, which includes the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments.26 Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice justice to settle settle actual actual controver controversies sies involving involving rights rights which are legally legally demandab demandable le and enforceable, enforceable, and to deter determin mine e whethe whetherr or not not there there has been a grave grave abuse abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Philippine Apparel Workers Union vs NLRC 106 SCRA 444 Ruling : By virtue of such rule-making authority, the Secretary of Labor issued on May 1, 1977 a set of rules which exempts not only distressed employers but also "those who have granted in addition to the allowance under P.D. 525, at least P60.00 monthly wage increase on or after January 1, 1977, provided that those who paid less than this amount shall pay the difference (paragraph k of said rules). Clearly, Clea rly, the inclusion inclusion of paragrap paragraph h k contraven contravenes es the statutory autho authorit rity y grante granted d to the Secretar Secretary y of Labor, Labor, and and the same is therefore therefore void. The recognition recognition of the power of administra administrative tive officials to promulgate rules in the administration of the statute, neces necessar sarily ily limite limited d to what what is provid provided ed for in the legisl legislati ative ve enactment. It is of elementary elementary knowledge that an act of Congress cannot be amended by a rule promulgated by an administrative agen agency cy.. "It "It seem seems s too too clea clearr for for serio serious us argu argume ment nt that that an administrative officer cannot change a law enacted by Congress. A regulatio regulation n that is merely merely an interpretatio interpretation n of the statute statute when once determined to have been erroneous becomes a nullity."
D. Requisites for valid delegation of quasi-legislative power
Tatad vs Secretary of DOE 281 SCRA 330
32 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Facts: Facts: This This is a petiti petition on to challe challeng nge e the consti constitut tution ionali ality ty of Repu Republ blic ic Act No. No. 8180 8180 enti entitl tled ed "An "An Act Act Dere Deregu gula lati ting ng the the Downstream Oil Industry and For Other Purposes".R.A. No. 8 180 ends ends twenty twenty six (26) (26) years years of govern governmen mentt regula regulatio tion n of the downstream of industry. In 1992, Congress enacted R.A. No. No. 7638 which created the Department of Energy to prepare, the law also aimed to encourage free and active participation and investment by the private sector in all energy activities. Section 5(e) of the law states that "at the end of four (4) years from the affectivity of this Act, the Department shall, upon approval of the President, institute the programs and timetable of deregulation of appropriate energy projects and activities of the energy industry." On Febr Februa uary ry's 's,, 1997 1997,, the the Pres Presid iden entt imple impleme ment nted ed the the full full deregulation of the Downstream Oil Industry through E.O. No.372. Petitioner contends that that the inclusion of the tariff provision in Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 8 180 violates Section 26(l) Article VI of the Constitution requiring every law to have only one subject which shall be expressed in its title. That the imposition of tariff rates in Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 8180 is foreign to the subject of the law which is the deregulation of the downstream oil industry. Section 15 of R.A. No. 8180 constitutes an undue delegation of legislativ legislative e power power to the President President and the Secretary Secretary of Energy becau because se it does does not provid provide e a determ determina inate te or deter determin minabl able e standard standard to guide the Executive Branch Branch in determinin determining g when to implement the full deregulation of the downstream oil industry.
guarantees both the political and economic rights of the people. The Constitution mandates this Court to be the guardian not only of the people's political rights but their economic rights as well. The protection of the economic rights of the poor and the powerless is of greater importance to them for they are concerned more with the exoteric of living and less with the esoteric of liberty. Hence, for as long as the Constitution reigns supreme so long will this Court be vigilant vigilant in upholding upholding the economic economic rights rights of our people especially from the onslaught of the powerful. Our defense of the people's economic rights may appear heartless because it cannot be half-hearted.
1. Completeness test – the law must be complete complete in all its items and conditions conditions when it leaves leaves the legislature legislature such that that when it reaches reaches the delegate, the only thing they will have to do is enforce it (Eastern Shipping vs. POEA) What What cannot cannot be delega delegated ted are those which which are purely purely legislati legislative ve in nature. nature. He cannot determine what the law shall be.
US vs Ang Tang Ho L-4288 20 Nov 1952
Issue: WON RA No. 8180 is unconstitutional? Ruli Rulin ng: the the cour courtt rule ruled d tha that RA No. 8180 180 is decl decla ared red unconstitutional and ED. No. 372 void.The rational of the Court annu annull llin ing g RA No. No. 81 8180 80 is not not beca becaus use e it disa disagr gree ees s with with deregulation as an economic policy but because as cobbled by Congress in its present form, the law violates the Constitution. The right right call call theref therefore ore should should be for Congress Congress to write write a new oil deregulation law that conforms to the Constitution and not for this Court Court to shirk its duty duty of striking striking down a law that offends offends the Consti Constitut tution ion.. Striki Striking ng down down RA. No. 8180 8180 may may cost cost losses losses in quantifiable terms to the oil oligopolists. But the loss in tolerating the tampering of our Constitution is not quantifiable in pesos and centavos. More worthy of protection than the supra-normal profits of private corporations is the sanctity of the fundamental principles of the Constitu Constitutio tion. n. When When confro confronte nted d by a law violat violating ing the Constitution, the Court has no option but to strike it down dead. Lest it is missed, the Constitution is a covenant that grants and
Eastern Shipping Lines vs POEA 166 SCRA 533
Facts: Davao pilot association filed a petition against the Eastern shipping lines for sum of money and attorney’s fee claiming that herein herein responde respondent nt rendered rendered pilotage service to petitione petitioner, r, the lower court ruled in favor of the respondent; herein petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the CA. The factual antecedents of the controversy are simple. Petitioner insists insists on paying paying pilotage pilotage fees prescribed prescribed under PPA circulars. Because Because EO 1088 sets a higher higher rate, petitioner petitioner now assails assails its constitutionality. Issue: won EO 1088 is unconstitutional
33 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Ruling: Ruling: it is axiomatic axiomatic that administra administrative tive agency like Philippine Philippine port authority has no discretion whether or not to implement the law. Its duty is to enforce the law, thus, there is a conflict between PPA circular and a law like EO 1088, the latter prevails. Petition is dismissed. People vs Vera 65 Phil 56 Fact Facts: s: Cu Unjie Unjieng ng filed filed an appl applic icat atio ion n for for prob probat atio ion n on 27 November 1936, before the trial court, under the provisions of Act 4221 of the defunct Philippine Legislature. Cu Unjieng states in his petition, inter alia, that he is innocent of the crime of which he was convic convicted ted,, that that he has no crimin criminal al record record and that that he would would observe good conduct in the future. The CFI of Manila, Judge Pedro Tuason presiding, referred the application for probation of the Insular Probation Office which recommended denial of the same 18 June 1937. Thereafter, the CFI of Manila, seventh branch, Judge Jose O. Vera presiding, set the petition for hearing on 5 April 1937. On 2 April 1937, the Fiscal of the City of Manila filed an opposition to the granting of probation to Cu Unjieng. The private prosecution also filed an oppositio opposition n on 5 April 1937, alleging, alleging, among among other other things, that Act 4221, assuming that it has not been repealed by section 2 of Article XV of the Constitution, is nevertheless violative of sect sectio ion n 1, subs subsec ectio tion n (1), (1), Arti Articl cle e III III of the the Cons Consti titu tuti tion on guaranteeing equal protection of the laws for the reason that its applicabi applicability lity is not uniform throughout throughout the Islands and because because section 11 of the said Act endows the provincial boards with the power to make said law effective or otherwise in their respective or otherwise otherwise in their respective respective provinces provinces.. The private prosecutio prosecution n also also file filed d a supp supple leme ment ntar ary y oppo opposi siti tion on on Apri Aprill 19, 19, 1937 1937,, elaborating on the alleged unconstitutionality on Act 4221, as an undue delegation of legislative power to the provincial boards of several several provinces provinces (sec. 1, Art. VI, Constitut Constitution). ion). The City Fiscal concurred in the opposition of the private prosecution except with respect to the questions raised concerning the constitutionality of Act 4221. On 28 June 1937, Judge Jose O. Vera promulgated a resolution resolution,, concludin concluding g that Cu Unjieng Unjieng "es inocente por duda racion racional" al" of the crime of which which he stands stands convicte convicted d by the Supreme court in GR 41200, but denying the latter's petition for probat probation ion.. On 3 July July 1937, 1937, counsel counsel for Cu Unjien Unjieng g filed filed an exception exception to the resolution resolution denying denying probation probation and a notice notice of intention to file a motion for reconsideration. An alternative motion for reconsideration or new trial was filed by counsel on 13 July
1937. 1937. This This was supple supplemen mented ted by an additio additional nal motion motion for reconsideration submitted on 14 July 1937. The aforesaid motions were were set for hearin hearing g on 31 July July 1937, 1937, but said said hearin hearing g was postpone postponed d at the petition petition of counsel counsel for Cu Unjieng because because a motion for leave to intervene in the case as amici curiae signed by 33 (34) attorneys had just been filed with the trial court. On 6 August 1937, the Fiscal of the City of Manila filed a motion wi th the trial court for the issuance of an order of execution of the judgment of this court in said case and forthwith to commit Cu Unjieng to jail in obedience obedience to said judgment. judgment. On 10 August 1937, Judge Vera issued issued an order requiring requiring all parties parties including including the movants movants for interven intervention tion as amici curiae to appear appear before the court on 14 August 1937. On the last-mentioned date, the Fiscal of the City of Manil Manila a moved moved for the hearin hearing g of his motion motion for executi execution on of judgment in preference to the motion for leave to intervene as amici curiae but, upon objection objection of counsel for Cu Unjieng, Unjieng, he moved for the postponement of the hearing of both motions. The judge thereupon set the hearing of the motion for execution on 21 August 1937, but proceeded to consider the motion for leave to inte interv rven ene e as amic amicii curi curiae ae as in orde order. r. Evid Eviden ence ce as to the the circumstances under which said motion for leave to intervene as amici curiae was signed and submitted to court was to have been heard heard on 19 August August 1937. 1937. But at this this junctu juncture, re, HSBC and the People came to the Supreme Court on extraordinary legal process to put an end to what they alleged was an interminable proceeding in the CFI of Manila which fostered "the campaign of the defendant Mariano Mariano Cu Unjieng Unjieng for delay delay in the execution execution of the sentence sentence imposed by this Honorable Court on him, exposing the courts to criticism criticism and ridicule ridicule because because of the apparent apparent inability inability of the judicial machinery to make effective a final judgment of this court imposed imposed on the defendant defendant Mariano Mariano Cu Unjieng." Unjieng." The schedule scheduled d hearing before the trial court was accordingly suspended upon the issuance of a temporary restraining order by the Supreme Court on 21 August 1937. Issue: Whether the People of the Philippines, through the Solicitor Genera Generall and and Fiscal Fiscal of the City of Manila Manila,, is a proper proper party party in present case. Held: Held: YES. The People People of the Philippines, Philippines, represented represented by the Solicitor-General and the Fiscal of the City of Manila, is a proper party in the present proceedings. The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal
34 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustained, direct injury as a result of its enforcement. It goes without saying that if Act 4221 really violates the constitution, the People People of the Philippines, Philippines, in whose name the present action is brought, has a substantial interest in having it set aside. Of greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid statute. Hence, the well-settled rule that the state can challenge the validity of its own laws. 2. Suff ic icient standard test – to map out the boundaries of the delegates’ authority by defining legislativ legislative e policy policy and indicating indicating circumstan circumstances ces under which it is pursued. Serve to canalize the banks of the river from overflowing.
Chiongbian vs Orbos 245 SCRA 253
Facts: Petitioners challenged the validity of a provision of R.A 6734, “aut “autho hori rizi zing ng the the Pres Presid iden entt of the the Phil Philip ippi pine nes s to merg merge e by administra administrative tive determina determination tion the regions regions remaining remaining after after the establishment of the Autonomous Region, and the Executive Order issued by the President pursuant to such authority, “Providing for the Reorganization of Administrative Regions in Mindanano.” Four provinces includes, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi Tawi voted in favor of creating an autonomous region, thus became ARMM. After the plebiscite, E.O 429 as amended by E.O 439 439 was was issu issued ed by the the Chie Chieff Exec Execut utiv ive e prov provid idin ing g for for the the Reorganiza Reorganization tion of the Administra Administrative tive Regions Regions in Mindanao. Mindanao. The cont conten entio tions ns of the the Peti Petiti tion oner ers s cont conten ends ds that that R.A R.A 6734 6734 is unconstit unconstitution utional al because because 1.) it unduly unduly delegates delegates the legislativ legislative e power to the President by authorizing him to merge the existing regions. 2.) the power granted is not expressed in the title of the law. Issue: Whether the Congress Congress has provided provided a sufficient standard standard by which the President is to be guided in the exercise of the power granted. Whether Whether the grant grant of power to the President President is included included in the subject expressed in the title of the law.
Ruling: Ruling: A legislative legislative standard standard need need not be expressed. expressed. It may simp simply ly be gath gather ered ed or impl implie ied, d, nor nor it be foun found d in the the law law challenged because it may be embodied in other statutes on the same subject as that of the challenged legislation. Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title. The title is not required to be an index of the content of the bill. It is a sufficient compliance with the constitutiona constitutionall requireme requirement nt if the title expresse expresses s the general general subjec subjectt and all provis provision ions s of the statut statute e are pertinen pertinentt to that that subjec subject. t. The Reo Reorga rganiz nizati ation on of the remain remaining ing admini administr strati ative ve regions is pertinent to the general subject of R.A 6734, which is the establishment of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. A legislative standard need not be expressed. It may simply be gathered or implied. Nor need it be found in the law challenged because it may be embodied in other statutes on the same subject as that of the challenged legislation. With respect to the power to merge existing administrative regions, the standard is to be found in the same policy underlying the grant to the President in the law. Cervantes vs Auditor General L-4043 26 May 1952
Facts: Petitioner was manager of the national abaca and Fibers Corporation. Its board of directors granted quarter allowances to petitioner. Submitted to the control of the government enterprise council created in EO 93 in pursuance to RA 51 for approval, the resolu resolutio tion n was disapp disapprov roved ed on recomm recommend endati ation on by audit auditor or gener general. al. 1. That That quarte quarterr allowa allowance nce consti constitut tuted ed additio additional nal compensation prohibited by NAFCO charter. 2. Financial condition of NAFCO. Reconside Reconsideratio ration n was denied, hence, this petition petition for review review by certiorari/ Issu Issue: e: that that EO 93 is inva invali lid d as base based d on the the law law that that is unconstitutional being an undue delegation of legislative power to executive. Ruling: the rule that so long as the legislative “lays down policy and a standard is established by the statute there is no undue
35 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer delegation. RA 51 is authorizes the president to make reforms and changes in the government controlled corporation for the purpose of promoting simplicity, economy and efficiency in their operations. This lays down a standard and policy. pursuant to this authority, the president promulgate EO 93 creating government enterprises council council with power power to pass upon the program program of activities activities and yearly budget of member corporations. Petition is dismissed.
was affected to the said order with the contention that the said order is an invalid delegation of power and unduly oppressive to the industry. The Solicitor General contended that the said law is a proper proper delegatio delegation n of legislative legislative power to the President President of the Republic.
Pelaez vs Auditor General 15 SCRA 569
Ruli Ruling ng:: The The cour courtt rule ruled d in that that the the said said orde orderr is an inva invali lid d delegation of power. The court further ruled that the challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method method employed employed to conserve conserve the carabaos carabaos is not reasonably reasonably neces necessar sary y to the purpose purpose of the law and, and, worse, worse, is unduly unduly oppressiv oppressive. e. Due process is violated violated because the owner owner of the property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished. The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of the suppo supposed sed offen offender der is a clear clear encro encroach achmen mentt on judici judicial al functi function ons s and milita militates tes agains againstt the doctri doctrine ne of separa separatio tion n of powers. There is, finally, also an invalid delegation of legislative power powers s to the office officers rs mentio mentione ned d therei therein n who are grante granted d unlimited discretion in the distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken. For these reasons, reasons, the court declared Executive Executive Order No. 626-A unconstitutional.
Facts: The President of the Phil., pursuant to section 68 of the Revised Administrative code, issued E.O nos. 93 to 121,124 and 126 to 129 creating municipalities. However, Emmanuel Pelaez, as Vice President of the Phil and as a taxpayer instituted a writ of prohibition with prelim injunction against the Auditor general from passing passing in audit any public public funds. funds. The petitioner petitioner alleges alleges that executive orders are null and void, upon the ground Sec. 68 has been impliedly impliedly repealed by R.A no 2370 and constitutes constitutes undue delegation of legislative power Issue: Issue: Whethe Whetherr or not the E.O nos issue issued d consti constitut tutes es undue undue delegation of legislative power.
Issue: Whether or not the said executive order is a valid delegation of power.
Held Held:: Yes, Yes, the the auth author orit ity y to crea create te muni munici cipa pall corp corpor orat atio ions ns is essentially legislative in nature. Although congress may delegate to another branch of the government the power to fill in the details in the execution execution,, enforceme enforcement nt or administra administration tion of a law, it is essential, to forestall a violation of the separation of powers, the said law: a. be complete in itself- it must set forth the policy to be executed executed,, carried carried out or implemented implemented by the delegate; delegate; b. fix a standa standardrd- the limits limits of which which are suffic sufficien iently tly determ determina inate te of determinable
3. Exceptions to the sufficient legislative standards
requirement
of
1. power which is not directly or exclusive exclusively ly a legislativ legislative e one and has no relation whatsoever to personal or property rights; 2. power wer to to reg regulate late a mere mere matt matte er of of privilege
Ynot vs IAC 148 SCRA 659 E.
Facts: The petitioner is questioning the validity of the Executive order order issued issued by the President President of the Philippines Philippines prohibitin prohibiting g the interprov interprovincial incial movement movement of carabaos carabaos and the slaughteri slaughtering ng of carabaos not complying with the requirements of Executive Order No. 626 particularly with respect to age. Obviously, the petitioner
Issues on validity of legislation 1. Against the delegating statute itself --whether whether or not the requisite requisites s of valid delegation delegation are present; 2. Against the exercise of the delegated power power --- whethe whetherr or not the rule rule or regula regulatio tion n
36 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer confor conforms ms with with what what the statut statute e provid provides es and whether the same is reasonable.
• • •
Solicitor General vs Metropolitan Manila Authority, 204 SCRA 837
Facts: For his part, A.V. Emmanuel said he confiscated Trieste's driver's license pursuant to a memorandum dated February 27, 1991, from the District Commander of the Western Traffic District of the Philippine National Police, authorizing such sanction under certain certain condition conditions. s. Director Director General Cesar P. Nazareno Nazareno of the Philippine National Police assured the Court in his own Comment that his office had never authorized the removal of the license plates of illegally parked vehicles and that he had in fact directed full full comp compli lian ance ce with with the the abov abovee-me ment ntio ione ned d deci decisi sion on in a memorandum. Issue: WON Memorandum/ordinance of MMA is valid. Held: (1) declaring declaring Ordinance Ordinance No. 11, NULL and VOID; and (2) enjoining enjoining all law-enforc law-enforcemen ementt authoritie authorities s in Metropolit Metropolitan an Manila Manila from removing the license plates of motor vehicles (except when authorize authorized d under under LOI 43) and confiscating confiscating driver's driver's licenses for traffic violations within the said area. Hence, regardless of their merits, they cannot be imposed by the challenged enactments by virtue only of the delegated legislative powers. It is for for Cong Congre ress ss to dete determ rmin ine, e, in the the exer exerci cise se of its its own own discretion, whether or not to impose such sanctions, either directly through a statute or by simply delegating authority to this effect to the local governments in Metropolitan Manila. Without such action, PD 1605 1605 rema remain ins s effe effect ctiv ive e and and cont contin inue ues s to proh prohib ibit it the the confiscation of license plates of motor vehicles (except under the conditions prescribed in LOI 43) and of driver's licenses as well for traffic violations in Metropolitan Manila.
An ordinance to be valid: Must not be in contravention of the constitution Must not be oppressive • •
Must not be discriminatory Must not regulate or prohibit trade Must not be against a statute F.
Rule and rule-making, defined Section 2.2 Book VII, Admin Code of 1987
"Rule" means any agency statement of general applicability that implements or interprets a law, fixes and describes the procedures in, in, or prac practi tice ce requ requir irem emen ents ts of, of, an agen agency cy,, incl includ udin ing g its its regula regulatio tions. ns. The The term term includ includes es memora memoranda nda or statem statement ents s concer concernin ning g the intern internal al admini administr strati ation on or manag manageme ement nt of an agency not affecting the rights of, or procedure available to, the public. Section 4, Book VII, Admin Code of 1987 "Rule "Rule making" making" means means an agency agency process process for the formulatio formulation, n, amendment, or repeal of a rule. Eslao vs COA 236 SCRA 161
Facts: Eslao, in his capacity as president of the Pangasinan State University asked the SC to set aside the COA decision which denied honoraria and per diems claimed under the National Compensation Circular No. 53 by certain PSU personnel including petitioner. Issue: Whether or not the acts done by the COA in the case at bar are valid. Ruling: COA is not authorized to substitute its own judgment for any applicable law or administrative regulation with the wisdom or propriety of which it does not agree at least not before such law or regulation was set aside by authorized agency of government as unconstitutional or illegal and void. Administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law have the force of law and are entitled to great respect.
37 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
Vda de Pineda vs Pena 187 SCRA 22 Supplementary legislation – A statut statute e which which leaves leaves to the executive the power to fill in the technical details in view of the latter’s expertise is a recognized delegation of legislative power.
Must be in compliance with the enabling law and not 1.
2.
G.
Clas Classi sifi fica cati tion on of rule rules s and and regu regula lati tion ons s a. Those ose iss issued ued by an admi admini nist stra rati tiv ve superior superior and directed directed exclusive exclusively ly to the subordina subordinates tes --- rules and regulations regulations of internal administration to be observed by subordina subordinate te officials officials for the prompt and efficient dispatch of government business and to facilit facilitate ate the transa transacti ctions ons of the general public with the government; b. Those Those direc directed ted not not only to the the inferio inferiorr officers officers but also and primarily to private private individuals, fixing the manner by which the terms of a statute are to be complied with. Types of of ru rule-making po powers 2.1. 2.1. Rule Rule-m -mak akin ing g by reas reason on of par parti ticu cula larr delegation of authority (supplementary or detailed legislation)--- refers to the power to issue rules and regulations which have the force and effect of law; 2.2 2.2. Rule Rule-m -ma akin king by the cons constr tru uctio ction n and interp interpret retati ation on of a statut statute e being being administered (interpretative legislation)--refe refers rs to the the powe powerr to inte interp rpre rett and and construe the statutes entrusted to them for implementation; 2.3 2.3. The asce ascert rta ainme inment nt of fact facts s whic which h will form the basis for the enforcement of a stat statut ute e (con (contin tinge gent nt legi legisl slat atio ion n or determination).
Supplementary/detailed Supplementary/detailed legislation 1.
Source – enabling la law;
2.
Requisites fo for va validity:
Facts: Assailed in this petition for certiorari and prohibition is that part part of the decision decision of the Director Director of Mines, Mines, affirmed affirmed by the Minister of Natural Resources, which declared that petitioners have abandoned and lost their rights over their mining claim. This case originated from a protest case for alleged overlapping or encroachment between two mining claims. Petitioners filed with the Bureau of Mines a letter complain against private respondents for alleged overlapping and encroachment of the "Ullmann" claim over the "Ped" claim. The Director of Mines rendered a decision declaring that there was no conflict between the "Ped and "Ullmann "Ullmann and dismissed dismissed the petition. Since the protest case was filed after Pres. Decree No. 463 (Mineral Resources Development Decree of 1974) took effect on May 17, 1974 1974,, the the prov provis isio ions ns of the the law law were were made made appl applic icab able le to petit petition ioners ers.. Pres. Pres. Decree Decree No. 463 mandat mandates es compli complianc ance e with with certain requirements in order for subsisting mining claims, such as the "Ped" claim, to avail of the benefits granted under the Decree. Otherwise, mining rights to the claim will be lost. Issue: (1) whether or not public respondents have jurisdiction to pass pass upon upon the valid validity ity of the "Ped" "Ped" claim claim in a protes protestt case case of overlapping of mining claims; and (2) should public respondents have such jurisdiction, whether or not they committed grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction in declaring petitioners to have abandoned their mining claim. Ruling: Petition dismissed. The public respondent has jurisdiction. Petitioners had filed the protest case pursuant to Pres. Decree No. 463 which vests the Bureau of Mines with jurisdiction over protests involving mining claims [Section 48, Pres. Decree No. 4631. Under the same Decree, Section 90 confers upon the Secretary of Natural Resources, upon recommendation of the Director of Mines, the authority to issue rules, regulations and orders necessary to carry out the provisions and purposes of the Decree. In accordance with the statutory grant of rulemaking power.
38 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Sect Sectio ion n 128 128 of the the impl implem emen enti ting ng rule rules s invo invoke ked d by publ public ic responden respondents ts as basis for their jurisdictio jurisdiction n cannot cannot be tainted tainted with invalidity. First, it was issued by the Department Head pursuant to validl validly y delega delegated ted rule-m rule-maki aking ng power powers. s. Second Second,, it does does not contraven contravene e the provisions provisions of Pres. Decree No. 463, nor does it expand the coverage of the Decree. Section 128 merely prescribes a proced procedura urall rule rule to implem implement ent the general general provis provision ions s of the enabling law. It does not amend or extend the provisions of the statute It is establ establish ished ed in jurisp jurisprud rudenc ence e that that Congre Congress ss may validl validly y delegate to administrative agencies the authority to promulgate rules rules and regula regulatio tions ns to implem implement ent a given given legisl legislati ation on and and effectuate its policies.
4 requisites of the valid supplementary delegation delegation •
must be germane to the objects and purposes of the law
•
conform to the standards that the law prescribes
•
must be reasonable
•
must must be relate related d to carryi carrying ng in to effect effect the gener general al provisions of law UST v. Court of Tax Appeals 93 Phil 376
Facts: The Collector of Internal Revenue notified petitioner that its income income as an education educational al institutio institution n was taxable. taxable. Later Later on UST submitted a memorandum before the Sec. of Finance disputing the decisi decision on of the latter latter as regard regard the taxabi taxability lity of the former former’s ’s income from tuition fees. The case was elevated before the Board of Tax Appeals in accordance with the rules romulgated by said Board under E.O. No. 401-A, 401-A, whereb whereby y the petitio petitioner ner questi questione oned d the jurisd jurisdict iction ion of respondent to take cognizance of the petition for review. Issue: Whether or not E.O. No. 401-A is tainted with invalidity for the reason reason that it deprives deprives the CFI’s of their jurisdictio jurisdiction n to take cognizance of cases involving recovery of taxes.
Held: E.O. No. 401-A does not merely create the BTA, which, as an instrumentality of the Dept of Finance may properly come within the purview of R.A. No. 422, but goes as as far as depriving the CFI’s of their jurisdiction to act on internal evenue cases, a matter which is foreign to it and which comes within the exclusive province of Congress. This the Chief Executive cannot do, nor can that power be delega delegated ted by Congre Congress ss alone alone has “the power power to defin define, e, pres prescr crib ibe, e, and and appo apport rtio ion n the the juri jurisd sdict ictio ion n of the the vari variou ous s department.” Boie Takeda Chemicals vs Dela Serna 228 SCRA 329 Facts: This is a consolidated case questioning the supplementary regulatio regulation n issued issued by the Departmen Departmentt of Labor Labor and Employment Employment Secretary Secretary regarding regarding the applicatio application n and implementation implementation of 13th month pay law. The Department order included commission as part of the computati computation on of determinin determining g the 13th month month pay pay of the employees employees.. Upon inspection inspection,, the petitioners petitioners were found to be violat violators ors of the law for not includ including ing the commissi commission on on its employ employees ees in the comput computati ation on of the 13th month month pay. pay. The petitioner contended that the Secretary Drilon is acting in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the same. The Secretary however contended that the said order was just a supplementary to the law which the same tried to erase the cloud thereof. Issue: Issue: Whether Whether or not the said order is a valid administra administrative tive regulation. Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The court further ruled that the Supplementary Rules and Regulations Implementing President Presidential ial Decree Decree 851 is even even more emphatic emphatic in declaring declaring that earnings and other remunerations which are not part of the basic salary shall not be included in the computation of the l3th-month pay. "While "While doubt doubt may have been been create created d by the prior Rules Rules and and Regulations Implementing Presidential Decree 851 which defines basic salary to include all remunerations or earnings paid by an employer to an employee, this cloud is dissipated in the later and more controllin controlling g Supplemen Supplementary tary Rules and Regulatio Regulations ns which categorically exclude from the definitions of basic salary earnings and other remunerations remunerations paid by employer employer to an employee. employee. A cursory perusal of the two sets of Rules indicates that what has
39 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer hitherto been the subject of a broad inclusion is now a subject of broad exclusion. The Supplementary Rules and Regulations cure the the seem seemin ing g tend tenden ency cy of the the form former er rule rules s to incl includ ude e all all remunerations and earnings within the definition of basic salary. "The all embracing embracing phrase phrase 'earnings 'earnings and other other remunerat remunerations ions'' which are deemed not part of the basic salary includes within its meanin mea ning g paymen payments ts for sick, sick, vacat vacation ion,, or matern maternity ity leave leaves, s, premium for works performed on rest days and special holidays, pays for regular holidays and right differentials. As such they are deemed not part of the basic salary and shall not be considered i the computation of the 13th month pay. If they were not excluded it is hard to find any 'earnings and other remunerations' expressly exclud excluded ed in the comput computati ation on of the 13-month 13-month pay. Then Then the exclusionary provision would prove to be idle and with no purpose.
GMCR vs Bell Telecommunication Phil., Inc. 271 SCRA 79 Facts: Before us are consolidated petitions seeking the review and reversal reversal of the decision1 decision1 of the responde respondent nt Court of Appeals2 declaring the National Telecommunications Commission (hereafter, NTC) to be a collegial body under Executive Order No. 546 3 and ordering the NTC to heretofore sit and act en bane, i.e., with the concurrence of at least two commissioners, for a valid dispensation of its quasi-judicial functions. Issue: WON NTC is a collegial body Held: We hereby declare that the NTC is a collegial body requiring a majority vote out of the three members of the commission in order to validly decide a case or any incident therein. Corollarily, the vote alone of the chairman of the commission, as in this case, the vote of Commissioner Kintanar, absent the required concurring vote coming from the rest of the membership of the commission to at least arrive at a majority decision, is not sufficient to legally rend render er an NTC NTC orde order, r, reso resolu luti tion on or deci decisi sion on.. Simp Simply ly put, put, Commission Commissioner er Kintanar Kintanar is not the National National Tele Telecommu communicat nications ions Commission. He alone does not speak for and in behalf of the NTC. The NTC acts through through a three-man body, and and the three members of the commission each has one vote to cast in every deliberation concerning a case or any incident therein that is subject to the jurisdiction of the NTC.
Grego vs COMELEC 274 SCRA 481 Facts: Deputy Sheriff Basco was found guilty by the city court of manila manila of serious serious misconduc misconductt and dismissed dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits with prejudice to reinstatement to any position in the national or local government, its agencies and instrumentalities or GOCC. Basco run as a councilor in 1988 election won and assume office. In the 1992 election he run again and this time his victory not without unchallenged. A quo warranto was filed against him but was dismissed. At second time time petiti petitione onerr Grego Grego a regist registere ered d voted voted file file a petiti petition on with with comelec comelec for disqualific disqualificatio ation n and suspensio suspension n of his proclamati proclamation. on. Basco was proclaimed and assume office; petitioner filed an urgent motion seeking to annul a hasty and illegal proclamation. Issu Issue: e: Does Does Sect Sectio ion n 40 (b) (b) of Repu Republ blic ic Act Act No. No. 7160 7160 appl apply y retroactively to those removed from office before it took effect on January 1, 1992? Ruling: There is no provision in the statute which would clearly indicate that the same operates retroactively. It, therefore, follows that that [Sec [Secti tion on]] 40 (b) (b) of the the Loca Locall Gove Govern rnme ment nt Code Code is not not applicabl applicable e to the present present case. Basco Basco was NOT subject subject to any disqualification at all under Section 40 (b) of the Local Government Code which, as we said earlier, applies only to those removed from office on or after January 1, 1992. "We reiter reiterate ate the princi principle ple that that the power power of admini administr strati ative ve officials to promulgate rules and regulations in the implementation of a statute is necessarily limited only to carrying into effect what is provided in the legislative enactment. The regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. By such regulations, of course, the law itself can not be extended. So long, however, as
40 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer the regulations relate solely to carrying into effect the provision of the law, they are valid.'
or any review center during the three days immediately preceding every examination day including the examination day. Issue: won the resolution no. 105 is valid.
Romulo, Mabanta vs HDMF 333 SCRA 777 Facts: Issue of the validity of the Amendments to the Rules and Regulatio Regulations ns Implementi Implementing ng Republic Republic Act No. 7742, 7742, which require the existence of a plan providing for both provident/retirement and housing benefits for exemption from the Pag~IBIG Fund coverage under Presidential Decree No. 1752, as amended. Issue: WON the amendments are valid Held: The amendments are null and void insofar as they require that an employer should have both a provident/ retirement plan and a housing plan superior to the benefits offered by the Fund in order to qualify for waiver or suspension of the Fund coverage. Nasipit Lumber Co. vs NWPC 289 SCRA 667
3.
Requ Requir irem eme ent of rea reasona sonabl ble eness ness a. Bears a r ea easonable re relation to to th th e purpose sought to be accomplished; b. Supported by good reasons; c. Fre Free fro from con constit stitu ution tiona al infi infirm rmit itie ies s or charge of arbitrariness Lupangco vs CA 160 SCRA 848
Facts: PRC issued resolution no. 105 “that no examine shall attend any review class, briefing, conference, or the like conducted by or shall receive any handouts, review material or any tip from school
Ruling: Ruling: the court rule in favor favor of petitione petitioner. r. Its is an axiom axiom of admin administ istrat rative ive law admini administr strati ative ve author authoriti ities es should should not not act arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of rules and regulations. To be valid, such rules and regulations must be reasonable and fairly fairly adapted adapted to secure secure the end end view. view. If shown shown to bear bear no reasonable relation to the purpose for which they are authorized to be issued, then they must be held invalid. The power of administra administrative tive officials to promulgat promulgate e rules and regula regulatio tions ns in the implem implement entati ation on of a statut statute e is necess necessari arily ly limited to carrying into effect what is provided in the legislative enactment.
H.
Interpretative legislation 1.
Dist Distin inct ctio ion n betw betwee een n rule rule and and int inter erpr pret etat atio ion n
Victorias Milling Co vs Social Security Commission 114 Phil 555 Ratio : When an administra administrative tive agency promulgates promulgates rules and regulations, in the exercise of its rule making power delegated to it by the legislature, it makes a new law with the force and effect of a valid valid law. When it renders renders an opinion, opinion, or gives gives a statement statement of policy policy,, it merely merely interp interpret rets s a pre-ex pre-exist isting ing law, law, hence, hence, merely merely advisory. 2. Types of construction/interpretation
executive
a. Construction by an executive officer directly called to implement the law. It may be express (embodied in a circular, directive or regulation) or implied (practice or mode of enforcement of not applying the statute statute to certain certain situations situations;; by usage or practice);
41 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer b. Construction by the Secretary of Justice as chief legal adviser of the government. May be reversed by President in the exercis exercise e of the power power to modify modify,, alter or reverse; c. Interpretation ha handed do dow n in an an advers adversary ary proceedi proceeding ng in the form of a ruling ruling by an executive executive officer exercising exercising quasi-judicial power. 2. Weig Weight ht constructions
acco accord rded ed
to
admi admini nist stra rati tive ve
Asturias Sugar Central vs Commissioner Commissioner of Customs 29 SCRA SCRA 617 Facts: The Bureau of Customs issued an Administrative Order in the silence of the Tariff and Customs Customs Code which extends extends the period period of export exportati ation on of a specifi specific c contai container ners s in which which the petitioner was directly affected. The petitioner questioned the said order order alleging alleging that the construction construction of a specific statute by an administrative body must not be observed. Issue: Issue: What weight should the court observes observes in administra administrative tive construction. Ruling: The court ruled that where the court of last resort has not previously interpreted the stature, the rule is that the courts will give considerations to construction by administrative or executive departments of the state. The construction of the office charged with implementing and enforcing the provisions of a statute should be given controlling weight.
elections. After the counting of the votes, petitioner (Concepcion) was proclaimed as the duly elected Barangay Chairman. On May 21, 1997, private respondent (Melendres) filed an election protest against petitioner (Concepcion) with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, contesting therein the results of the election in all fortyseven (47) precincts of said barangay. The case was assigned to Branch 68. On June 4, 1997, after the preliminary hearing of the election case, it was shown that no filing or docket fee was paid by the protestant therei therein, n, which which paymen paymentt is requir required ed in the COMELE COMELEC C Rules Rules of Procedure, Rule 37, Sec. 6. Petitioner Concepcion moved to dismiss the case on the ground of failure to comply with this requirement. In the contested Order, public respondent denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that the requirement of payment of filing or docket fee is merely an administrative procedural matter and [is] not jurisdictional. Issue: WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion Held: On the basis of all the foregoing considerations, it is resolved that the payment of the filing of fee for purposes of an election protest and counter-protest is not jurisdictional and, hence, noncompliance therewith at the outset will not operate to deprive the Court Court of jurisd jurisdict iction ion confer conferred red upon upon it by law and acquir acquired ed pursuant pursuant to the Rules. Accordingly, Accordingly, the Motion Motion to Dismiss Dismiss the instant petition is hereby denied. When an administrative administrative agency renders renders an opinion or issues issues a statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-existing law and the administrative interpretation is at best advisory for it is the court that finally determine what the law means.
Melendres vs COMELEC 319 SCRA 262
Peralta vs CSC 212 SCRA 425
Facts: Facts: Petitione Petitionerr alleges alleges that the COMELEC COMELEC gravely abused its discre discretio tion n in issuin issuing g and promul promulga gatin ting g ex parte parte the assail assailed ed resolution without complying with the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 28, Section 1 of Rule 10, Sections 1 to 6 of Rule 14, Sections 1 to 4 of Rule 17 and Section 9 of Rule 18, all of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
United Christian Missionary Society vs SSC 30 SCRA 982
Petitioner were candidates for the position of Barangay Chairman of Barangay Caniogan, Pasig City, in the May 12, 1997 barangay
Facts: this is the appeal from SSC, seeking to annul the orders of commissioner in dismissing the petition, on the ground that in the absence of express provision in Social Security act, vesting in the commission the power to condone penalties. Petitioners contention that they had under the impression that international organization, they were not cover under SSC. They paid their premiums and ask for condonation, which was denied by commissioner.
42 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
ISSUE: WON the commission erred in ruling that it has no authority under under SSC SSC to condon condone e the penalty penalty prescr prescribe ibed d by law for late late premiums. RULING: No error in the commissioner’s action. The provision on the SSC precis precisely ely enumer enumerate ates s the power power of the commis commissio sion, n, nowhere from the said powers may it shown that the commissioner is granted granted expressly expressly or by implication implication the authority authority to condone condone penalties imposed by the act.
Constructi Construction on of administra administrative tive rules and regulations 3.
Ollada vs Secretary of Finance 109 Phil 1072
quarantining of animals suffering from dangerous diseases known as rinde rinderpe rpest. st. The The convic convictio tion n was ground grounded ed on illegal illegal and voluntary act of herein accused by way of permitting and ordering the carabao carabaos s on issue to be taken from the corral corral while the quarantines against the same was still enforce. On other hand, that herein defendant interposed a defense that the acts complained of did not constitute a crime. Issue: Issue: WON the acts acts compla complaint int of in the case case at bar did not constitute a crime. Ruling: the court ruled in the negative. The acts complaint in the case at bar do not fall within any of the provisions of the Act No. 1760. However, the said finding does not prevent the court from finding the accused guilty of a violation of an article of the revised penal code.
Ratio : An administrative body has the power to interpret its own rules and such interpretation becomes part of the rule itself. Unless show shown n to be erro errone neou ous, s, unre unreas ason onab able le or arbi arbitr trar ary, y, such such interp interpret retati ation on is entitl entitled ed to recogn recognitio ition n and respec respectt from from the courts, courts, as no one is better better qualified qualified to interpret the intent of the regulation than the authority that issued it. Thus, its interpretation that the rule it issued is not retroactive, not being unreasonable, should be followed.
People v. Exconde 101 Phil 1125 People v. Maceren 79 SCRA 450
2. Imp Imposit ositio ion n of pena penalt ltie ies s by admi admin nistr istra ative tive authorities K.
I.
Rate-fixing power
Contingent legislation or delegation to ascertain facts Philcomsat v. Alcuaz 180 SCRA 218 Cruz vs Youngberg 56 Phil 234 People vs Vera 65 Phil 56 US vs Ang Tang Ho 43 Phil 1 Lovina vs Moreno 9 SCRA 557
J.
Penal rules and regulations 1. Requ Requis isit ite es for for vali validi dity ty of of pen penal ru rules les and and regulations Marcos vs CA 278 SCRA 843 US v. Panlilio 28 Phil 608
Facts: Dependant Panlilio was charged and convicted of the CFI of Provin Province ce of Pampag Pampaga a of a violat violation ion of the law relati relating ng to the
Facts: Facts: Philippine Philippine Satellite Corporation Corporation filed a petition petition seeking seeking to annul and set aside an order issued by respondent Commissioner Jose Luis Alcuaz of the NTC, which directs the provisional reduction of the rates which may be charge charged d by petiti petitione onerr for certain certain specified lines of its services by 15% with the reservation to make further further reduction reduction later, for being being violative violative of the constitutional constitutional prohibitio prohibition n against against undue undue delegatio delegation n of legislativ legislative e power power and a denial or procedural, as well as substantial due process of law. The said provisional reduction is allegedly under the contemplation of E.O. 546, providing for the creation of NTC and granting its ratefixi fixing ng powe powers rs;; and and E.O. E.O. 196, 196, plac placin ing g peti petiti tion oner er unde underr the the jurisdiction of respondent respondent NTC. Issue: Whether or not the order order in issue is constitutional.
43 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Held: Held: The Supreme Supreme Court ruled ruled that that the challen challenged ged order, order, particularly on the issue of rates provided therein, being violative of due process process clause clause is void and should should be nullifi nullified ed . Thus, Thus, temporary temporary rate-fixing rate-fixing order is not exempt from the procedural procedural requirement of notice and hearing. Moreover Moreover the temporary ratefixing becomes final legislative act as to the period during which it has to remain in force pending the final determination of the case. In case of delegation of rate-fixing power, the only standard which the legislature legislature is required required to prescribe prescribe for the guidance guidance of the admin authority is that the rate reasonable and just. However, it has been held that even in the absence of an express requirement requirement as to reasonableness, this standard may be implied. The fixing of rate is quasi-legislative when the rules or the rates are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the Philippines, in which case, notice and hearing are not required for their validity.
L.
Effectivity of administrative rules and regulations 1.
Publication r eq equirement
adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within three (3) months from that date shall not therea thereafte fterr be the basis of any sanction sanction against against any party or persons. (2) The records records office officerr of the agency agency,, or his equiva equivalen lentt functionary, shall carry out the requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary action. (3) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and shall be open to public inspection. Sec. Sec. 4. Effe Effect ctiv ivit ity. y. - In addi additi tion on to othe otherr rule rule-m -mak akin ing g requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of filing as above provide provided d unless unless a differ different ent date is fixed fixed by law, or specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger to public health, safety and welfare, the existence of which must be expressed in a stat statem emen entt acco accomp mpan anyi ying ng the the rule rule.. The The agen agency cy shal shalll take take appropriate measures to make emergency rules known to persons who may be affected by them.
Section 2, Civil Code Section Section 2, Civil Code states that the law shall take effect effect after fifteen (15) days days following their completion completion of their publication in the Official Gazette unless otherwise provided. Section 18, Book 1, 1987 Administrative Code Sec. 18. When Laws Take Effect. - Laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation, unless it is otherwise provided. Chapter 2 Book VII, 1987 Administrative Code
Chapter 2 RULES AND REGULATIONS Sec. 3. Filing. - (1) Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center three (3) certified copies of every rule
Sec. Sec. 5. Public Publicati ation on and Recordin Recording. g. - The Universi University ty of the Philippines Law Center shall: (1) Publish a quarter bulletin setting forth the text of rules filed with it during the preceding quarter; and (2) Keep an up-to-date up-to-date codification codification of all rules thus published published and and remain remaining ing in effect effect,, togeth together er with with a comple complete te index index and appropriate tables. Sec. 6. Omission of Some Rules. - (1) The University of the Phil Philip ippi pine nes s Law Law Ce Cent nter er may may omit omit from from the the bull bullet etin in or the the codi codifi fica cati tion on any any rule rule if its its publ public icat atio ion n woul would d be undu unduly ly cumbersome, expensive or otherwise inexpedient, but copies of that rule shall be made available available on applicati application on to the agency which adopted it, and the bulletin shall contain a notice stating the general subject matter of the omitted rule and new copies thereof may be obtained.
44 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer (2) Every rule establishing an offense or defining an act which, pursuant pursuant to law, is punishab punishable le as a crime or subject subject to a penalty shall in all cases be published in full text. Sec. Sec. 7. Distri Distribut bution ion of Bullet Bulletin in and Codified Codified Rules. Rules. - The University of the Philippines Law Center shall furnish one (1) free copy each of every issue of the bulletin and of the codified rules or supplements to the Office of the President, Congress, all appellate courts and the National Library. The bulletin and the codified rules shall be made available free of charge to such public officers or agencies as the Congress may select, and to other persons at a price sufficient sufficient to cover publicatio publication n and mailing or distributio distribution n costs. Sec. 8. Judicial Notice. - The court shall take judicial notice of the certified copy of each rule duly filed or as published in the bulletin or the codified rules. Sec. 9. Public Participation. - (1) If not otherwise required by law, an agency shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunity to submit their views prior to the adoption of any rule. (2) In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unle unless ss the the prop propos osed ed rate rates s shal shalll have have been been publ publis ishe hed d in a newspaper of general circulation at least two (2) weeks before the first hearing thereon. (3) In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed. Tanada v. Tuvera 146 SCRA 446 Facts: Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public public concer concern n (Secti (Section on 6, Articl Article e IV of the 1973 1973 Philip Philippin pine e Constitution) as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effe effect ctiv ivel ely y prom promul ulga gate ted, d, Lore Lorenz nzo o M. Tana Tanada da,, Abra Abraha ham m F. Sarmiento and Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (Mabini) seek a writ of mandamus to compel Juan C. Tuvera (in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President President), ), Joaquin Joaquin Venus (in his capacity as Deputy Deputy Executive Executive
Assist Assistant ant to the Presiden President), t), Melqu Melquiad iades es P. de la Cruz Cruz (in his capacity as Director, Malacañang Records Office), and Florendo S. Pablo (in his capacity as Director, Bureau of Printing), to publish, and or cause cause the publication publication in the Official Official Gazette Gazette of various various presid presiden entia tiall decree decrees, s, letter letters s of instru instructi ctions ons,, genera generall orders orders,, proclamat proclamations, ions, executive executive orders, letter letter of implementa implementation tion and administrative orders. Issue: Whether publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua non non requir requireme ement nt for the effect effectivi ivity ty of laws laws where where the laws laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates Held: NO. Generally, publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date — for then the date of publication is material for deter determin mining ing its date date of effect effectivi ivity, ty, which which is the fiftee fifteenth nth day following its publication — but not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes goes into into effect effect.. This This is correc correctt insofa insofarr as it equates the effectivity of laws with the fact of publication. Article 2 of the New Civil Code, however, does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. The clear object of the such provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such such notice notice and publica publicatio tion, n, there there would would be no basis basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for for the the tran transg sgre ress ssio ion n of a law law of whic which h he had had no noti notice ce whatsoev whatsoever, er, not even a constructi constructive ve one. Further, publication publication is necessary to apprise the public of the contents of regulations and make the said penalties binding on the persons affected thereby. The publication of laws has taken so vital significance when the people people have bestowed bestowed upon the President President a power power heretofor heretofore e enjoyed solely by the legislature. While the people are kept abreast by the mass media of the debates and deliberations in the Batasan Pamba Pambansa nsa — and for the diligent diligent ones, ready access access to the legislativ legislative e records records — no such publicity publicity accompanies accompanies the lawmaking process of the President. The publication of all presidential issuan issuances ces "of a public public nature nature"" or "of genera generall applica applicabil bility ity"" is mandated mandated by law. Presidential Presidential decrees that provide provide for fines, fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden burden on the people, people, such as tax and revenue measures, measures, fall within this category. Other presidential issuances which apply only
45 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer to particular persons or class of persons such as administrative and executive orders need not be published on the assumption that they have been circularized to all concerned. The publication of pres presid iden enti tial al issu issuan ance ces s "of "of a publ public ic natu nature re"" or "of "of gene genera rall applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that that before before a person person may be bound bound by law, law, he must first first be officially officially and specificall specifically y informed informed of its contents contents.. President Presidential ial issuances of general application, which have not been published, shall have no force and effect. However, the implementation/enforcement of presidential decrees prior to their publication in the Official Gazette is an operative fact, which may have consequence consequences s which cannot be justly ignored. ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration that an allinclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidity cannot be justified. The publication must be full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of its contents. 2.
Notic otice e and hearin aring g req require uireme men nt
Misamis Oriental Association of Coco Traders vs DOF 238 SCRA 63 3. Application, general rule – that the issuance of rules and regulations to implement the law does not require that there be prior notice and hearing conducted by the administrative agencies. Howeve However, r, if the statut statute e making making the deleg delegati ation on requires such hearing, then one must be conducted before such rules and regulations are issued. On the other other hand, hand, if the statute statute is silent silent on the matter, matter, a public public hearing, hearing, if practicabl practicable, e, may be conducted. VI.
Adjudicatory Po Powers a. Quas Quasii-ju judi dici cial al powe powerr and and quas quasii-ju judi dici cial al body body,, defined
Quasi-judicial power - This is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to
decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. Quasi-judicial body – an organ of government other than a court and other than a legislature, which affects the rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule making power.
Smart Communications vs NTC G.R. No. 151908 12 August 2003 Facts Facts:: Petiti Petitione oners rs Isla Isla Commu Communic nicati ation ons s Co., Co., Inc. Inc. and and Pilipin Pilipino o Telephone Corporation filed against the National Telecommunications Commission, Commissioner Joseph A. Santiago Santiago,, Deputy Deputy Commission Commissioner er Aurelio Aurelio M. Umali and Deputy Deputy Commissio Commissioner ner Nestor C. Dacanay, Dacanay, an action action for declarati declaration on of nullity nullity of NTC Memorandum Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-200 13-6-2000 0 (the Billing Circular). Circular). Petitioners Petitioners allege that the NTC has no jurisdiction jurisdiction to regulate the sale of consumer goods consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since such jurisdiction belongs to the Department of Trade and Industry under the Consumer Act of the Philippines; that the Billing Circ Circul ular ar is oppr oppres essi sive ve,, conf confis isca cato tory ry and and viol violat ativ ive e of the the constitutional prohibition against deprivation of property without due process of law; that the Circular will result in the impairment of the viability of the prepaid cellular service by unduly prolonging the validity and expiration of the prepaid SIM and call cards; and that the requirements of identification of prepaid card buyers and call balance announcement are unreasonable. Hence, they prayed that the Billing Circular be declared null and void ab initio. Issue :WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the case Held Held:: Peti Petiti tion ons s are are gran grante ted. d. The The issu issuan ance ce by the the NTC NTC of Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 and its Memorandum dated Octobe Octoberr 6, 2000 2000 was pursua pursuant nt to its quasiquasi-leg legisl islati ative ve or rulerulemaking power. As such, petitioners were justified in invoking the judicial power of the Regional Trial Court to assail the constitutionality and validity of the said issuances. What is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the admini administr strati ative ve agency agency in the perfor performan mance ce of its quasiquasilegislativ legislative e function, function, the regular regular courts courts have jurisdiction jurisdiction to pass upon the same. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution constitution is within the jurisdiction jurisdiction of the regular courts. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the
46 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer powe powerr to decl declar are e a law, law, trea treaty ty,, inte intern rnat atio iona nall or exec execut utiv ive e agreemen agreement, t, president presidential ial decree, decree, order, order, instructio instruction, n, ordinance ordinance,, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts. This is within the scope of judicial power, which includes the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice justice to settle settle actual actual controve controversies rsies involving involving rights rights which are legally legally demandabl demandable e and enforceable enforceable,, and to determ determine ine whether whether or not there has been been a grave grave abuse abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Not to be confused with the quasi-legislative or rule-making power of an administrative agency is its quasi-judicial or administrative adjudi adjudicat catory ory power. power. This This is the power to hear hear and determin determine e questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative body body exerc exercise ises s its quasiquasi-jud judicia iciall power power when when it perfo performs rms in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive executive or administra administrative tive duty entrusted entrusted to it. In carrying carrying out their quasi-judicial functions, the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature. Santiago, Jr. vs Bautista 32 SCRA 188 Facts: Facts: The appell appellant ant was a grade grade 6 pupil pupil in a certai certain n public public elementary school. As the school year was then about to end, the "Committee On the Rating Of Students For Honor" was constituted by the teachers teachers concerne concerned d at said said schoo schooll for the purpose purpose of selecting selecting the "honor "honor students" students" of its graduating graduating class. class. With the school Principal, as chairman, and the members of the committee deliberate deliberated d and finally finally adjudged adjudged Socorro Socorro Medina, Medina, Patricia Patricia Liñgat Liñgat and Teodoro Teodoro C. Santiago, Santiago, Jr. as first, second second and third honors, respectively. The school's graduation exercises were thereafter set for May 21, 1965; but three three days days before before that date, date, the "third "third placer" Teodoro Santiago, Jr., represented by his mother, and with his father as counsel, counsel, sought the invalidation invalidation of the "ranking "ranking of honor honor students" students" thus made, made, by institutin instituting g the above-men above-mentione tioned d
civil case in the Court of First Instance Instance of Cotabato Cotabato,, committee committee members members along with the District District Superviso Supervisorr and the Academic Academic Supervisor of the place. Issue: WON the committee committed grave abuse of discretion Held: "'NO GRAVE A BUSE OF DISCRETION” "Allegations relating to the alleged 'grave abuse of discretion' on the part of teachers refer to errors, errors, mistakes, mistakes, or irregularit irregularities ies rather than to a real grave abuse of discretion that would amount to lack of jurisdiction. Mere commission of errors in the exercise of jurisdiction may not be corrected corrected by means of certiorari. WHAT ARE JUDICIAL OR QUASI JUDICIAL ACTS. It is difficult, if not impossible, precisely to define what are judicial or quasi judicial acts, and there is considerable conflict in the decisions in regard thereto, in connection with the law as to the right to a writ of certiorari, it is clear, however, that it is the nature of the act to be performed, rather than of the office, board, or body which performs it, that determines whether or not it is the discharge of a judicial or quasi-jud quasi-judicial icial function. It is not essential essential that the proceeding proceedings s should be strictly and technically judicial, in the sense in which that word is used when applied to courts of justice, but it is sufficient if they are quasi judicial. It is enough if the officers act judicially in making their decision, whatever may be their public character. . ..' The precise line of demarkation between what are judicial and what are administrative or ministerial functions is often difficult to determine determine.. The exercise exercise of judicial judicial functions functions may involve involve the perfo performa rmance nce of legisl legislati ative ve or admini administr strati ative ve dudes, dudes, and the performanc performance e of administrative administrative or ministeria ministeriall duties, duties, may, in a measure, involve the exercise of judicial functions. It may be said generally generally that the exercise of judicial judicial functions functions is to determine determine what what the law is, and what what the legal legal rights rights of partie parties s are, are, with with respect respect to a matter matter in controver controversy; sy; and whenever whenever an officer is clothed clothed with that authority authority,, and undertakes undertakes to determine determine those questions, he acts judicially.
Filipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. vs Oil Industry Commission 145 SCRA 433
47 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Facts: Respondent Manuel B. Yap is a gasoline dealer by virtue of a "Subleas "Sublease e and Dealer Agreement" Agreement" entered into with petitione petitionerr Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (hereinafter known as Shell) originally in the year 1965 and superseded in the year 1969. The latter was filed and registered with the OIC. While petitioner Shell complied with its contractual commitments, Manuel B. Yap defaulted in his obligations upon failure to pay for his purchases of gasoline and other petroleum products. Petitioner Shell Shell sent sent deman demand d letter letters s to respo responde ndent nt Manuel Manuel B. Yap Yap who continued to ignore these demands letters forcing petitioner Shell to exerci exercise se its contra contractu ctual al rights rights to termin terminate ate the contra contract. ct. Petitioner Shell sent respondent Yap the required 90-day written notice to terminate their contract as provided for by Sec. 5 of their "Sublease and Dealer Agreement." Despite the pendency of the controversy before the ordinary civil courts, OIC persisted in asserting jurisdiction over it by rendering a decisi decision on statin stating g it has jurisd jurisdict iction ion to pass pass upon upon the allege alleged d contractual right of petitioner to declare Yap's contract terminated. The OIC negated the existence of such right because the stipulation is an "unfair and onerous trade practice." Respondent OIC also allowed respondent Yap reasonable time from receipt of the decision within which to pay his judgment debt to petitioner as adju adjudg dged ed in a Civi Civill Case Case.. Peti Petiti tion oner er Shel Shelll move moved d for for a reconsideration but respondent OIC denied it. Issue: WON Respondent OIC has jurisdiction to hear and decide contra contractu ctual al disput disputes es betwee between n a gasoli gasoline ne dealer dealer and an oil company. Held: The contention contentions s of petitione petitionerr are well-founded. well-founded. A detailed detailed reading of the entire OIC Act will reveal that there is no express provision conferring upon respondent OIC the power to hear and decide contractual disputes between a gasoline dealer and an oil company. It is of course a well-settled principle of administrative law that unless expressly empowered, administrative agencies like respondent OIC, are bereft of quasi-judicial powers. As We declared in Miller vs. Mardo, et al (2 SCRA 898): " . . . It may be concede conceded d that that the Legisl Legislatu ature re may confer confer on administrative boards or bodies quasi-judicial powers involving the exer exerci cise se of judg judgme ment nt and and disc discre retio tion, n, as inci incide dent nt to the the performanc performance e of administrative administrative functions, functions, but in so doing, the
legislatur legislature e must state its intention intention in express express terms that would leave no doubt, as even such quasi-judicial prerogatives must be limited, if they are to be valid, only to those incidental to, or in connection with, the performance of administrative duties which do not amount to conferment of jurisdiction over a matter exclusively vested in the courts." b.
Disti istin nguis guishe hed d fro from m jud judic icia iall pow powe er
Judicial Power – is the power to courts of justice to settle actual case of controversies involving legal rights which are demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there is grave abuse of discretion. Carino vs CHR 204 SCRA 483 Facts: Some 800 public school teachers, among them members of the Manila Manila Public Public School School Tea Teache chers rs Associ Associati ation on (MPSTA (MPSTA)) and Allian Alliance ce of Concer Concerned ned Tea Teache chers rs (ACT) (ACT) undert undertook ook what what they they described as amass concerted actions" to "dramatize and highlight' their their plight plight result resulting ing from from the allege alleged d failur failure e of the public public authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been brought brought to the latter's attention. attention. According According to them they had decided decided to undertake undertake said "mass "mass concerted concerted actions" after the protest rally staged at the DECS premises on September 14, 1990 without without disrupting disrupting classes classes as a last call for the governme government nt to negotiate the granting of demands had elicited no response from the Secretary Secretary of Education Education.. Through Through their representativ representatives, es, the teachers teachers participating participating in the mass actions actions were served with an order of the Secretary of Education to return to work in 24 hours or face dismissal, dismissal, and a memorandu memorandum m directing directing the DECS officials officials concerned to initiate dismissal proceedings against those who did not comply and to hire their replacements. "For failure to heed the return-to-work order, the CHR complainants (private respondents) were administratively charged on the basis of the principal's report and given five (5) days to answer the charges. They were also preventively suspended for ninety (90) days 'pursuant to Section 41 of P.D. P.D. 807' 807' and tempor temporari arily ly replac replaced ed.. An invest investiga igatio tion n commit committee tee was conseq consequen uently tly formed formed to hear hear the charge charges s in accordance with P.D. 807." Issue: Issue: WON the Commissio Commission n on Human Human Rights Rights has jurisdiction, jurisdiction, adjudicatory powers over, or the power to try and decide, or hear
48 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer and determine, certain specific type of cases, like alleged human rights violation involving civil or political rights. Held: The Court declares the Commission on Human Rights to have no such power; and that it was not meant by the fundamental law to be another another court or quasi-jud quasi-judicial icial agency agency in this country, country, or duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter. As should at once be observed, only the first of the enumerated powers powers and functions functions bears bears any resemblance resemblance to adjudicat adjudication ion or adjudgment. The Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the Commission the power to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. It can exercise that power on its own initiative or on complaint of any person. It may exercise that power pursuant to such rules of procedure as it may adopt and, in cases of violations of said rules, cite for contempt in acco accord rdan ance ce with with the the Rule Rules s of Cour Court. t. In the the cour course se of any any investigation conducted by it or under its authority, it may grant immunity immunity from prosecutio prosecution n to any person person whose testimony testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or conve convenie nient nt to determ determine ine the truth. truth. It may also reque request st the assistanc assistance e of any departmen department, t, bureau, bureau, office, or agency agency in the performance of its functions, in the conduct of its investigation or in extending such remedy as may be required by its findings. But it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and determine causes) as courts of justice, or even quasi-judicial bodies do. To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge. Whether in the popular or the technical sense, these terms have well understood and quite distinct meanings. "x x 'It may be said generally that the exercise of judicial functions is to determine what the law is, and what the legal rights of partie parties s are, are, with with respec respectt to a matter matter in contro controve versy rsy;; and whenever an officer is clothed with that authority, and undertakes to determine those questions, he acts judicially.'x x." Hence it is that the Commission on Human Rights, having merely the power "to investigate," cannot and should not "try and resolve on the merits" (adjudicate) the matters involved in Striking Teachers HRC
Luzon Development Bank vs Association of LDB Employees 249 SCRA 162
Facts: From a submission agreement of the Luzon Development Bank Bank (LDB) (LDB) and the Associ Associati ation on of Luzon Luzon Devel Developm opment ent Bank Bank Employ Employees ees (ALDBE (ALDBE)) arose arose an arbitr arbitrati ation on case case to resolv resolve e the following issue: Issue: Issue: WON the company company has violated the Collective Collective Bargaining Bargaining Agreement provision and the Memorandum of Agreement dated April 1994, on promotion. Held: It will thus be noted that the Jurisdiction conferred by law on a voluntary arbitrator or a panel of such arbitrators is quite limited compared to the original jurisdiction of the labor arbiter and the appellate jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for that matter.4 The state of our present law relating to voluntary arbitration provides that "(t)he award or decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator x x x shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision by the parties,"5 while the "(d)ecision, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, decisions, awards, or orders."6 orders."6 Hence, while there is an expre express ss mode mode of appea appeall from from the decision decision of a labor labor arbite arbiter, r, Republic Act No. 6715 is silent with respect to an appeal from the decision of a voluntary arbitrator. c.
Dist Distin ingu guis ishe hed d from from admi admini nist stra rati tive ve func functi tion on
Administrative Function – are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare welfare and the promulgation promulgation of rules and regulations regulations to better better carry out the policy of the legislature as such are devoled upon the admin agency by the organic law of existence.
Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force vs CA 171 SCRA 348
49 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Facts: Facts: The petitioner, petitioner, the President Presidential ial Anti-Dolla Anti-Dollarr Salting Salting Task Force, the President's arm assigned to investigate and prosecute so-called so-called "dollar salting" activities activities in the country. country. PADS issued issued search warrants against certain companies. Issue: WON the PADS is a quasi-judicial body issue search warrants under the 1973 Constitution? Held: Held: A quasiquasi-jud judicia iciall body body has been define defined d as "an "an organ organ of government other than a court and other than a legislature, which affects the rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule making." The most common types of such bodies have been listed as follows: (1) Agenci Agencies es create created d to functi function on in situat situation ions s wherein the government is offering some gratuity, gran grant, t, or spec specia iall priv privil ileg ege, e, like like the the defu defunc nctt Philippine Philippine Veterans Board, Board Board on Pensions Pensions for Vetera Veterans, ns, and and NARRA, NARRA, and Philip Philippin pine e Vetera Veterans ns Administration. (2) (2) Agen Agenci cies es set set up to func functi tion on in situ situat atio ions ns wherein wherein the government government is seeking seeking to carry on certain certain governmen governmentt functions, functions, like the Bureau of Immigration, the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the Board of Speci al al I nq nquiry and Board of Commissioners, the Civil Service Commission, the Central Bank of the Philippines. (3) (3) Agen Agenci cies es set set up to func functi tion on in situ situat atio ions ns wherei wherein n the govern governmen mentt is perfor performin ming g some some business service for the public, like the Bureau of Posts, Posts, the Postal Postal Saving Savings s Bank, Bank, Metrop Metropoli olitan tan Waterw Waterwork orks s & Sewera Sewerage ge Author Authority ity,, Philip Philippin pine e Nati Nation onal al Rail Railwa ways ys,, the the Civi Civill Aero Aerona naut utic ics s Administration. (4) (4) Agen Agenci cies es set set up to func functi tion on in situ situat atio ions ns wherein wherein the governmen governmentt is seeking seeking to regulate regulate business affected with public interest, like the Fiber Inspection Inspections s Boa Board, rd, the Philippine Philippine Patent Patent office, office, office of the Insurance Commissioner. (5) (5) Agen Agenci cies es set set up to func functi tion on in situ situat atio ions ns wherei wherein n the govern governmen mentt is seekin seeking g under under the police police power power to regula regulate te privat private e busine business ss and indi indivi vidu dual als, s, like like the the Secu Securit ritie ies s & Exch Exchan ange ge Commission, Board of Food Inspectors, the Board
of Review for Moving Pictures, and the Professional Regulation Commission. (6) Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the governmen governmentt is seeking seeking to adjust adjust individua individuall controve controversies rsies because of some strong social policy involved, such as the National Labor Relations Commission, the Court of Agrarian Relations, the Regional Offices of the Ministry of Labor, the Social Social Security Security Commission Commission,, Bureau Bureau of Labor Labor Standard Standards, s, Women and Minors Bureau. As may be seen, it is the basic basic functi function on of these these bodies bodies to adjud adjudica icate te claims claims and/or and/or to determ determine ine rights rights,, and and unless unless its decis decision ion are season seasonabl ably y appeal appealed ed to the proper proper review reviewing ing authoriti authorities, es, the same attain attain finality finality and become executory. executory. A perusal of the Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force's organic act, Presidential Presidential Decree No. 1936, as amended amended by President Presidential ial Decree No. 2002, convinces the Court that the Task Force was not meant to exercise quasi-judicial functions, that is, to try and decide claims and execute its judgments. As the President's arm called upon to combat the vice of "dollar salting" or the blackmarketing and salting of foreign exchange, it is tasked alone by the Decree to handle the prosecution of such activities, but nothing more. Cojuangco vs PCGG 190 SCRA 226 Facts: President Corazon C. Aquino directed the Solicitor General to prosecute all persons involved in the mi suse of coconut levy funds. Pursuant to the above directive the Solicitor General created a task force to conduct a thorough study of the possible involvement of all persons in the anomalous use of coconut levy funds. Upon the creation of the PCGG under EO. 1 issued by President Aquino, the PCGG was charged with the task of assisting the President not only in the the reco recove very ry of illgo illgott tten en weal wealth th or unex unexpl plai aine ned d weal wealth th accumu accumulat lated ed by the former former Presid President ent,, his immedi immediate ate family family,, relati relative ves, s, subord subordina inates tes and close close associ associate ates s but also also in the investigation of such cases of graft and corruption as the President may assign to the Commission from time to time and to prevent a repetition of the same in the future. Petiti Petitione onerr allege alleges s that that the PCG PCGG G may not conduc conductt a preliminar preliminary y investiga investigation tion of the complaints complaints filed by the Solicitor Solicitor General General without without violating violating petitioner's petitioner's rights rights to due process and equal protection of the law, and that the PCGG has no right to conduct such preliminary investigation.
50 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Issue: Issue: WON the President Presidential ial Commission Commission on Good Government Government (PCGG) has the power to conduct a preliminary investigation of the anti-g anti-graf raftt and corrup corruptio tion n cases cases filed filed by the Solici Solicitor tor Genera Generall against against Eduardo Eduardo Cojuangco, Cojuangco, Jr. and other responden respondents ts for the alleged misuse of coconut levy funds. Held: Considering that the PCGG, like the courts, is vested with the authority to grant provisional remedies of (1) sequestration, (2) freezing freezing assets, and (3) provisional provisional takeover takeover,, it is indispens indispensable able that, as in the case of attachment and receivership, there exists a prima facie factual foundation, at least, for the sequestration order, freeze order or takeover order, an adequate and fair opportunity to contest it and endeavor to cause its negation or nullification. Both are assured under the foregoing executive orders and the rules and regulations promulgated by the PCGG. The general power of investigation vested in the PCGG is concerned, it may be divided into two stages. The first stage of investigation which is called the criminal investigation stage is the factfin factfindin ding g inquir inquiring ing which which is usuall usually y conduc conducted ted by the law enforcement agents whereby they gather evidence and interview witnesses after which they assess the evidence and if they find sufficient basis, file the complaint for the purpose of preliminary investiga investigation. tion. The second second stage is the preliminary preliminary investigatio investigation n stage of the said complaint. It is at this stage, as above discussed, where it is ascertained if there is sufficient evidence to bring a person to trial. It is in such instances that We say one cannot be "a prosecutor and judge at the same time." Having gathered the evidence and filed the complaint as a law enforcer, he cannot be expected to handle with impartiality the preliminary investigation of his own complaint, this time as a public prosecutor. The Court holds that a just and fair administration of justice can be promoted if the PCGG would be prohibited from conducting the preliminary investigation of the complaints subject of this petition and the petition for intervention and that the records of the same should be forwarded to the Ombudsman, who as an independent constituti constitutional onal officer has primary primary jurisdiction jurisdiction over cases cases of this nature nature,, to conduc conductt such such prelim prelimina inary ry invest investiga igatio tion n and and take take appropriate action. Sideco vs Sarenas, 41 Phil. 80
Facts: Two parties, Crispulo Sideco on the one hand, and Leocadio Sarenas and Rufino Sarenas on the other hand, claim the exclusive right right to the use of the waters waters flowin flowing g throug through h the estero estero for irrigation purposes. The claim of Sideco goes back to 1885 when the predecessor in interest of his father constructed a dam in these waters; the use of the dam was afterwards interrupted by outside causes causes such as imprisonment imprisonment and war, but again again reasserte reasserted d in 1911, 1915, and 1916. Exactly what the two Sarenas' contention is, is not quite clear on the facts before us. However, it appears that they made application to the Director of Public Works, only to meet with with the oppositi opposition on of Sideco Sideco,, and that the Director Director of Public Public Works, Works, with with the approva approvall of the Secret Secretary ary of Com Commer merce ce and Communications, granted the two Sarenas the right, in preference to all other persons, to use the waters of the estero Bangad. Sideco then took the proceedings to the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija. After trial, judgment was entered, dismissing the complaint and and the appeal appeal of Sideco Sideco and confirm confirming ing the decis decision ion of the administrative authorities, with the costs against the plaintiff. The further appeal of Sideco to this court, while conceding the correctness of the findings of the trial court, squarely challenges its judgment. Issue: WON Held: Administrative machinery for the settlement of disputes as to the use of waters is provided by the Irrigation Act, as amended. Controversies must be submitted to the Secretary of Commerce and Communication Communications s through through the Director of Public Public Works. Works. The "deci "decisio sion" n" of the Secre Secretar tary y thereo thereon n is final final "unles "unless s appeal appeal therefrom be taken to the proper court within. thirty days after the date of the notification of the parties of said decision. In case of such appeal the court having jurisdiction shall try the controversy de novo." (See. 4.) A more extensive extensive method is also provided provided,, somewhat akin to our cadastral system, which makes it the duty of the Director of Public Works to make a technical examination of streams and to prepare a list of priorities. In the performance of this work, the Director of Public Works or any official especially authorized by him, may examine witnesses under oath, and can issue for this purpose subpoenas subpoenas and subpoenas subpoenas duces tecum. tecum. (Secs. 8, 41.) Certificates signed by the Secretary of Commerce and Communications are then granted each appropriator. (Secs. 9, 18.) "Appeal" "Appeal" lies from the "decision "decision"" of the Director Director of Public Public
51 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Work Works, s, as appr approv oved ed by the the Secr Secret etar ary y of Comme Commerc rce e and and Communications, to the Court of First Instance of the province in which the property is situated. Such action must be brought within ninety days of the date of the publication of the approved list of priorities. (Sec. 10.) DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AS PART OF JUDICIAL RECORD.-The decision of the Director of Public Works, affirmed by the Secretary of Commerce and Communications, containing as it does does the techni technical cal findin findings gs of office officers rs especi especiall ally y qualif qualified ied in irrigation irrigation engineering, engineering, should invariably invariably be made a part of the judicial record because (1) the determination of these officials would be most useful to the courts, and (2) the exact date of the decision is of moment since it decides whether the appeal was taken in time.
Ocampo vs US 234 US 91 d.
Dist Distin ingu guis ishe hed d fro from m leg legis isla lati tive ve powe powerr or or rul rulee-ma maki king ng
Lupangco vs CA 160 SCRA 848
enforcing the above-mentioned resolution and to declare the same unconstitutional. Issue: WON the Resolution i s unconstitutional Held Held:: The The Reso Resolu luti tion on is null null and and void void.. The The enfo enforc rcem emen entt of Resolution No. 105 is not a guarantee that the alleged leakages in the the licen licensu sure re exam examin inat atio ions ns will will be erad eradic icat ated ed or at leas leastt minimized. minimized. Making the examinee examinees s suffer suffer by depriving depriving them of legitimate legitimate means of review review or preparati preparation on on those last three precious days-when they should be refreshing themselves with all that they have learned in the review classes and preparing their mental and psychological make-up for the examination day itselfwould be like uprooting the tree to get ride of a rotten branch. What is needed to be done by the respondent is to find out the source of such leakages and stop it right there. If corrupt officials or personnel should be terminated from their loss, then so be it. Fixers or swindlers should be flushed out. Strict guidelines to be observed observed by examiners examiners should be set up and if violations violations are committed, then licenses should be suspended or revoked. These are all within within the power powers s of the respon responde dent nt commis commissio sion n as provided for in Presidential Decree No. 223. But by all means the right and freedom of the examinees to avail of all legitimate means to prepare for the examinations should not be curtailed.
Facts: Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) issued Resolution No. 105 as part of its "Additional Instructions to Examinees to all those applying for admission to take the licensure examinations in accountan accountancy. cy. The resolution resolution embodied embodied the following following pertinent pertinent provisions:
C.T. Torres Enterprises, Inc. vs Hibionada 191 SCRA 268
"No examinee shall attend any review class, briefing, conference or the like like conduc conducted ted by, or shall shall receiv receive e any any hand-o hand-out, ut, review review material, or any tip from any school, college or university, or any review review center center or the like like or any review reviewer, er, lectur lecturer, er, instru instructo ctorr offici official al or employ employee ee of any any of the aforem aforemen entio tioned ned or simila similarr institution institutions s during during the three days immediatel immediately y preceding preceding every every examinati examination on day including the examinati examination on day. Any examinee examinee violat violating ing this this instru instructi ction on shall shall be subjec subjectt to the sancti sanctions ons.. Peti Petiti tion oner ers, s, all all revi review ewee ees s prep prepar arin ing g to take take the the licen licensu sure re examinations in accountancy filed in their own behalf and in behalf of all others similarly situated like them, with the RTC a complaint for injunction with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunc injunctio tion n agains againstt respon responden dentt PRC to restra restrain in the latter latter from from
Facts : The petitioner as agent of private respondent Pleasantville Development Corporation sold a subdivision lot on installment to private private responde respondent nt Efren Diongon. Diongon. The installmen installmentt payments payments having having been completed, completed, Diongon Diongon demanded demanded the delivery of the certificate of title to the subject land. When neither the petitioner nor Pleasantville Pleasantville complied, complied, he filed a complaint complaint against them for specific performance and damages in the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental. The case was set for initial hearing. It was then that C.T. Torres Enterprises filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, contending that the competent body to hear and decide the case was the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. The motion to dismiss was denied by the court contending that it had jurisdiction over the matter.
e. Rati Ration onal ale e for for vest vestin ing g adm admin inis istr trat ativ ive e age agenc ncie ies s wit with h quasi-judicial power
52 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Issue : WON the tri al court have jurisdiction over the case. GSIS vs CSC 202 SCRA 799 Ratio : P.D. No. 957, promulgate promulgated d July 12, 1976 and otherwise otherwise known as "The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree," provides that the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive authority to regulate the real estate trade and business.
P.D. No. 1344, which was promulgated April 2, 1978, and empowered the National Housing Authority to issue writs of execution in the enforcement of its decisions under P.D. No. 957, specified the quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the agency as follows: SECTIO SECTION N 1. In the exercis exercise e of its function functions s to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for in Presidential Decree Decree No. 957, the National National Housing Housing Authority Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature:
Fact Facts s : The The Gove Govern rnme ment nt Serv Servic ice e Insu Insura ranc nce e Syst System em (GSI (GSIS) S) dismissed dismissed six (6) employees employees as being being "notoriou "notoriously sly undesirab undesirable," le," they they havi having ng alle allege gedl dly y been been foun found d to be conn connec ecte ted d with with irregularities in the canvass of supplies and materials. Five of these six dismissed employees appealed to the Merit Systems Board. The Board found the dismissals to be illegal because affected without formal charges having been filed or an opportunity given to the employees to answer, and ordered the remand of the cases to the GSIS for appropriate disciplinary proceedings. The GSIS appealed to the Civil Service Service Commission Commission.. By Resolution, Resolution, the Commission Commission ruled that the dismissal of all five was indeed illegal. GSIS appealed to the SC and affirmed the decision of the CSC with a modification that it eliminated the payment of back salaries until the outcome of the investigation and reinstatement of only 3 employees since the the othe otherr two two had had died died.. The The heir heirs s of the the dece deceas ased ed soug sought ht execution execution of the order from the CSC which was granted. granted. GSIS opposed and came to the SC on certiorari contending that the CSC does not have any power to execute its resolution or judgment.
A. Unsound real estate business practices; B. Claims Claims involving involving refund and any other other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and C. Case Cases s invo involv lvin ing g spec specif ific ic perfo perform rman ance ce of contra contractu ctual al and and statut statutory ory obliga obligatio tions ns filed filed by buyers buyers of subdivisio subdivision n lots or condomini condominium um units against against the owner, develope developer, r, dealer, dealer, broker broker or salesman. This departure from the traditional allocation of governmental powers is justified by expediency, or the need of the government to respond swiftly and competently to the pressing problems of the modem world.
f. Scop Scope e of qua quasi si-j -jud udic icia iall powe powers rs of of an adm admin inis istr trat ativ ive e agency
Issue Issue : WON the CSC had powers powers to execut execute e its resolut resolution ion or judgment. Ratio : The Civil Service Commission, Commission, like the Commission Commission on Electi Elections ons and the Com Commis missio sion n on Audit, Audit, is a consti constitut tution ional al commission commission invested invested by the Constituti Constitution on and relevant laws not only with authority to administer the civil service, but also with quasi-jud quasi-judicial icial powers. It has the authority authority to hear and decide decide administra administrative tive disciplinar disciplinary y cases cases instituted instituted directly with it or brought to it on appeal. The Civil Service Commission promulgated Resolution No. 89-779 adopting, adopting, approving approving and putting into effect effect simplified simplified rules of proced procedure ure on admini administr strati ative ve discip disciplin linary ary and protes protestt cases, cases, pursu pursuan antt to the author authority ity grante granted d by the consti constitut tution ional al and statutory statutory provisions. provisions. The provision provisions s are analogou analogous s and entirely entirely consistent with the duty or responsibility reposed in the Chairman by PD 807, subject subject to policies and resolution resolutions s adopted adopted by the Commis Com missio sion. n. In light light of all the forego foregoing ing consti constitut tution ional al and and statutory provisions, it would appear absurd to deny to the Civil Service Service Commission Commission the power power or authority authority to enforce enforce or order order execution of its decisions, resolutions or orders which, it should be
53 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer stressed, it has been exercising through the years. It would seem quite obvious that the authority to decide cases is inutile unless accompanied by the authority to see that what has been decided is carr carrie ied d out. out. Henc Hence, e, the the gran grantt to a trib tribun unal al or agen agency cy of adjudicatory power, or the authority to hear and adjudge cases, should normally and logically be deemed to include the grant of authority authority to enforce enforce or execute execute the judgments judgments it thus renders, renders, unless the law otherwise provides. Death, however, has already sealed that outcome, foreclosing the initia initiatio tion n of discip disciplin linary ary admini administr strati ative ve procee proceedin dings, gs, or the cont contin inua uati tion on of any any then then pend pendin ing, g, agai agains nstt the the dece deceas ased ed employees employees.. Whatever Whatever may be said of the binding force of the Resolution of July 4, 1988 so far as, to all intents and purposes, it makes exoneration in the administrative proceedings a condition preced precedent ent to paymen paymentt of back back salari salaries, es, it cannot cannot exact exact an impossible performance or decree a useless exercise. Angara vs. Electoral Commission Commission 63 Phil 139 Facts : This is an original action instituted in this court by the petitioner, Jose A. Angara, for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to restra restrain in and and prohib prohibit it the Electo Electoral ral Com Commis missio sion, n, one one of the respondents, from taking further cognizance of the protest filed by Pedro Ynsua, another another responden respondent, t, against against the election of said petiti petitione onerr as member member of the Nation National al Assemb Assembly ly for the first first assembly district of the Province of Tayabas. Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission. Issue : Has the said Electoral Electoral Commission Commission acted without without or in excess excess of its jurisdiction jurisdiction in assuming assuming to take cognizance cognizance of the protes protestt filed filed agai against nst the electi election on of of the herein herein petiti petitione onerr notwithsta notwithstanding nding the previous previous confirmation confirmation of such election by resolution of the National Assembly? Ratio : The creation of the Electoral Commission carried with it ex necesitate rei the power regulative in character to limit the time within which protests intrusted to its cognizance should be filed. It is a settled settled rule of constructi construction on that where a general general power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred (Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, eighth ed., vol. I, pp. 138, 139). In the absence of any further constitutional provision relating to the procedure to be followed in filing protests before the
Elec Electo tora rall Comm Commis issi sion on,, ther theref efor ore, e, the the inci incide dent ntal al powe powerr to promulgat promulgate e such rules necessary necessary for the proper proper exercise exercise of its exclusive exclusive powers to judge all contests contests relating to the election, election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, must be deemed by necessary implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral Commission. Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly confirming the election of members against whom no protests has been filed at the time of its passage passage on Decem Decembe berr 3, 1935, 1935, can not be construe construed d as a limitation limitation upon the time for the initiation initiation of election contests. contests. While While there there might might have have been been good good reason reason for the legisl legislati ative ve practice of confirmation of members of the Legislature at the time the power to decid decide e electi election on contes contests ts was still lodged lodged in the Legis Legislat lature ure,, confir confirmat mation ion alone alone by the Legisl Legislatu ature re cannot cannot be construed as depriving the Electoral Commission of the authority incidental to its constitutional power to be "the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the members of the National Assembly", to fix the time for the filing of said election protests. Confirmation by the National Assembly of the returns of its members against whose election no protests have been filed is, to all legal purposes, unnecessary. Confirmation of the election of any member is not required by the Constitution before he can discharge his duties as such member.
Provident Tree Farms vs Batario, Jr. 231 SCRA 463 Facts Facts : Petitio Petitioner ner PROVID PROVIDEN ENT T TREE TREE FARMS FARMS,, INC. INC. (PTFI) (PTFI),, is a Philippine corporation engaged in industrial tree planting. It grows gubas gubas trees in its plantatio plantations ns in Agusan Agusan and Mindoro Mindoro which it supplies supplies to a local match manufacturer manufacturer solely for productio production n of matche matches. s. In conson consonanc ance e with with the state state policy policy to encour encourage age qualified persons to engage in industrial tree plantation, Sec. 36, par. (1), of the Revised Revised Forestry Forestry Code 1 confers on entities entities like PTFI a set of incentives among which is a qualified ban against import importati ation on of woo wood d and "wood"wood-de deriv rivate ated" d" produc products. ts. Privat Private e respondent A. J. International Corporation (AJIC) imported four (4) contai containe ners rs of matche matches s from from Indon Indonesi esia, a, which which the Burea Bureau u of Customs, and two (2) more containers of matches from Singapore. Upon request of of PTFI, Secretary Fulgencio Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., of the Departmen Departmentt of Natural Natural Resources Resources and Enviro Environmen nmentt issued issued a certification that "there are enough available softwood supply in the Philippines for the match industry at reasonable price." PTFI
54 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer then filed filed with the Region Regional al Court Court of Manila Manila a complain complaintt for injunction and damages with prayer prayer for a temporary restraining restraining order against respondents Commissioner of Customs and AJIC to enjoin enjoin the latter latter from importing matches and "wood-deriva "wood-derivative" tive" products, and the Collector of Customs from allowing and releasing the importations. AJIC moved to dismiss the case asseverating that the enforcement of the import ban under Sec. 36, par. (1), of the Revised Forestry Code is within the exclusive realm of the Bureau of Customs, and direct recourse of petitioner to the Regional Trial Court to compel the Commissioner of Customs to enforce the ban is devoid of any legal basis. Issue : WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the case. Ruling Ruling : PTFI's PTFI's corresp correspond ondenc ence e with with the Bureau Bureau of Custom Customs s contesting the legality of match importations may already take the nature nature of an administra administrative tive proceeding proceeding the pendency pendency of which would preclude the court from interfering with it under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Under Under the sense-ma sense-making king and expeditiou expeditious s doctrine doctrine of primary primary jurisdiction . . . the courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an admini administr strati ative ve tribun tribunal, al, where where the questi question on deman demands ds the exercise exercise of sound sound administrat administrative ive discretion discretion requiring requiring the special special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determ determine ine techni technical cal and intricat intricate e matter matters s of fact, fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the regula regulator tory y statut statute e admini administe stered red (Pambu (Pambujan jan Sur United United Mine Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Co., Inc., 94 Phil. 932, 941 [1954].). In this this era of clogge clogged d court court docke dockets, ts, the need for speciali specialized zed administrative boards or commissions with the special knowledge, experience and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on technical technical matters matters or essential essentially ly factual factual matters, matters, subject subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion, has become well nigh indispensable . . . Moreover Moreover,, however however cleverly the complaint complaint may be worded, worded, the ultimate relief sought by PTFI is to compel the Bureau of Customs to seize seize and forfeit forfeit the match importat importation ions s of AJIC. AJIC. Since Since the determination to seize or not to seize is discretionary upon the Bureau of Customs, the same cannot be subject of mandamus. But this this does does not preclud preclude e recour recourse se to the courts courts by way of the
extraordinary relief of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court if the Bureau of Customs should gravely abuse the exercise of its jurisdiction. Otherwise stated, the court cannot compel an agency to do a partic particula ularr act or to enjoin enjoin such act which which is with its prerogative; except when in the excrcise of its authority it clearly abuses or exceeds its jurisdiction. In the case at bench, we have no occassion occassion to rule on the issue of grave abuse abuse of discretion discretion as excess of jurisdiction as it is not before us. us. Tejada v. Homestead Property Corporation 178 SCRA 164 Facts Facts : Priva Private te respo responde ndent nt Tacli Taclin n V. Bañez Bañez offered offered to sell sell to petitioner Enriqueto F. Tejada a 200 square meter lot owned by respo responde ndent nt corpor corporati ation on.. Priva Private te respon responden dentt sugges suggested ted that that petitioner pay a reservation fee of P20,000.00, which would form part of the consideration in case they reach a final agreement of sale and which amount was to be returned to the petitioner should the parties fail to reach an agreement. After paying the reservation fee, the responden respondentt corporati corporation on changed changed the terms of monthly monthly amortization which resulted in the demand of the petitioner for the return return of his reservation reservation fee. Responden Respondentt refused refused to return return the same and petitioner brought suit with the RTC for a collection of sum of money. money. Res Respo ponde ndents nts herein herein filed filed a motion motion to dismis dismiss s contesting the jurisdiction of the RTC to hear the case. The same was denied and respondents appealed to the CA who decided in their their favor. favor. Petiti Petitione onerr argues argues that that inasmu inasmuch ch as there there is no perfe perfecte cted d contra contract ct of sale sale betwee between n the partie parties, s, the claim claim for recovery of the reservation fee properly falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts and not that of the HSRC. Issu Issue e : WON WON the the RTC RTC had had juri jurisd sdic icti tion on over over the the reco recove very ry of reservation fee. Ratio : Under Presidential Decree No. 1344, the NHA has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide claims involving refund and other claims filed by a subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project project owner, owner, etc. There There is no such such qualifi qualificat cation ion in said said provision of law that makes a distinction between a perfected sale and one that has yet to be perfected. The word "buyer" in the law should be understood to be anyone who purchases anything for money. Under the circumstances of this case, one who offers to buy is as much a buyer as one who buys by virtue of a perfected
55 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer contract of sale. Said powers have since been transferred to the HLRB.
and and also, also, within within the appell appellate ate jurisd jurisdict iction ion of the Civil Civil Servic Service e Commission.
Moreover, upon the promulgation of Executive Order No. 90, it is therein therein provided provided that the HLRB has exclusive exclusive jurisdiction jurisdiction over claims involving refund filed against project owners, developers, and dealers, among others.
g.
2. Directing powers. Illustrated by the corrective corrective powers of public public utility utility commissions commissions,, powers powers of assessmen assessmentt under under the revenue laws, reparatio reparations ns under under public public utility utility laws and awards awards under; 3. Enabli ng ng p ow owers. T he he g ra rant o r d en enial o f permit or authorization; 1. Dispensing powers. The authority to exemp exemptt from from or relax relax a gener general al prohib prohibiti ition, on, or autho authorit rity y to reliev relieve e from from affirma affirmativ tive e duty. duty. The licensing power sets or assumes a standard, while the dispensing power sanctions a deviation from a standard; 2. Summary powers. To designate administrative power to apply compulsion or force against against person or property property to effectuate effectuate a legal legal purpose purpose without a judicial judicial warrant warrant to authorize authorize such action; 3. Equitable powers. An administrative tribunal having power to determine the law upon a particular state of facts has the right to and must consider and make proper application of the rules of equity.
When an administrative agency or body is conferred quasi-judicial functi functions ons,, all contro controve versi rsies es relati relating ng to the subjec subjectt matter matter pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included within the jurisd jurisdict iction ion of said said admini administr strati ative ve agency agency or body. body. Split Split jurisdiction is not favored. Since in this this case the action for refund of reservation fee arose from a proposed purchase of a subdivision lot obviously the HLRB has exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
Cariño vs. CHR 204 SCRA 483 Ruling : Hence it is that the Commission on Human Rights, having merely the power "to investigate," cannot and should not "try and resolve on the merits" (adjudicate) the matters involved in Striking Teachers HRC Case No. 90-775, as it has announced it means to do; and it cannot cannot do so even even if there be a claim claim that in the administra administrative tive disciplinar disciplinary y proceeding proceedings s against against the teachers teachers in question, initiated and conducted by the DECS, their human rights, or civil or political rights had been transgressed. More particularly, the Commissi Commission on has no power power to "resol "resolve ve on the merits" merits" the question of (a) whether or not the mass concerted actions engaged in by the teachers teachers consti constitut tute e a strike strike and are prohibit prohibited ed or otherwise restricted by law; (b) whether or not the act of carrying on and taking part in those actions, and the failure of the teachers to discontinue those actions and return to their classes despite the order order to this this effect effect by the Secret Secretary ary of Educat Education ion,, consti constitut tute e infr infrac acti tion ons s of rele releva vant nt rule rules s and and regu regula lati tion ons s warr warran anti ting ng admini administr strati ative ve discip disciplin linary ary sancti sanctions ons,, or are justifi justified ed by the griev grievanc ances es compla complaine ined d of by them; them; and (c) what what where where the particular acts done by each individual teacher and what sanctions, if any, may properly be imposed for said acts or omissions. These are matters undoubtedly and clearly within the original jurisdiction of the Secretary of Education, being within the scope of the disciplinary powers granted to him under the Civil Service Law,
Clas Classi sifi fica cati tion on of adju adjudi dica cato tory ry powe powers rs
VII. VII.
The The Powe Powerr to to Issu Issue e Subp Subpoe oena na Carmelo vs Ramos 6 SCRA 836 Section 13 Book VII 1987 Admin. Code Caamic vs Galaon 237 SCRA 390
Facts : Respondent MTC judge issued a subpoena against Caamic which required her to appear before his sala under the penalty of law. Caamic was surprised for she was not aware of any case filed against her. When she appeared at the date, time and place stated in the the subp subpoe oena na,, she she was was bera berate ted d by the the resp respon onde dent nt and and
56 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer demanded 8K from her. Said amount was the amount of the life insurance insurance policy of one Edgardo Sandagan. Sandagan. Said subpoena subpoena was issued upon request by Generosa Sandagan who sought the help of respondent because she could not get a share of the proceeds of the life insurance policy of her dead husband whose beneficiary was Caamic.
presenta presentation tion of some of private private responde respondents’ nts’ witnesses witnesses,, they requested the court for a subpoena duces tecum as regards to the books of herein petitioner. Petitioner moved to quash the subpoena on the ground that it can only be regarded as a “fishing bill” to discover evidence against herein petitioner and that such is not applicable in a case for unfair competition. The trial court denied the same.
Issue : Propriety of the subpoena issued by the respondent judge. Ruling : Respondent should have known or ought to know that under Section 1, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, a subpoena "is a process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing or the trial of an action, or at any investigation conducted under the laws of the Philippines, or for taking of his deposi depositio tion." n." Althoug Although h the subpoe subpoena na he caused caused to be issue issued d purports to be in a form for criminal cases pending in his court, it was not, in fact, issued in connection with a criminal case or for any other pending case in his court nor for any investigation he was competent to conduct pursuant to law or by direction of this Court. It was designated for a specific purpose, viz., administrative conference. That purpose was, in no way connected with or related to some of his administrative duties because he knew from the beginning that it was for a confrontation with the complainant as solicited by Generosa. Sandagan for the latter to get a share in the death benefits of Edgardo Sandagan which was received by the complaina complainant. nt. Generosa Generosa had not filed any action action in responden respondent's t's court for her claim; neither is there any case in respondent's court concerning concerning such death death benefits. benefits. What Generosa Generosa wanted was for respondent to act as mediator or conciliator to arrive at a possible compromise compromise with the complainant, complainant, which was, obviously obviously,, nonofficial and absolutely a private matter. Not being then directly or remo remote tely ly rela relate ted d to his his offi offici cial al func functi tion ons s and and duti duties es,, accommoda accommodating ting the request request and using his official official functions functions and office in connection therewith was, by any yardstick, improper. In a suit for unfair competition, competition, it is only through through the issuance issuance of the question questioned ed "subpoen "subpoena a duces duces tecum " that the complainin complaining g party is afforded his full rights of redress.
Issue : WON the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is proper in a case for unfair competition. Ratio : A case for unfair competition is actually a case for injunction and damages. As a general rule, on obtaining an injunction for infrin infringem gement ent of a tradem trademark ark,, compla complaina inant nt is entitle entitled d to an accounting and recovery of defendant's profits on the goods sold under that mark, as incident to, and a part of, his property right, and this rule applies in cases of unfair competition. In such case, the infringer or unfair trader is required in equity to account for and and yield yield up his gains gains on a princi principle ple analogou analogous s to that that which which charges as trustee with the profits acquired by the wrongful use of the property of the cestui que trust, and defendant's profits are regarded as an equitable measure of the compensation plaintiff should receive for the past harm suffered by him. In order to entitle a parry to the issuance of a "subpoena duces tecum, " it must appear. By clear and unequivocal proof, that the book book or docume document nt sought sought to be produc produced ed contai contains ns eviden evidence ce relevant relevant and material to the issue before the court, court, and that the precise precise book, book, paper paper or document document containing containing such evidence evidence has been been so design designate ated d or descri described bed that it may be identi identifie fied. d. A "subpoena duces tecum" once issued by the court may be quashed upon motion if the issuance therof is unreasonable unreasonable and oppressive, or the relevanc relevancy y of the books. books. docume documents nts or things things does not appear, or if the persons in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the reasonable cost of production thereof. In the instant case in determining whether the books subject to the subpoena duces tecum are relevant and reasonable in relation to the complaint of private respondent for unfair competition.
Universal Rubber Products vs CA 130 SCRA 104 Masangcay vs COMELEC 6 SCRA 27 Facts : Private respondents herein sued herein petitioner for unfair compet competiti ition on in the lower court. court. During During the trial trial and after the
57 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Facts : Masangcay was the provincial treasurer of Aklan who was charged with several others for CONTEMPT by the COMELEC when it opened 3 boxes boxes without without the presence presence of the persons persons and/or and/or parties parties indicated indicated in its Resolutio Resolution. n. After appearing appearing and showing cause cause why they should should not be punish punished ed for contempt contempt,, the COMELEC sentenced Masangcay for imprisonment and imposing a fine. Masangcay filed a petition for review with the SC. Issue : WON the COMELEC may punish Masangcay for contempt for his acts. Ruling : The Commission on Elections has not only the duty to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections, but also the power to try, hear and decide any controversy that may be submitted to it in connection with the elections. In this sense, we said, the Commission, although it cannot be classified as a court of justice within the meaning of the Constitution (Section 30, Article Article VIII), VIII), for it is merely merely an admini administr strati ative ve body, body, may however exercise quasi-judicial functions insofar as controversies that by express provision of law come under its jurisdiction. When the Commission Commission exercises exercises a ministeria ministeriall function function it cannot cannot exercise the power to punish for contempt because such power is inherently judicial in nature. ". . . In proceeding on this matter, it only discharged discharged a ministerial duty; it did not exercise any judicial function. Such being the case, it coul could d not not exer exerci cise se the the powe powerr to puni punish sh for for cont contem empt pt as postul postulate ated d in the law, for such power power is inhere inherentl ntly y judicia judiciall in nature. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts; its existe existence nce is essent essential ial to the preser preservat vation ion of order order in judicia judiciall proceeding proceedings, s, and to the enforcement enforcement of judgments judgments,, orders orders and mandates of courts, and, consequently, in the, administration of justice. The exercise of this power has always been regarded as a necess necessary ary incide incident nt and and attrib attribute ute of courts courts.. Its exerci exercise se by admini administr strati ative ve bodies bodies has been been invari invariabl ably y limite limited d to making making effective the power to elicit testimony. And the exercise of that powe powerr by an admi admini nist stra rati tive ve body body in furt furthe hera ranc nce e of its its administrative function has been held invalid.
VIII VIII..
The The Pow Power er To Puni Punish sh For For Con Conte temp mptt
Ruling: Rule 64 applies only to inferior and superior courts and does not comprehend contempt committed against administrative officials or bodies, unless said contempt is [clearly considered and expressly defined as contempt of court, as is done in paragraph 2 of Sec. 580 of the revised administrat administrative ive code. The refusal refusal to comply with order of tenancy law, enforcement division is neither contempt nor a penalized offense. Camelo v. Ramos 116 Phil 1152 IX .
Power to to im im po pose pe penalti es es Scoty’s Department Store v. v. Micaller 99 Phil 762
Facts: Nena Micaller was employed as a salesgirl in the Scoty's Department Store situated at 615 Escolta, Manila. This store was owned and operated by Yu Ki Lam, Richard Yang, Yu Si Kiao and Helen Yang. Pursuant to section 5(b) of the Industrial Peace Act, Nena Nena Micaller Micaller filed charges charges of unfair unfair labor practice practice against against her above employers alleging that she was dismissed by them because of her membership in the National Labor Union and that, prior to her her separa separatio tion, n, said said employ employers ers had been been quest question ioning ing their their employees employees regarding regarding their membership membership in said union and had interfered with their right to organize under the law. The employers denied the charge. They claimed that the compla complaina inant nt was dismis dismissed sed from from the servic service e becau because se of her her misconduct and serious disrespect to the management and her co employees employees so much so that several several criminal criminal charges were filed against her with the city fiscal of Manila who, after investigation, filed the corresponding information’s against her and the same are now pending trial in court. The Court of industrial industrial relation ruled in favor of Nina Micaller. Micaller. Issue: Issue: WON the Court of Industria Industriall Relations Relations has jurisdictio jurisdiction n to impose the penalties prescribed in section 25 of Republic Act No. 875.
58 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer A. Ruling: In conclusion, our considered opinion is that the power to impose the penalties provided for in section 25 of Republic Act No. 875 is lodged in ordinary courts, and not in the Court of Industrial Relations Relations,, notwithsta notwithstandin nding g the definition definition of the word "Court" contained in section 2 (a) of said Act. Hence, the decision of the indust industria riall court court in so far as it impose imposes s a fine fine of P100 upon petitioners is illegal and should be nullified. The procedure laid down by law to be observed by the Court of Industrial Industrial Relations Relations in dealing dealing with unfair labor labor practice practice cases cases negates those constitutional guarantees guarantees to the accused. And this is so because, among other things, the law provides that "the rules of evid eviden ence ce prev prevai aili ling ng in cour courts ts of law law or equi equity ty shal shalll not not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Act that the Court Court (of Indust Industria riall Relati Relation ons) s) and its membe members rs and Hearin Hearing g Examiners shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law, or procedure." It is likewise enjoined that "the Court shall not be bound solely by the evidence presented during the hearing but may avail itself of all other means such as (but not limited limited to) ocular inspections inspections and questioning questioning of wellinform informed ed perso persons ns which which result results s must must be made a part part of the record". All-this means that an accused may be tried without the right "to meet the witnesses face to face" and may be convicted merely on preponderance of evidence and not beyond reasonable doubt. This is against the due process process guaranteed by our our Constitution. It may be contended that this gap may be subserved by requiring the Court of Industrial Relations to observe strictly the rules applicable to criminal cases to meet the requirements of the Constitution, but this would be tantamount to amending the law which is not within the province of the judicial branch of our Government. CAB v. PAL 63 SCRA 524 X.
Powe Powerr in in dep depor orta tati tion on and and cit citiz izen ensh ship ip cas cases es
I. Jurisdiction
Definition People vs Mariano 71 SCRA 600
Facts Facts:: The Accused Accused was convict convicted ed of the crime of abused abused of chastity. chastity. He filed an appealed appealed contending contending that he married the victim therefore his criminal liability should be extinguished. The Attorney-General entered an opposition to said petition wherein, after discussing the scope of article 448 of the Penal Code and Act No. 1773 of the Philippine Legislature amending said article, he concluded concluded that the marriage marriage of the accused with the offended offended party cannot extinguish his liability as perpetrator of the crime of abuse against chastity. Issue: The question is a purely legal one and sifts down to whether or not sectio section n 2 of Act No. 1773 includes includes the crime crime of abuse abuse against chastity among those cases in which criminal liability is extinguished by the marriage of the accused with the offended party. Ruling: The intention of our Legislature in enacting said Act No. 1773 was that the marriage of the accused or convict with the offended party should extinguish the criminal liability in the cases of seduction seduction,, abduction abduction and rape and those those involving involving offenses offenses included in said crimes, such as frustrated or attempted seduction, abduction or rape. This is clear and logical. If the liability for a crime is extinguished in the graver cases, it must be extinguished, and for a stronger reason, in the lesser crimes. Now then, if the crime of abuse against chastity is not denominated rape, it is only for the lack of the intention to lie, both crimes being identical in every every other other respect, respect, though of different different degrees degrees of gravity. We therefore therefore conclude conclude that the crime of abuse against chastity chastity is included in the crime of rape mentioned in section 2 of Act No. 1773 and, consequentl consequently, y, the marriage of the accused accused with the offended party in the present case has extinguished his criminal liability. B. Exte Extent nt of juri jurisd sdic icti tion on of admin adminis istr trat ativ ive e age agenc ncie ies s performing quasi-judicial acts Chin vs LBP 201 SCRA 190
Lao Gi v. Court of Appeals 180 SCRA 756
Taule vs Santos 200 SCRA 512
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
Facts: The Federation of Associations of Barangay Councils (FABC) of Catanduanes decided to hold the election of katipunan despite the absence of five (5) of its members, the Provincial Treasurer and
59 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer the Provincial Election Supervisor walked out. The President elect Ruperto Taule Vice-President- Allan Aquino Secretary- Vicente Avila Treasurer- Fidel Jacob Auditor- Leo Sales. Respondent Leandro L Verceles, Governor of Catanduanes sent a letter to respondent Luis T. Santos, the Secretary of Local Government,** protesting the election of the officers of the FABC and seeking its mullification in view view of severa severall flagra flagrant nt irregu irregular lariti ities es in the manne mannerr it was conducted. Respondent Secretary issued a resolution nullifying the election of the officers of the FABC in Catanduanes held on June 18, 1989 and ordering a new one to be conducted as early as possible to be presided by the Regional Director of Region V of the Department of Local Government. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution but it was denied by respondent Secretary. In the petition for certiorari before before Us, petit petition ioner er seeks seeks the revers reversal al of the resolu resolutio tions ns of respondent for being null and void. Issue: Whether or not the respondent Secretary Secretary has jurisdiction to entertain an election protest involving the election of the officers of the Federation of Association of Barangay Councils, Assuming that the respondent Secretary has jurisdiction over the election protest, whether or not he committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in nullifying the election? Ruling: Ruling: The Secretary Secretary of Local Local Government Government is not vested vested with jurisdiction to entertain any protest involving the election of officers of the FABC. There is no question that he is vested with the power to promulgate rules and regulations as set forth in Section 222 of the Local Government Government Code. "(3) Promulgate Promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out department objectives, policies, functions, plans, programs and projects;" It is a well-s well-sett ettled led princi principle ple of admini administr strati ative ve law that that unless unless expres expressly sly empowe empowered red,, admin administ istrat rative ive agenci agencies es are bereft bereft of judicial powers.19 The jurisdiction of administrative authorities is dependent entirely upon the provisions of the statutes reposing power in them; they cannot confer it upon themselves.20 Such jurisdiction is essential to give validity validity to their determinations." There is neither a statutory nor constitutional provision expressly or even by necessary implication conferring upon the Secretary of Local Local Govern Governmen mentt the power power to assume assume jurisd jurisdict iction ion over over an electi election on protec protectt involv involving ing office officers rs of the katipu katipunan nan ng mga
barangay. Construing the constitutional limitation on the power of general supervision of the President over local governments, We hold that respondent Secretary has no authority to pass upon the validity or regularity of the election of the officers of the katipunan. To allow respondent Secretary to do so will give him more power than the law or the Constitution grants. It will in effect give him control control over local government government officials for it will permit him to interfere in a purely democratic and non-partisan activity aimed at streng strengthe thenin ning g the baran barangay gay as the basic basic compon componen entt of local local governments so that the ultimate goal of fullest autonomy may be achieved.
II.
Procedure to to be be fo followed Sections 1 and 2.1 Book VII, 1987 Administrative Code A. Sour Source ce procedure
of
auth author orit ity y
to
prom promul ulga gate te
rule rules s
of
Section 5.5, Article VIII, Constitution Angara vs Electoral Commission Commission 63 Phil 139 Facts: That in the elections of September 17, 1935, the petitioner, Jose A. Angara won. The provincial provincial board of canvassers, canvassers, proclaimed the petitioner as member-elect of the National Assembly for the said district, for having received the most number of votes, the petitioner took his oath of office. Respondent Pedro Ynsua filed before the Electoral Commission a "Motion of Protest" against the election election of the herein petitioner, petitioner, Jose A. Angara, Angara, and praying, praying, among among other other things, things, that said responden respondentt be declared declared elected elected member of the National Assembly for the first district of Tayabas, or that the election of said position be nullified. Issue: Issue: WON the said Electoral Electoral Commission Commission acted acted without without or in excess of its jurisdiction in assuming to take cognizance of the protes protestt filed filed aga agains instt the the elect election ion of the herei herein n petiti petitione onerr notwithsta notwithstandin nding g the previous previous confirmati confirmation on of such election by resolution of the National Assembly? Ruling: The grant of power to the Electoral Commission to judge all contests contests relating to the election, election, returns returns and qualifications qualifications of members of the National Assembly, is intended to be as complete
60 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature. The express lodging of that power in the Electoral Commission is an implied denial of the exercise of that power by the National Assembly. And this is as effective a restriction upon the legislative power as an express prohibition prohibition in the Constitution. If we concede the power claimed in behalf of the National Assembly that said body may regulate the proceedings of the Electoral Commission and cut off the power of the commission to lay down the period within which protests should be filed, the grant of power to the commission would be ineffective. The creation of the Electoral Commission carried with it ex necesitate rei the power regulative in character to limit the time within which protests intrusted to its cognizance should be filed. It is a settl settled ed rule of cons constructi truction on that where a gene general ral power is conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also included. The incidental power to promulgate such rules necessary for the proper exercise of its exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, must be deemed by necessary implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral Commission. B. Limitations Limitations on the power to promulgate promulgate rules of procedure
First Lepanto Ceramics vs CA 231 SCRA 30 C.
Technical rules not applicable applicable
Kanlaon Construction Enterprises vs NLRC 279 SCRA 337 Facts: This is a labor case involving Kanlaon for illegal termination of employment of publics respondents. The arbitration’s decision i s appe appeal aled ed to the the NLRC NLRC.. Publ Public ic resp respon onde dent nts s in thei theirr appe appeal al questioned the validity of the NLRC’s decision on the ground that the NLRC erroneously, patently and unreasonably interpreted the principle that the NLRC and its Arbitration Branch are not strictly bound by the rules of evidence. In brief, it was alleged that the the decision is void for the following reasons: (1) there was no valid service of summons; (2) Engineers Estacio Estacio and Dulatre Dulatre and Atty. Abundiente Abundiente had no authority authority to appear and represent petitioner at the hearings before the arbiters and on appeal to respondent Commission; (3) the decisions of the
arbiters and respondent Commission are based on unsubstantiated and and self-s self-serv erving ing eviden evidence ce and were were rende rendered red in violat violation ion of petitioner's right to due process. Issue: WON publics respondents’ claim is tenable. Held: The labor arbiters and the NLRC must not, at the expense of due process, be the first to arbitrarily disregard specific provisions of the Rules which are precisely intended to assist the parties in obtaining the just, expeditious and inexpensive settlement of labor disputes. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, Fifth Division, is annulled and set aside and the case is remanded to the the Regi Region onal al Arbi Arbitr trat atio ion n Bran Branch ch,, Ilig Iligan an City City for for furt furthe herr proceedings. Ang Tibay vs CIR 69 Phil Phil 635 Ruling: The Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly constrained by technical technical rules of procedure, procedure, and the Act requires requires it to "act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without without regard to technical technicalities ities or legal legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable." (Section 20, Commonwealth Act No. 103.) It shall not be restricted to the specific specific relief claimed or demands demands made by the parties parties to the industrial or agricultural dispute, but may include in the award, order order or decisi decision on any matter matter or deter determin minati ation on which which may be deemed deemed necessar necessary y or expedient expedient for the purpose of settling settling the dispute or of preventing further industrial or agricultural disputes. (Section 13, ibid.) And in the light of this legislative policy, appeals to this Court have been especially regulated by the rules recently promul promulgat gated ed by this this Court Court to carry carry into into effect effect the avowed avowed legislative purpose. The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial Relati Relations ons may be said said to be free from from the rigidity rigidity of certai certain n procedural requirements does not mean that it can, in justiciable case cases s comi coming ng befo before re it, it, enti entire rely ly igno ignore re or disr disreg egar ard d the the fundamen fundamental tal and essential essential requireme requirements nts of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character.
Police Commission vs Lood 127 SCRA 757
61 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Facts: Petitioner Police Commission seeks the setting aside of the decision of the defunct Court of First Instance (respondent court) of Rizal, Rizal, Branch Branch VI, which which declar declared ed null null and void its decis decision ion in Administrative Case No. 48 dismissing private respondent Simplicio C. Ibea and instead instead ordered ordered then Municipal Municipal Mayor Braulio Sto. Domingo Domingo of San Juan, Rizal to reinstate reinstate said respondent respondent to his former position as policeman of the same municipality with back salaries from the date of his suspension up to the date of his actual reinstatement. Petitione Petitionerr contends contends that the lower court erred in holding holding that respondent Simplicio C. Ibea was deprived of due process of law because the Police Commission decided Administrative Case No. 48 even without stenographic notes taken of the proceedings of the case. Ruling: Respondent court's ruling against petitioner's decision as falling short of the legal requirements of due process, because it decided decided the subject subject administra administrative tive case without without stenogra stenographic phic notes (which were not taken by the Board of Investigators) of the proceedings of the case, was in error. Rep. Act No. 4864 does not provide that the Board of Investigators shall be a "board of record," and as such it does not provide for office personnel such as clerks and stenographe stenographers rs who may be employed employed to take note of the proceedings of the board. The proceeding provided for is merely administrative and summary in character, in line with the principle that that "admin "administ istrat rative ive rules rules of proced procedure ure should should be constr construed ued liberally in order to promote their object and to assist the parties in obtaining obtaining just, speedy speedy and inexpens inexpensive ive determina determination tion of their respective claims and defenses." The formalities usually attendant in court court hearin hearings gs need need not be presen presentt in an admini administr strati ative ve investiga investigation, tion, provided provided that the parties parties are heard heard and gven the opportunity to adduce their respective evidence. D.
Justiciable controversy and and forum shopping SEC vs CA 246 SCRA 738
Facts: The petition before this Court relates to the exercise by the SEC of its powers in a case involving a stockbroker (CUALOPING) and a stock transfer agency (FIDELITY). The Commission has brought the case to this Court in the instant petition petition for review on certiorari certiorari,, contending contending that the appellate appellate court erred in setting aside the decision of the SEC which had (a)
ordered the replacement of the certificates of stock of Philex and (b) imposed fines on both FIDELITY and CUALOPING. Held: The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") has both regula regulator tory y and adjudica adjudicativ tive e functi function ons. s. Under Under its regula regulator tory y responsibilities, the SEC may pass upon applications for, or may suspend or revoke (after due notice and hearing), certificates of regist registrat ration ion of corpor corporati ations ons,, partn partners ership hips s and associ associati ation ons s (excludin (excluding g cooperati cooperatives, ves, homeowne homeowners' rs' associati associations, ons, and labor labor union unions); s); compel compel legal legal and regula regulator tory y compli complianc ances; es; conduc conductt inspections; and impose fines or other penalties for violations of the Revised Securities Securities Act, as well as implementing implementing rules and directives of the SEC, such as may be warranted. The SEC decision which orders the two stock transfer agencies to "jointly replace the subject shares and for FIDELITY to cause the transfer thereof in the names of the buyers" clearly calls for an exercise of SEC's adjudicative jurisdiction. The stockholders who have been deprived of their certificates of stock or the persons to whom the forged certificates have ultimately been transferred by the supposed indorsee thereof are yet to initiate, if minded, an appropriate adversarial adversarial action. action. A justiciable controversy controversy such as can occasion an exercise exercise of SEC's exclusive exclusive jurisdiction jurisdiction would require an assertion of a right by a proper party against another who, in turn, contests it. The proper parties that can bring the controversy and can cause an exercise by the SEC of its original and exclusive jurisdiction would be all or any of those who are adversely adversely affected affected by the transfer transfer of the pilfered certificates certificates of stock. stock. Any peremp peremptor tory y judgme judgment nt by the SEC, SEC, without without such such proceedings having initiated, would be precipitat. The question on the legal propriety of the imposition by the SEC of a P50,000 fine on each of FIDELITY and CUALOPING, is an entirely different matter. This time, it is the regulatory power of the SEC which is involved. When, on appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter set aside the fines imposed by they the SEC, the latter, in its instant petition, can no longer be deemed just a nominal party but a real party in interest sufficient to pursuant appeals to this Court. Section 2.5 Book VII 1987 Admin Code Santiago, Jr. vs Bautista 32 SCRA 188 Villanueva vs Adre 172 SCRA 876 Chemphil Export & Import Corp. vs CA 251 SCRA 257 First Phil. Int’l Bank vs CA 252 SCRA 259
62 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer R. Transport Corp. vs Laguesma 227 SCRA 826 Galongco vs CA 283 SCRA 493 E. Institution of proceedings; acquisition of jurisdiction Section 5, Rule 7 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Santos vs NLRC 254 SCRA 675 Matanguihand vs Tengo, 272 SCRA 704 F. Pre-trial conference; default Section 10 Book VII 1987 Admin. Code Auyong vs CTA 59 SCRA SCRA 110 G. Hearing Secretary of Justice vs Lantion 322 SCRA 160 Section 11.1 Book VII 1987 Admin. Code Medenilla vs CSC 194 SCRA 278 Simpao vs CSC 191 SCRA 396 Alejandro vs CA 191 SCRA 700 700 H. Evidence Section 12.3 Book VII 1987 Admin Code State Prosecutor vs Muro 236 SCRA 505 1. Pro Proof bey beyond rea reason sonable able dou doubt People vs Bacalzo 195 SCRA 557 2. Cle Clear and and conv convin inci cing ng evide idence nce Black’s Law Dictionary 5th ed. P. 227 3. Preponderance of evidence New Testament Church of God vs CA 246 SCRA 266 4. Substantial ev e vidence Velasquez vs Nery 211 SCRA 28 Malonzo ns COMELEC 269 SCRA 380 I. Decision Section 2.8, 14 Book VII 1987 Admin Code Marcelino vs Cruz 121 SCRA 51 Romualdez-Marcos Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC 248 SCRA 300 1. Form of decision Mangca vs COMELEC 112 SCRA 273 Malinao vs Reyes 255 SCRA 616 Sections 2.13 and 2.12 Book VII 1987 Admin Code 2. Publication of of de decisions Section 16.1.2 Book VII 1987 Admin Code 3. Finality, promulgation and notice of decision Section 15 Book VII 1987 Admin Code Robert Dollar Company vs Tuvera 123 SCRA 354 Lindo vs COMELEC 194 SCRA 25 Jamil vs COMELEC 283 SCRA SCRA 349 Section 14 Book VII 1987 Admin Code
Zoleta vs Drilon 166 SCRA SCRA 548 4. Coll Colleg egia iate te dec decis isio ion, n, req requi uire reme ment nt to to be be val valid id Mison vs COA 187 SCRA 445 Aquino-Sarmiento vs vs Morato 203 SCRA 515 5. Finality o off de decisions Section 15 Chapter III Book VII Admin Code of 1987 Administrative Order No. No. 18 Section 7 Uy vs COA 328 SCRA 607 Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative vs Torres 286 SCRA 666 6. Appl Applic icat atio ion n of of the the doct doctri rine ne of res res jud judic icat ata a Republic vs Neri 213 SCRA 812 Brillantes v Castro 99 Phil 497 Ipekdjian Merchandising vs CTA, L-15430, 30 Sept. 1963 Teodoro vs Carague 206 SCRA 429 J. Administrative appeal in contested cases Section 19, 20, 21, 22 Book VII 1987 Admin Code Mendez vs CSC 204 SCRA 965 PCIB vs CA 229 SCRA 560 Diamonon vs DOLE 327 SCRA 283 De Leon vs Heirs of Gregorio Reyes 155 SCRA 584 Vda de Pineda vs Pena 187 SCRA 22 Reyes vs Zamora 90 SCRA 92 Section 23 Book VII 1987 Admin Code Zambales Chromite Mining Mining Co. v. Court of Appeals 94 SCRA SCRA 261 Ysmael v. Dep Exec Sec 190 SCRA 673 K. Execution Divinagracia vs CFI 3 SCRA 775 GSIS vs CSC 202 SCRA 799 Vital-Gozon vs CA 212 SCRA 235 III. III.
Due Due proc proces ess s of law law in admin adminis istr trat ativ ive e adj adjud udic icat atio ion n
A. Substantive and procedural due process, defined DUE PROCESS contemplate contemplates s notice notice and opportunity opportunity to be heard heard before judgment is rendered, affecting one’s person or property. It is designed to secure justice as a living reality; not to sacrifice it by paying paying undue undue homage homage to formality. formality. For substance substance must prevail prevail over form.
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS Consists of the 2 basic rights of notice and hearing, as well as the guarante guarantee e of being being heard heard by an impart impartial ial and competent tribunal
•
63 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer •
•
By procedural procedural due process is meant meant a law which hears before before it condemns; condemns; which proceeds proceeds upon inquiry, inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial The constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty liberty and property property without without due process of law, which clause optimizes the principle of justice which hears before before it conde condemns mns which which upon upon inquir inquiry y and render renders s judgment only after trial. Santiago vs Alikpala 25 SCRA 356
Facts: Petitioner Santiago was charged with violation of Arts. Of War 96 and 97. He was arraigned though without summons and subp subpoe oena na affo afford rded ed to him. him. From From the the prov proven en fact facts s and and the the admission admission likewise of the respondents respondents,, the court martial martial which tried his case was not properly convened. There was no special order order published published by the headquar headquarters ters Philippine Philippine Constabu Constabulary lary creating or directing the General Court Martial composed of the respondents to arraign and try however was already an existing court trying another case. The validity of the court martial proceeding was challenged challenged by the petitioner at the regular court on the ground of due process. Issue: WON failure to comply with law on conveying a valid court martial amount to denial of due process Held: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE LAW A DENIAL OF PROCED PROCEDUR URAL AL DUE PROCESS. PROCESS.-- The failur failure e to comply comply with with the dictates of the applicable law insofar as convening a valid court martial is concerned, amounts to a denial of due process. There is such a denial not only under the broad standard which delimits the scope and reach of the due process requirement, but also under one of the specific elements of procedural due process. LACK OF AUTHORITY OF COURT-MARTIAL TO TRY PETITIONER.- Nor is such such a relian reliance ce on the broad broad reach of due process process the sole sole ground ground on which which the lack lack of jurisd jurisdict iction ion of die courtcourt-mar martia tiall convened in this case could be predicated. Recently, stress was laid anew by us on the first requirement of procedural due process, namely, the existence of the court or tribunal clothed with judicial, or quasi-judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it. This is a requirement that goes back to Banco Español Filipino vs.
Palanca, Palanca, a decision decision rendered rendered half a century century ago. There There is the express admission in the statement of facts that respondents, as a court martial, were not convened to try petitioner but someone else, the action taken against petitioner being induced solely by a desire to avoid the effects of prescription; it would follow then that the absence of a competent court or tribunal is most marked and undeniable. Such a denial of due process is therefore fatal to its assumed assumed authority authority to try petitioner. petitioner. The writ of certiorari certiorari and prohibitio prohibition n should should have been granted granted and the lowe lowerr court, court, to repeat, ought not to have dismissed his petition summarily. The significance of such an insistence on a faithful compliance with the regular Secretary of Justice vs Lantion 322 SCRA 160 Facts Facts:: Presid President ent Marcos Marcos issue issued d PD No. No. 1069 1069 "Presc "Prescrib ribing ing the Procedure Procedure for the Extradition Extradition of Persons Persons Who Have Committed Committed Crimes Crimes in a Foreig Foreign n Countr Country". y". The The Decre Decree e is founde founded d on: on: the doctr doctrine ine of incorp incorpora oratio tion n under under the Consti Constitut tution ion;; the mutual mutual concern for the suppression of crime both in the state where it was committed and the state where the criminal may have escaped; the extradition extradition treaty with the Republic Republic of Indonesia Indonesia and the intention of the Philippines to enter into similar treaties with other interested countries; and the need for rules to guide the executive department and the courts in the proper implementation of said treaties. The Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs U. S. Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the extraditio extradition n of private respondent respondent Mark Jimenez Jimenez to the United States. private respondent, through counsel, wrote a letter dated July 1, 1999 addressed to petitioner requesting copies of the official extradition request from the U. S. Government, as well as all documents and papers submitted therewith; and that he be given ample time to comment on the request after he shall have receiv received ed copies copies of the reques requested ted papers papers.. Petiti Petitione onerr refuse refused d because it is not included i n the procedure of the RP-US Treaty. Issue: WON private respondent's entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the proceedings constitute a breach of the legal legal duties duties of the Philippine Philippine Government Government under the RPExtradition Treaty? Assuming the answer is in the affirmative, is there there really really a conflict conflict between the treaty and the due process process clause in the Constitution?
64 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Held: Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Petitioner is ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting papers, and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file his comment comment with supportin supporting g evidence evidence.. From the procedure procedures s earlier earlier abstracte abstracted, d, after the filing filing of the extradition extradition petition and during the judicial determination of the propriety of extradition, the rights of notice and hearing are clearly granted to the prospective extraditee. However, prior thereto, the law is silent as to these rights. Reference to the U.S. extradition procedures also manifests this silence. In administra administrative tive law, a quasi-jud quasi-judicial icial proceedin proceeding g involves: involves: (a) taking taking and evaluation evaluation of evidence; evidence; (b) determinin determining g facts based upon upon the eviden evidence ce presen presented ted;; and (c) rende renderin ring g an order order or decision supported by the facts proved (De Leon, Administrative Law: Text and Cases, 1993 ed., p. 198, citing Morgan vs. United States, States, 304 U.S. 1). Inquisitor Inquisitorial ial power, which is also known as examining examining or investiga investigatory tory power, is one of the determinative determinative powers powers of an admini administr strati ative ve body body which which better better enabl enables es it to exercise its quasi-judicial authority (Cruz, Phil. Administrative Law, 1996 ed., p. 26). This power allows the administrat administrative ive body to inspect the records and premises, and investigate the activities, of persons or entities coming under its jurisdiction (Ibid., p. 27), or to require require disclosure disclosure of informatio information n by means means of accounts, accounts, records, records, reports, reports, testimony testimony of witnesses, witnesses, production production of documents documents,, or otherwise (De Leon, op. cit., p. 64). The power of investigation consists in gathering, organizing, and anal analyz yzin ing g evid eviden ence ce,, whic which h is a usef useful ul aid aid or tool tool in an administrative agency's performance of its rule-making or quasi judicial functions. Notably, investigation is indispensable to prosecution.
From the inception of the suit below up to the time the judgment in L-15275 was to be executed, the corporate existence of University Publishing Company, Inc. appears to have been taken for granted, and was not then put in issue. However, when the Court of First Instance of Manila issued on July 22, 1961 an order of execution execution against University University Publishing Publishing Company, Company, Inc., a new problem cropped up. By virtue of this writ, plaintiff's counsel and the Sheriff of the City of Manila went to see Jose M. Aruego who signed signed the contract contract with plaintiff plaintiff on behalf behalf and as President President of University Publishing Company, Inc. They then discovered that no such such entity entity exist exists. s. A verifi verificat cation ion made made at the Secur Securiti ities es and Exchange Commission confirmed this fact. On July 31, 1961, said Commis Com missio sion n issued issued a certifi certificat cation ion "that "that the record records s of this this Comm Commis issi sion on do not not show show the the regi regist stra rati tion on of UNIV UNIVER ERSI SITY TY PUBLISHIN PUBLISHING G CO., INC., either either as a corporatio corporation n or partnershi partnership."2 p."2 This triggered a verified petition in the court below on August 10, 1961 for the issuance of a writ of execution ordering the Sheriff of Manila to cause the satisfaction of the judgment against the assets and properties of Jose M. Aruego as the real defendant in the case. All along, Jose M. Aruego and his law firm were counsel for the University Publishing Company, Inc. Instead of informing the lower court that it had in its possession copies of its certificate of registration, its article of incorporation, its by-laws and all other papers papers material material to its disputed disputed corporate corporate existence, existence, University University Publishin Publishing g Company, Company, Inc. chose chose to remain remain silent. silent. On August 11, 1961, 1961, University University Publishing Publishing Company, Company, Inc., by counsel counsel Aruego, Aruego, Mamaril and Associates (the law firm of Jose M. Aruego aforesaid) merely merely countered countered plaintiff's plaintiff's petition petition for execution execution as against against Aruego with an unsworn manifestation in court that "said Jose M. Aruego Aruego is not a party party to this this case," case," and, theref therefore ore,, plaint plaintiff' iff's s petition should be denied. Issue: WON Aruego is a party to this case
Albert vs CFI of Manila 23 SCRA SCRA 948 Facts: Plaintiff Albert sued University Publishing Company, Inc. for breach of contract. Albert died before the case proceeded to trial, and Justo R. Albert, Albert, his estate's administrator administrator,, was substituted. substituted. Finally, Finally, defendant's defendant's liability was determine determined d by this Court in L15275. Plaintiff was to recover P15,000.00 with legal interest from judicial demand.
Held: "The evidence is patently clear that Jose M. Aruego, acting as representative of a non-existent principal, was the real party to the contract sued upon; that he was the one who reaped the benefits resu result ltin ing g from from it, so much much so that that part partia iall paym paymen entt of the the consid considera eratio tion n were were made made by him; him; that that he violat violated ed its terms, terms, thereby precipitating the suit in question; and that in the litigation he was the real defendant. Perforce, in line with the ends of justice, responsibility under the judgment falls on him.
65 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer "By 'due process of law' we mean 'a law which hears before before it condemns condemns;; which proceeds proceeds upon inquiry, inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. . . .' (4 Wheaton, U.S. 518, 581); or, as this Court has said, 'Due process of law' contemplates notice and opportun opportunity ity to be heard heard before before judgment judgment is rendered, rendered, affecting affecting one's person or property.' (Lopez vs. Director of Lands, 47 Phil. 23, 32).' (Sicat vs. Reyes, 100 Phil., 505; 54 Off. Gaz. [17]4945.) And it may not be amiss to mention here also that the 'due process' clause of the Constitution is designed to secure justice as a living reality; not to sacrifice it by paying undue homage to formality. For substance must prevail over form. It may now be trite, but none the less apt, to quote what long ago we said in Alonso vs. Villamor, 16 Phil. 315, 321-322: 'A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deeply deeply schooled and skilled in the subtle art of movement movement and position, position, entraps entraps and destroys destroys the other. other. It is, rather, a contest contest in which each contending contending party fully and fairly lays before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing brushing aside as wholly wholly trivial trivial and indeci indecisiv sive e all imperf imperfect ection ions s of form form and technicalit technicalities ies of procedure procedure,, asks that justice justice be done upon the merits. merits. Laws uits, unlike unlike duels, duels, are not to be won by a rapier's rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves deserves scant scant consideration consideration from courts. courts. There should should he no vested rights in technicalities. B.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
7.
8.
Cardinal primary requirements of due process
The right right to a hearing hearing which which includes includes the the right right to present present one’s case and submit evidence The tribuna tribunall must consider consider the the evidence evidence presen presented ted The decisio decision n must have have somethin something g to support support itself itself The The evidenc evidence e must be subs substan tantia tiall The decisio decision n must be based based on on the eviden evidence ce presented presented at the hearing The tribuna tribunall or body of of any judges judges must must act on its own own independent consideration consideration of the law and facts of the controversy The board board or body body should should in all controve controversial rsial question questions, s, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involves and reason for the decision rendered The officer officer or or tribunal tribunal conducting conducting the the investig investigation ation must must be vested with competent jurisdiction
•
A violation of any of the cardinal requirements of due process in administrative proceedings renders any judgment or order issued therein null and void and can be attacked in any appropriate proceeding
Ang Tibay vs CIR 69 Phil Phil 635 Facts: Facts: The respondent respondent National National Labor Union, Union, Inc., on the other hand, hand, prays prays for the vacation vacation of the judgment judgment rendered rendered by the majority of this Court and the remanding of the case to the Court of Industrial Relations for a new trial. The petitioner, Ang Tibay, has filed an opposition both to the motion for reconsideration of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations and to the motion for new trial of the respondent National Labor Uuion, Inc. Issue: What are the cardinal primary ri ghts? Held: Held: CARDINAL CARDINAL PRIMARY PRIMARY RIGHTS.-T RIGHTS.-There here are cardinal cardinal primary primary rights rights which which must must be respec respected ted even even in procee proceedin dings gs of this this character. The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. Not only must the party party be given an opport opportuni unity ty to presen presentt his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its decision. Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must must be substa substanti ntial. al. The decis decision ion must must be rende rendered red on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a deci decisi sion on.. The The Cour Courtt of Indu Indust stri rial al Rela Relati tion ons s shou should ld,, in all all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties parties to the procee proceedin ding g can know Lin: Lin: variou various s issues issues involv involved, ed, and the reason reasons s for the decisi decisions ons render rendered. ed. The perfo performa rmance nce of this this duty duty is insepa inseparab rable le from from the author authority ity conferred upon it.
66 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer The Court of Industrial Relations is a special court whose func functi tion ons s are are spec specifi ifica cally lly stat stated ed in the the law law of its its crea creati tion on (Commonwealth Act No. 103). It is more an administrative board than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the Government. Unlike a court of justice which is essentially passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases that are presented to it by the parties litigant, the function of the Court of Industrial Relations, as will appear from perusal of its organic law, is more active, active, affirmativ affirmative e and dynamic. dynamic. It not only exercises exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between empl employ oyer ers s and and empl employ oyee ees s but but its its func functi tion ons s are are far far more more comprehen comprehensive sive and extensive. extensive. It has jurisdictio jurisdiction n over over the entire Philip Philippin pines, es, to consid consider, er, invest investiga igate, te, decide decide,, and settle settle any question, question, matter controve controversy rsy or dispute dispute arising arising between, between, and/or and/or affecting, employers and employees or laborers, and landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, and regulate the relations between them, subj subjec ectt to, to, and and in acco accord rdan ance ce with with,, the the prov provis isio ions ns of Commonwealth Act No. 103 (section 1).
Issue: WON there was denial of due process Held: The Court held that there was indeed a denial of due process. Mere membership of said teachers in their respective organizations does not ipso facto make them authorized representatives of the organizations. Under the law, the teacher’s organization possess the right to indicate its choice of representatives. Such right cannot be usurped by the Secretary of Education or the Director of Public Schools or their underlings. The teachers appointed by the DECS as members of its investigating committee was ever designated or authorized by a teachers organization as its representatives in said committee. Hence the failure to comply with the requirement vested no jurisdiction jurisdiction to the committee committee to hear the case. case. Responde Respondent nt teachers were denied of due process.
Fabella vs CA 282 SCRA 256
Air Manila vs Balatbat Balatbat 38 SCRA 489
Facts: The petitioner herein, successor –in-interest in the case of the former DECS Secretary against the public school teachers who were illegally dismissed for staging a mass action and failure to heed to the return-to-work order, filed a petition for the judgment of the trial court holding that said public school teachers teachers were denied of due process in the proceedings. It was held that the proc procee eedi ding ngs s cont contra rave vene ned d RA 46 4670 70 whic which h requ requir ired ed that that administrative charges against a teacher shall be heard initially by a commi ommitt tte ee comp compo osed sed of the the corr corre espon spondi din ng scho schoo ol superintendent of the Division or a duly authorized representative who at least have the rank of a supervisor, where the teachers belong belong,, as chairm chairman, an, a repres represent entati ative ve of the local or, in its absence, any existing provincial or national teacher’s organization and supervisor of the Division, the last 2 to be designated by the Director of Public Schools.
Facts: PAL's proposal to introduce new Mercury night flights had been referred to a hearing examiner for economic justification, PAL submitted a so-called consolidated schedule of flights that included the same Mercury night flights flights and this was allowed allowed by Board Board Resolution No. 139(68). The Board's action was impelled by the authoriza authorizations tions of certain certain flight flight schedules schedules previousl previously y allowed allowed but were incorporated incorporated were about about to expire; expire; thus, the consolida consolidated ted schedule had to be approved temporarily if the operations of the flight flights s referr referred ed to were were not to be suspen suspended ded.. In short, short, the temporary permit was issued to prevent the stoppage or cessation of services in the affected areas.
Petiti Petitione onerr argued argued that that DECS DECS compli complied ed with with RA 4670 4670 becau because se all the teache teachers rs who were membe members rs of the various various committee are members of either the QC Teachers Federation or the the QC Elem Elemen enta tary ry teac teache hers rs Fede Federa rati tion on and and are are deem deemed ed representatives of teacher’s organization.
The Board, considering the report of the hearing examiner, passed Resolution No. 190 (68) approving, for a period of 30 days starting 31 July 1968, only three or four frequencies of the seven proposed new flights. There is no proof, not even allegation, that in all those hearings petitioner was not notified or give opportunity to adduce evidence in support of its opposition. Issue: Issue: WON PAL violated violated the requisites requisites of administrat administrative ive due process
67 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
Held: YES. It was precisely prescribed that "all schedules under the DTS-35 for which no previous approval has been granted by the Board, are hereby referred to a hearing examiner for reception of evidence on its economic justification." It has been correctly said that administrative proceedings are not exempt exempt from the operation operation of certain certain basic basic and fundamental fundamental procedura procedurall principles principles,, such as the due process process requireme requirements nts in investigations and trials (Asprec vs. Itchon. 16 SCRA 921). And this administrative due process is recognized to include (a) the right to notice notice*, *, be it actual actual or constr construct uctive ive,, of the instit instituti ution on of the proceedings that may affect a person s legal rights; (b) reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his rights*, introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his favor: (c) a tribunal so constituted* as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality, and one of competent jurisdiction. and (d) a finding or decision by that tribunal tribunal supported supported by substanti substantial al evidence evidence* * presente presented d at the hearing, or at least contained in the records or disclosed to the parties affected ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS C.
Necessity for notice and hearing
In administrative cases, the general rule is that prior notice and hearing are necessary only where the law so requires. The inquiry should should therefore be into the enabling enabling statute which clothes an admi admini nist stra rati tive ve agen agency cy or offi office cerr with with cert certai ain n duti duties es and and respon responsib sibili ilitie ties s in the discha discharge rge of which which some some person persons s may adversely affected. Philippine Movie Pictures Wokers’ Association vs Premiere Productions, Inc., G.R. No. L-5621, 25 March 1953 Facts: Facts: The Court Court of Indust Industria riall Relati Relations ons author authorize ized d lay off of workers solely on the basis of an ocular inspection. Issue: WON the Court of Industrial Relations authorize the layoff of workers on the basis of an ocular inspections without receiving full evidence to determine the cause or motive of such a lay off Held: No. The required process has not been followed. The court of quo merely merely acted acted on the strength strength of the ocular ocular inspec inspectio tion n it
conduc conducted ted in the premis premises es of the respon responden dentt compan company y was incurring financial losses. The allegations cannot cannot be established by a mere inspection of the place of labor specially when conducted at the request of the interested. Mabuhay Textile Mills vs Ongpin 141 SCRA 437 Facts: Petitioner Mabuhay Textile Mills Corporation (Mabubay) is a corporation engaged in the garments and textile import business for for the the last last twen twenty ty-s -sev even en year years. s. Amon Among g the the gove govern rnme ment nt requirements for engaging in this type of business are the export quota allocations issued by the respondent Garments and Textile Export Board. Sometime in 1982, the Board granted export quota allocations for 1983 to the petitioner. petitioner. These These export export quotas quotas have have been granted granted annually annually to the Petitioner Petitioner since 1976. They are automatically automatically renewed every year provided the grantee has utilized its quotas during the previous years. On March 2, 1983, the petitioner received a letter from the Board informing it that its 1983 export quota allocations were revoked effective February 1983. Furthermore, its major stockholders and office officers rs were were also also distin distingui guishe shed d from from engag engaging ing in busine business ss activities involving garment and textile exports. Issue: WON the revocation of the quota is valid Held: "The summary revocation of the export quotas and export authoriza authorizations tions issued in favor favor of the petitioner petitioner without without hearing hearing violates not only the above-mentioned provisions of the Raise and Regulations of the respondent board but also the 'due proem of law' clause of the Constitution of the Philippines to the effect that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws.'(Article TV, Sec. 1. New Constitution). According to Daniel Webs Webste terr in the the Dart Dartmo mout uth h Coll Colleg ege e case case.. due due proe proem m is the the equivalent of the law; a law which hears before it condemns. which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society.' (cited in Philippine Constitutional Law, p. 168 by Neptali Gonzales, 1975 ed.)
68 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
"Administra "Administrative tive due process process requires requires that there be an impartial tribunal constituted to determine the right involved; that due notice notice and opportu opportunit nity y to be heard heard be given; given; that the procedure at the hearing be consistent with the essentials of a fair trial; and that the proceedings be conducted in such a way that there will be opportuni opportunity ty for a court court to determine determine whether whether the applicable rules of low and procedure were observed.' (42 Arm Jur. p. 451, cited by Neptali Gonzales, p. 183, Philippine Constitutional Law). " Privileges that had long been enjoyed transforms and becomes in the character of one’s property. Go vs NAPOLCOM 271 SCRA 447 Facts: This special civil action of certiorari to set aside the decision of the NAPOLCOM: The fact that the Jai alai bookies were operating in the house being occupied by herein respondent-appellant, the apprehension of his wife and brother in two (2) successive raids effected by law enforcement authority and his intercession for the dismissal dismissal of the case filed in conseque consequence nce thereof, are tangible tangible proofs that he was, indeed, an accessory - if not a principal - in said gambling operation. Petiti Petitione onerr mainta maintains ins that that he was not served served writte written n charge charges s and informed informed of the nature nature of such such charge charges; s; that that no hearing had actually been held by the summary dismissal board: and that at any rate he was not heard. Issue: WON the contention of petitioner is with merit Held: YES. We conclude that petitioner was denied the due process of law and that not even the fact that the charge against him is serious and evidence of his guilt is - in the opinion of his superiors strong can compensate for the procedural shortcut evident in the record of this case. It is precisely in cases such as this that the utmost care be exercised lest in the drive to clean up the ranks of the police those who are innocent are denied justice or, through blunder, those who are guilty are allowed to escape punishment. BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHTS; DUE PROCESS; OBSERVANCE OBSERVANCE THEREOF REQUIRED IN SUMMARY DISMISSAL.- Petitioner's case was decided under P.D. No. 971, as amended by P.D. No. 1707. While Sec. 8-A of the Decre Decree e author authorize izes s summar summary y dismis dismissal sals s "witho "without ut the
necessity of a formal investigation" of members of the INP "when the charge is serious and the evidence is strong," the Decree and the implementing rules nonetheless give the respondent the right to be furnished a copy of the complaint and to file an answer within thre three e (3) (3) days days.. The The filin filing g of char charge ges s and and the the allo allowa wanc nce e of reasonab reasonable le opportuni opportunity ty to responde respondent nt to answer answer the charges charges constitute the minimum requirements of due process. In summary dismissal proceedings it is mandatory that charges be specified in writing and that the affidavits in support thereof be attached to the complaint complaint because because these are the only ways by which evidence evidence against against the responde respondent nt can be brought to his knowledge. knowledge. The formal formal invest investiga igatio tion, n, which which is dispen dispensed sed with, with, refers refers to the presentation of witnesses by their direct examination and not to the requirement that the respondent be notified of the charges and given the chance to defend himself. ADMINIST ADMINISTRATIVE RATIVE PROCEEDIN PROCEEDINGS; GS; SUMMARY SUMMARY DISMISSAL DISMISSAL BOARD; BOARD; BASIS OF DECISION, DECISION, NOT PROPER.PROPER.- What the summary dismissal board appears to have done in this case was simply to receive the report on two raids allegedly conducted on petitioner's house in the course of which what were believed were gambling paraphernalia were allegedly found and two witnesses allegedly admitted they were collectors of petitioner and his brother Lolito Go. But the report report is not in the record record of this case which the NAPOLCOM transmitted to the Court. Nor does the decision of the summary summary dismissal dismissal board disclose disclose on what the supposed supposed report was based. This is in violation of the rule that in administrative proceedin proceedings gs "the decision must be rendered on the evidence contained in the record and disclosed to the party affected." In all probab probabili ility, ty, said said report report was not not in writin writing g and the supposed supposed testimonie testimonies s of the two witnesses witnesses were not taken down. This is evident from the decision of the board which refers to the result of an -investigation.- The facts found by the board were not the result of any investigation conducted by it but by some other group.
D.
Cold neutrality of a judge
A reviewing reviewing official official or body tasked to resolve resolve an appeal appeal must refrain refrain from participating participating in reviewing reviewing any decision decision rendered rendered or concurred by him in another official capacity. The reviewing officer must be other than the officer whose decision is under review, otherwise there would be no different views or there could be no real review of the case, in violation of due process of law.
69 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
Zamboanga Chromite Mining Mining Co. vs CA 94 SCRA 261 Facts: Facts: Director Director Gozon issued an order order dated dated October October 5, 1960 wher wherei ein n he dism dismis isse sed d the the case case file filed d by the the peti petiti tion oner ers s or protestants (Zambales Chromite Mining Co., Inc. or the group of Gonzalo P. Nava). In that case, they sought to be declared the rightful rightful and prior locators locators and possesso possessors rs of sixty-nine sixty-nine mining claims located in Santa Cruz, Zambales. On the basis of petitioners' evidence, Director Gozon found that the petitioners did not discover any mineral nor staked and located mining claims in accordance with law. The petitioners appealed from that order to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. While the appeal was pending. Director Gozon was appointed Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Instead of inhibiting himself, he decided the appeal, as if he was adjudicating the case for the first time. Thus, Secretary Gozon exercised appellate jurisdiction over a case which he had decided as Director Director of Mines. He acted acted as reviewing authority authority in the appeal from his own decision. Or, to use another analogy, he acted as trial judge and appellate judge in the same case. We hold that Secretary Gozon acted with grave abuse of discretion in reviewing his decision as Director of Mines. The palpably flagrant anomaly anomaly of a Secretary Secretary of Agriculture Agriculture and Natural Natural Resources Resources reviewing his own decision as Director of Mines is a mockery of administrative justice.The Mining Law, Commonwealth Act No. 137, provides: "SEC. "SEC. 61. Conflicts and disputes disputes arising out of mining locations locations shall be submitted to the Director of Mines for decision: "Provided, That the decision or or order of the Director Director of Mines may be appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources within thirty days from the date of its receipt. Issue: Issue: WON Petitione Petitioners-ap rs-appella pellant nt were deprived of due process process when Gozon reviewed his own decision Held: Held: Petitio Petitioner ners-a s-appe ppella llants nts were were depriv deprived ed of due proces process, s, meaning fundamental fairness, when Secretary Gozon reviewed his own decision as Director of Mines.
In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might might not turn out to be a farce, farce, the review reviewing ing officer officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review; otherwise otherwise,, there could be no different different view or there would be no real review of the case. The decision of the reviewing officer would be a biased view; inevitably, it would be the same view since being human, he would not admit that he was mistaken in his first view of the case. E. Prior notice and hearing, essential essential elements elements of procedural due process
In administrative cases, the general rule is that prior notice and hearing are necessary only where the law so requires. The inquiry should should therefore therefore be into the enabling enabling statute which clothes an admin adminis istr trat ativ ive e agen agency cy or offic officer er with with cert certai ain n dutie duties s and and respo responsi nsibil biliti ities es in the discha discharge rge of which which some some person persons s may adversely affected. Essential elements of due process: a. An impa impart rtia iall tribun tribunal al b. Due notice notice and and opportu opportunity nity to be heard heard be given given c. The proced procedure ure at the the hearing hearing be consist consistent ent with with the essentials of a fair trial d. The procee proceedings dings may be conduc conducted ted in such a way that there will be opportunity for the court to determine whether the applicable rules of law and procedure e. That the the decision decision or or ruling be be supported supported by by substant substantial ial evidence In administrative proceedings, due process has been recognized to include the following a. The right right to actual actual or or construc constructive tive notice notice… … b. A real real opport opportuni unity ty to be be heard… heard… c. A tribunal tribunal vested vested with with compete competent nt jurisdict jurisdiction… ion… d. A finding finding by said tribuna tribunall which is supporte supported d by substanti substantial al evidence
Villa vs Lazaro 189 SCRA 34
70 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Facts: Anita Villa was granted a building permit issued by the City Engineer to contrcust a funeral parlor. Following adverse judgment to the court in his suit to enjoin the construction of the funeral parlor, Veneracion, instead of appealing the judgment, lodged a compla complaint int with with the HSCR HSCR on substa substanti ntiall ally y the same same ground ground litigated litigated in the action – relative relative parlors’ distance distance from hospitals hospitals whether public or private. Villa received a telegram from the HSRC through through Commission Commissioner er Dizon Dizon requesting requesting “transmittal “transmittal of proof proof of locati location on cleara clearance nce grante granted d by this this Office Office.” .” Villa Villa sent sent a reply reply telegram reading: “Locational Clearance based on certification of City City Plan Planni ning ng and and Deve Develo lopm pmen entt Coor Coordi dina nato torr and and Huma Human n Settlement Officer, copies mail.” Subsequently, Villa received from Dizon an “Order to Present Proof of Locational Clearance. “ Since she had already sent the required locational clearance, Villa made no response. Then Villa received a “show cause” Order, requiring her to show cause why a fine should not be imposed on her or a cease-and cease-and desist desist order order issued issued against against her for her failure failure to show proof of locational clearance. In spite of her communication that she had already mailed all required documents, she received an Order imposing on her a fine of P10,000 and requiring her to cease operations, and later, a writ of execution in implementation of the order. A motion for reconsideration to which she attached copies of the Commission Proper was also denied on account of the finality of the Order. An appeal to the office of the Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs, and so was the motion for reconsideration. Noteworthy are the following: neither Veneracion nor the Commision, ever made known the complaint of Veneracion to Villa until until much much later, later, after after the Commis Commissio sion n has has rende rendered red severa severall adverse rulings against her; the orders of the Commission made no reference whatever to the documents Villa had already sent by registere registered d mail; and the resolutions resolutions of the President Presidential ial Assistant Assistant Lazaro likewise omitted to refer to the telegrams and documents sent by Veneracion Issue: Issue: WON Villa Villa was denied denied due due proces process s agains againstt which which the defense of failure of Villa to take timely appeal will not avail. Held: Yes. These facts present a picture of official incompetence or gross negligence negligence and abdication abdication of duty, duty, if not active active bias and partiality that is most reprehensible. The result has been to subvert and put to naught the judgment rendered in a suit regularly tried and decided by a court of justice, to deprive one party of rights confirmed and secured thereby and to accord her adversary, by
resorting to the prescribed practice of forum-shopping, the relief he had sought and had been denied in said case. The mischief done by the commissioner Dizon’s baffling failur failure e even even to acknow acknowled ledge ge the exist existenc ence e of the docum document ents s furnished furnished by petitione petitionerr was perpetua perpetuated ted by the “Commissio “Commissioner ner proper” and respondent Lazaro, who threw out petitioner’s appeals with no reference that would have been decisive. There was absolutely no excuse for initiating what is held out as an administrative proceeding against Villa without informing her of the complaint which initiated the case; for conducting that inqu inquir iry y in the the most most info inform rmal al mann manner er by mean means s only only of communication requiring submission of certain documents, which left the impression impression that compliance compliance was all that was expected expected of her her and with with which which direct directive ives s she prompt promptly ly and and religi religious ously ly complied. The court finds no merit in the proposition that relief is foreclosed to Villa because her motion for reconsideration of Nov. 22, 1982 was filed out of time. The very informal character of the so-called administrative proceedings, an informality for which Com. Dizon Dizon himsel himselff was responsi responsible ble and and which which he never never sought sought to rectify, militates against imposing strict observance of the limiting periods applicable to proceedings otherwise properly initiated and regularly conducted. RCA Communications vs PLDT 110 Phil 420 Facts Facts PLDTCO PLDTCO enter entered ed into into an agree agreemen mentt with the Americ American an Telephone and Telegraph Company, wherein both companies agreed to establish telephone services between the Philippines and the United United States States.. As it lacked lacked the necess necessary ary equipm equipment ent and faci facilit litie ies, s, PLDT PLDTCO CO on the the same same date date ente entere red d into into anot anothe herr agreement with RCA whereby the latter constituted itself a carrier of PLDTCO's telephone messages to and from the United States. The term of the agreement was for five years and "shall thereafter continue in force until terminated by either party giving the other 24 calendar months previous notice in writing." On Janu Januar ary y 3, 1956 1956,, PLDT PLDTCO CO sent sent RCA RCA a noti notice ce of termination of its arrangements with the latter, the same to be effective not later than February 2, 1958, and three months later, filed filed an appli applicat cation ion with with the Secre Secretar tary y of Public Public Works Works and Communications, through the Radio Control Board, for authority to construct construct and operate operate a radio-tele radio-telephon phonic ic station station of its own at
71 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Marilao, Bulacan, and for the assignment to It of appropriate radio frequencies. RCA filed a petition for prohibition) with the Court of First Instance of Manila to prevent the Secretary of Public Works and Communicat Communications ions and the Radio Radio Control Control Board Board from proceeding proceeding further further on PLDTCO's PLDTCO's pending pending applicatio application. n. The complaint alleged that that the the appr approv oval al by the the Secr Secret etar ary y of Publ Public ic Work Works s and and Communicat Communications ions of the construction construction permit in favor favor of PLDTCO PLDTCO withou withoutt previo previous us hearin hearing g and and opport opportuni unity ty to plaint plaintiff iff RCA to present present evidence in support support of its opposition opposition was without without due process of law. Issue: Whether or not RCA was denied of hearing and opportunity present case. Held: Held: No, No, that that in admin administ istrat rative ive procee proceedin dings, gs, hearin hearing g is only only necessary in those cases where the statute so requires. A cursory reading reading of the Radio Control Law (Act No. 3846, as amended) amended) shows that, unlike in other proceedings or instances specified in section section 3, paragrap paragraphs hs d and 1, of the said law, no, hearing is required in the consideration by the Secretary of Public Works and Comm Commun unic icat atio ions ns of any any appl applic icat atio ion n for for the the inst instal alla lati tion on,, establishment, or operation of a radio station (paragraph k). At any rate, even assuming assuming that a hearing hearing is required, required, RCA must be considere considered d to have waived waived its right thereto, thereto, its counsel counsel having addressed a letter to the Radio Control Board saying that "little would be gained by arguing the matter both before yourselves and before the Public Service Commission." Section 11 Book VII 1987 Admin Code Bolastig vs Sandiganbayan 235 SCRA 103
Facts: Facts: Petiti Petitione onerr Anton Antonio io M. Bolas Bolastig tig is govern governor or of Samar Samar.. inform informati ation on was filed filed agains againstt him and two others others for allege alleged d overpricing of 100 reams of onion skin paper in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019). That he and others wilfully and unlawfully enter into a purchase contract with REYNALDO ESPARAGUERRA, a private citizen, for the purchase purchase of certain certain office supplies, supplies, namely: namely: one hundred hundred (100)
reams of Onion Skin size 11" x 17" at a unit prim of Five Hundred Fifty pesos (P550.00) or a total price of Fifty-Five Thousand Pesos (P55 (P55,0 ,000 00.0 .00) 0),, which which cont contra ract ct was was mani manife fest stly ly and and gros grossl sly y disadvantageous disadvantageous to the government as the prevailing unit price for said item was only Fifty-Five Pews (P55.00) or a total price of Five Thousand Five Hundred Pews (P5,500.00), thereby causing undue inju injury ry to the the gove govern rnme ment nt in the the tota totall amou amount nt of Fort FortyyNineThou NineThousand sand Five Hundred Hundred Pesos Pesos (P49,500. (P49,500.00) 00) CONTRARY CONTRARY TO LAW. Petiti Petitione onerr was arraig arraigned ned on Janua January ry 5, 1993, 1993, whereu whereupon pon he entered a plea of "not guilty." On Januar January y 25, 1993, 1993, Specia Speciall Prosec Prosecuti ution on Office Officerr III Wilfre Wilfredo do Orenci Orencia a moved moved for petiti petitione oner's r's suspen suspensio sion, n, citing citing see. see. 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 which provides in part: Sec. 13. Suspension and loss of benefits.-Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under Title 7, Book 11 of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property, whether as a simple or as a complex offe offens nse e and and in what whatev ever er stag stage e of exec execut utio ion n and and mode mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Petitione Petitionerr opposed opposed the motion motion alleging alleging that preventiv preventive e suspension should therefore be ordered only when the legislative purpose purpose is achieved achieved,, that is, when "the suspension suspension order x x x prevent(s) the accused from using his office to influence potential witnes witnesses ses or tamper tamper with record records s which which may be vital vital in the prosec prosecuti ution on of the case case again against st him." him." Coroll Corollari arily, ly, when when the legislativ legislative e purpose purpose is not achieved, achieved, preventiv preventive e suspension suspension is improper and should not be decreed Issue: Whether or not preventive suspension was proper. Held: Yes, It is now settled that sec. 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend any public officer against whom a valid information charging violation of that law, Book II, Title 7 of the Revised Penal Code, or any offense involving involving fraud upon government government or public public funds funds or property property is filed.5 The court trying a case has neither discretion nor duty to determine whether preventive suspension is required to prevent the accuse accused d from from using using his office to intimi intimidat date e witnes witnesses ses or frustrate frustrate his prosecuti prosecution on or continue continue committing malfeasance malfeasance in
72 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer office. The presumption is that unIess the accused is suspended he may may frust frustra rate te his his pros prosec ecut utio ion n or comm commit it furt furthe herr acts acts of malfeasance or do both, in the same way that upon a finding that ther there e is prob probab able le caus cause e to beli believ eve e that that a crime crime has has been been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, the law requires the judge to issue a warrant fur the arrest of the accused. The law does not require the court to determine whether the accused is likely to escape or evade the jurisdiction of the court.
F.
Held: Ruling: No, Sec. 29 does not contemplate prior notice and hearing before a bank may be directed to stop operations and placed under receivership. When par. 4 (now par. 5, as amended by E.O. 289) provides for the filing of a case within ten (10) days after the receiver takes charge of the assets of the bank, it is unmistakable that the assailed assailed actions should precede precede the filing of the case. Plainly, the legislature could not have intended to authorize "no prior notice and hearing" in the closure of the bank and at the same time allow a suit to annul it on the basis of absence thereof. In the early case of Rural Bank of Lucena, Inc. v Arca [1965],17
Notice and hearing, when dispensed with 1. Where there is an urgent need for immediate action, like the summary abatement of a nuisance nuisance per se, the preventiv preventive e suspension suspension of public servant facing administrative charges;
It was held that that a hearing is nowhere nowhere required in Sec. Sec. 29 nor does the constitutional requirement of due process demand that the correctness of the. the. Monetary Board' Board' s resolution to stop operatio operation n and proceed to liquidation liquidation be first adjudged adjudged before before making making the resolution resolution effective, effective, It is enough that a subsequen subsequentt judicial review be provided. provided.
Central Bank vs CA 220 SCRA 536 Estate of Gregoria Francisco vs CA 199 SCRA 595 Facts: Monetary Board (MB)issued Resolution No. 596 ordering the closure of Triumph Savings Bank (TSB), forbidding it from doing business business in the Philippines, Philippines, placing placing it under under receivership receivership,, and appointing Ramon V. Tiaoqui as receiver. TSB filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City against Central Bank and Ramon V. Tiaoqui to annul MB Resolution No. 596, with prayer for injunction injunction,, challengin challenging g in the process the constituti constitutional onality ity of Sec. 29 of R.A. 269, otherwise known as 'The Central Bank Act," as amended, insofar as it authorizes the Central Bank to take over a banking institution even if it is not charged with violation of any few or regulation, much less found guilty thereof. The trial court granted the relief sought and denied the applicatio application n of TSB for injunction injunction.. Thereafte Thereafter, r, Triumph Triumph Savings Savings under the receivership of the officials of the Central Bank was done without prior hearing, that is, without first hearing the side of the bank. They further admit that said resolution can be the subject of judicial review and may be set aside should it be found that the same was issued with arbitrariness and in bad faith. Issue: Whether or not summary closure was "arbitrary and in bad faith" and a denial of "due process.
Facts The Philippine Ports Authority (Port of Zamboanga) issued to Tan Gin San, surviving spouse of Gregoria Francisco, a permit to occupy the lot where the building stands for a period of one (1) year, to expire on 31 December 1989. The permittee was using the Quonset (hut) for the storage of copra. Respondent Mayor, through respondent Municipal Action Officer, Officer, notified Tan Gin San by mail to remove remove or relocate its quon quonse sett buil buildi ding ng,, citi citing ng Zoni Zoning ng Ordi Ordina nanc nce e No. No. 147 147 of the the municipality; noting its antiquated and dilapidated structure; and. stress stressing ing the "clea "clean-u n-up p campa campaign ign on illegal illegal squatt squatters ers and unsan unsanita itary ry surrou surroundi ndings ngs along along Stron Strong g Boulev Boulevard ard.. Since Since the notifications remained unheeded by petitioner, Respondent Mayor ordered the demolition. Issue: Whether or not Respondent Mayor could summarily, without judicial process, order the demolition of petitioner's Quonset building. Ruling Ruling:: No, No, Petiti Petitione onerr was in lawful lawful posses possessio sion n of the lot and quonset building by virtue of a permit from the Philippine Ports Authority (Port of Zamboanga) when demolition was effected. It
73 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer was not squatting on public land. Its property was not of trifling value. value. It was entitled to an impartial impartial hearing hearing before a tribunal tribunal authorized to decide whether the quonset building did constitute a nuisance in law. There was no compelling necessity for precipitate action action.. It follow follows s then then that that respo responde ndent nt public public offici officials als of the Municipalit Municipality y of Isabela, Isabela, Basilan, Basilan, transcend transcended ed their authority authority in abatin abating g summar summarily ily petiti petitione oner's r's quonse quonsett buildi building. ng. They They had deprived petitioner of its property without due process of law. The fact that petitioner filed a suit for prohibition and was subsequently heard thereon will not cure the defect, as opined by the Court of Appeal Appeals, s, the demoli demolitio tion n having having been been a fait fait accomp accompli li prior prior to hearing hearing and the authority authority to demolish demolish without a judicial judicial order being a prejudicial issue. Sitchon vs Aquino 98 Phil 458 2. Where there is tentativeness of administrative action; where the respondent is not precluded precluded from enjoying the right to notice and hearing hearing at a later time without without prejudice to the person affected, such as the summary distraint and levy of the property of a delinquent taxpayer and the replacement of a temporary appointee;
Lastimosa vs Vasquez 243 SCRA 497 Facts: Facts: Petitione Petitionerr Gloria Gloria G. Lastimosa Lastimosa is First Assistant Assistant Provincia Provinciall Prosecutor Prosecutor of Cebu. Cebu. Because Because she and the Provincia Provinciall Prosecutor Prosecutor refused, or at any rate failed, to file a criminal charge of attempted rape to the Municipal Mayor of Santa Fe, Rogelio Ilustrisimo as ordered by the Ombudsman, an administrative complaint for grave misconduct, insubordination, gross neglect of duty and maliciously refraining from prosecuting crime was filed against her and the Provin Provincia ciall Prosec Prosecuto utorr and and a charge charge for indire indirect ct contem contempt pt was brought against them, both in the Office of the Ombudsman and were were placed placed under under preven preventiv tive e suspe suspensi nsion on.. It appea appears rs that that petitione petitionerr conducted conducted a preliminary preliminary investigatio investigation n on the basis of which which she found found that that only only acts acts of lasciv lasciviou iousne sness ss had been committed. Issues:
1.
Whethe Whetherr the Office Office of the Ombud Ombudsma sman n has the power power to call call on the the Prov Provin inci cial al Pros Prosec ecut utor or to assi assist st it in the the prosecution of the case for attempted rape against Mayor Ilustrisimo.
2.
Whethe Whetherr or not the preven preventiv tive e suspensi suspension on is invalid invalid as it denied denied them opportunity opportunity to refute refute the charges against them
Ruling: 1. Yes, Yes, The offic office e of the Ombud Ombudsm sman an has has the the powe powerr to "investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, employee, office or agency, agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient." 14 This power has been held to include the investigation and prosecuti prosecution on of any crime committed by a public public official official regardless of whether the acts or omissions complained of are related related to, or connec connected ted with, or arise arise from, from, the performance of his official duty 15 It is enough that the act or omission was committed by a public official. Hence, the crime of rape, when committed by a public official like a municipal mayor, is within the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute. 2. No, No, Prio Priorr noti notice ce and and hear hearin ing g is a not not requ requir ired ed,, such such suspension not being a penalty but only a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. As held in Nera v. Garcia: In connectio connection n with the suspension suspension of petitione petitionerr befor before e he could could file file his answer answer to the admini administr strati ative ve complaint, suffice it to say that the suspension was not a punis punishme hment nt or penalt penalty y for the acts of disho dishones nesty ty and misconduc misconductt in office, but only as a preventiv preventive e measure. measure. Suspe Suspensi nsion on is a prelimi preliminar nary y step step in an admini administr strati ative ve investigation. If after such investigation, the charges are established and the person investigated is found guilty of acts acts warran warrantin ting g his removal, removal, then then he is remov removed ed or dismissed. This is the penalty. There is, therefore, nothing improper in suspending an officer pending his investigation and before the opportunity to prove his innocence.
74 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
3. Wher Where e the the twin twin righ rights ts have have prev previo ious usly ly been been offered but the right to exercise them had not been claimed. •
•
•
Where the law is silent on prior notice and hearing as a requirement before an agency action, which refers to the whole or part of every agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief or i ts equivalent or denial thereof, can be done, compliance with the requirement of prior notice and hearing depends upon the nature of the power to be exercised or the end to be achieved. Prior notice and hearing is not required in the exercise of police power Prior notice and hearing is not required in granting provisional reliefs Asprec vs Itchon 16 SCRA 921
Facts: Facts: Responde Respondent nt Jacinto Jacinto Hernandez Hernandez lodged with the Board of Exam Examin iner ers s for for Surv Survey eyor ors s admin adminis istr trat ativ ive e comp compla lain int2 t2 for for unprof unprofess ession ional al conduc conductt agains againstt petiti petitione onerr Cleto Cleto Asprec Asprec.. He requested Asprec to undertake survey on his lot in Port Junction, Ragay, Camarines Sur. That no survey was conducted and that it was a mere copy of one Damian Alham. that Asprec was guilty of deceit deceit and thus violated the Code of Ethics Ethics for surveyors. surveyors. The Board's Board's unanimous unanimous decision decision of October October 27, 1959 revoked, revoked, and required required surrender surrender of, Asprec's certificate certificate of registrati registration on as a private private land surveyor. surveyor. A complaint complaint was but was absent absent in the hearing. Issue: Whether or not petitioner was denied his right to present his case. Ruling: No, petitioner has had more than ample opportunity to defe nd himself before the Board. As he and counsel did not appear at t he last and stipulated date of bearing, he cannot look to the law or to a judicial tribunal to whipsaw the Board into giving him a new on e. He cannot raise his voice in protest against the act of the Board i
n proceeding in his and his counsel's absence. And this because wi thout cause or reason, without any excuse at all, counsel and client have chosen to shy away from the trial. Presence of a party at a tri al, petitioner concedes, is not always of the essence of due proces s. Really, all that the law requires to satisfy adherence to this const itutional precept is that the parties be given notice of the trial, an o pportunity to be heard. Petitioner had notice of the trial of May 11t h. More than this, that date of trial (May 11) had been previously a greed upon by the parties and their counsel. Petitioner cannot now charge that he received less-than-a-fair-treatment. less-than-a-fair-treatment. He has forfeited his right to be heard in his defense.6 Petitioner insists that the proceeding before the Board are quasi-criminal in nature. From this he proceeds to draw the conclus ion that no valid trial could proceed even if he absented himself th erefrom. We do not see eye to eye with this view. It is best answer ed by a reference to the opinion of the court below, thus The rule a pplies even to quasi-criminal or criminal proceedings. So, where th e respondent in a petition for contempt failed to appear on the dat e set for the hearing, of which he was previously notified, it was hel d that he was not deprived of his day in court when the judge order ed him arrested unless he pay the support he was adjudged to giv e, he having been given an opportunity to be heard Banco Filipino vs Central Bank 204 SCRA 767 G.
Notice and hearing in rate-fixing
As a general rule, a public utility must be afforded some opportunity to be heard as to the propriety and reasonableness reasonableness of rates fixed for its services by a public service commission
Vigan Electric Light vs PSC 10 SCRA 46 Facts: Republic Act No. 316, granted petitioner Vigan Electric Light Company, Inc., a franchise to construct, maintain and operate an electric light heat and/or power plant for the purpose of generating and distributing light, heat and/or power, for sale within the limits of several Municipalities of the province of Ilocos Sur.
75 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Petitioner received a letter of respondent informing the former of an alleged letter-petition of "Congressman Floro Crisologo and 107 alleged residents of Vigan, Ilocos, Sur", charging the following: The sale of 2,000 ELECTRIC METERS in blackmarket by the Vigan Electric Light Company to Avegon Co., as anomalous and illegal and also report report that that the electric electric meters meters in Vigan Vigan used used by the consum consumers ers had been instal installed led in bad bad faith faith and they they regist register er excessive rates much more than the actual consumption. The f inding that the Vigan Electric Light Co., Inc. is making a net operating profit in excess of the allowable return of 12% on its invested capital, we believe that it is in the public interest and in consonance with Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3043 that reduction of its rates to the extent of its excess revenue be put into effect immediately. Vigan Vigan Electr Electric ic Light Light Co., Co., Inc. Inc. is hereby hereby ordered ordered to reduce reduce the present meter rates for its electric service effective upon the billing for the month of June, 1962 Petitioner herein instituted the present action for certiorari to annul said order of May 17, 1962, upon the ground that, latter had not furnis furnished hed the former former a "copy "copy of the alleg alleged ed letter letter-pe -petit tition ion of Congressman Crisologo and others. Respondent then expressed the view that there was no necessity of serving copy of said letter to petitione petitioner, r, because because responde respondent nt was merely holding holding informal informal conferences to ascertain whether petitioner would consent to the reduction of its rates. That petitioner had not even been served a copy of the auditor's report upon which the order complained of is based based,, that that such such order order had had been been issued issued without without notice notice and and hearing; hearing; and that, that, according accordingly, ly, petitione petitionerr had been denied denied due process. Issue: WON the twin notice of hearing is required in rate fixing? Rulig: The hold that the determination of the issue involved in the order order complaine complained d of partakes partakes of the nature of a quasi-jud quasi-judicial icial function and that, having been issued without previous notice and hearing, hearing, said order order is clearly violative of the due process process clause, clause, and, hence, null and void. Whethe Whetherr notic notice e and a heari hearing ng is procee proceedin dings gs before before a publi public c service commission are necessary depends chiefly upon statutory or constitutional provisions applicable to such proceedings, which make make noti notice ce and and hear hearin ing, g, prer prereq equi uisi site te to acti action on by the the
commission, and upon the nature and object of such proceedings, that is, whether the proceedings, are on the one hand, legislative and and rule rule-m -mak akin ing g in char charac acte terr (SUB (SUBJE JECT CT TO STAT STATUT UTOR ORY Y REQUIREME REQUIREMENTS, NTS, ON DUE PROCESS), PROCESS), or are, on the other hand, hand, determinative and judicial or quasi-judicial (IN ALL INSTANCES, DUE PROCES PROCESS S IS REQUI REQUIRED RED), ), affect affecting ing the rights rights and proper property ty of private or specific persons. As a gene genera rall rule rule,, a publ public ic utili utility ty must must be affo afford rded ed some some opportunity to be heard as to the propriety and reasonableness of rates fixed for its services by a public service commission.
H.
Motion for reconsideration as a cure
The rule that the filling of a MR of the decision /ruling against a party cures the defect in the lack of prior notice and hearing as to preclude the party from claiming denial of due process assumes that the other requirements of due process have been complied with. However such opportunity is nothing and he is still denied due due proces process, s, where where the decision decision against against him has nothing nothing to support support itself, one of the cardinal cardinal requirements requirements of due process being that the decision or ruling of an administrative body must be supported by substantial evidence.
Medenilla vs CSC 194 SCRA 278 Facts: Petitioner Medenilla is a contractual employee of DPWH as Public Officer II. Later on, she was detailed as Technical Assistant in the the offi office ce of the the assi assist stan antt secr secret etar ary y for for the the admi admin. n. and and manpower management. On Jan. 2, 1989, petitioner was appointed to the contes contested ted positio position n of Super Supervis vising ing Human Human Res Resour ource ce Devel Developm opment ent Office Officer. r. Res Respo ponde ndents nts {being {being the next-i next-in-r n-rank ank-employees} jointly jointly lodged a protest protest before the DPWH task force re-organization contesting the appointment of petitioner. The task force dismissed the protest of the respondents thereby appealing before the Civil Service Commission. The Commission disapproved the appointme appointment nt of the petitioner petitioner reversing reversing the ruling ruling of task force. Petitioner filed a ‘motion for reconsideration” before the CSC but to no avail, avail, hence , the petition petition then was filed before before the Supreme Court.
76 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Issue: WON CSC is correct in disapproving the appointment of petitioner and that WON the petitioner was denied of due process of law in the absence of notice? Rulin Ruling: g: The The Supr Suprem eme e Cour Courtt rule ruled d that that CSC CSC is inco incorr rrec ectt in disapproving the appointment of petitioner. The CSC is limited only to determine determine whether the appointee appointee possesses possesses the appropria appropriate te civil service eligibility and not whether another is more qualified than the petitioner. Petitioner was not notified of the appeal before the Commission. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice notice but the absolute absence absence and lack of opportuni opportunity ty to be hear heard. d. Any Any defe defect ct may may be cure cured d by the the filin filing g of moti motion on of reconsideration. i.
Righ Rightt to to co counse unsel, l, not not a due due pro proce cess ss requ requir irem eme ent
There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a party in a non-criminal proceeding is entitled to be represented by counsel and that, without such representation, he shall not be bound by such proceedings Lumiqued vs Exevea 282 SCRA 125 Facts: Facts: Arseni Arsenio o P. Lumiqu Lumiqued ed was the Regional Regional Direct Director or of the Departmen Departmentt of Agrarian Agrarian Reform Reform - Cordillera Cordillera Autonomous Autonomous Region Region (DAR-CAR) until President Fidel V. Ramos dismissed him from that position pursuant to Administrative Order No. 52 dated May 12, 1993. 1993. In view of Lumiqued's Lumiqued's death death on May 19, 1994, his heirs instituted instituted this petition petition for certiorari certiorari and mandamus mandamus,, questioni questioning ng such order. The dismissal was the aftermath of three complaints filed by DARCAR Regional Regional Cashier Cashier and private responden respondentt Jeannette Jeannette ObarObarZamudio with the Board of Discipline of the DAR. The first affidavitcomplaint complaint dated Novembe Novemberr 16, 1989,1 charged charged Lumiqued Lumiqued with malversation through falsification of official documents. From May to Septembe Septemberr 1989, 1989, Lumiqued Lumiqued allegedly allegedly committed committed at least 93 counts of falsification by padding gasoline receipts.
Follo Followin wing g the conclu conclusio sion n of the hearin hearings, gs, the invest investiga igatin ting g comm commit itte tee e rend render ered ed a repo report rt date dated d July July 31, 31, 1992 1992,, findi finding ng Lumiqued liable for all the charges against him. The investigating committee recommended Lumiqued's dismissal or remov removal al from from office office,, withou withoutt prejud prejudice ice to the filing filing of the appropriate criminal charges against him. This instant petition for certiorari and mandamus praying for the reversal of the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Committee, the October October 22, 22, 1992, Memorandum of then Justice Secretary Drilon, A.O. No. 52 issued by President Ramos, and the orders orders of Secret Secretary ary Quisum Quisumbin bingit git prays prays for the "payme "payment nt of retiremen retirementt benefits benefits and other benefits benefits accorded accorded to deceased deceased Arsenio Lumiqued by law, payable to his heirs; and the backwages from the period he was dismissed from service up to the time of his death on May 19, 1994. ISSUE: WON the due process clause encompass the right to be assisted by counsel during an administrative inquiry? RULING: While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to a criminal criminal proceeding proceeding,, the fact remains that under under existing existing laws, a party in an administrative inquiry may may or may not be assisted assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent's capacity to represent himself and and no duty rests in such such a body body to furnis furnish h the person person being investigated with counsel,28 In an administrative proceeding such as the one that transpired below, a respondent (such as Lumiqued) has has the option option of engaging engaging the services services of counsel or not. Excerpts Excerpts from the transcript transcript of stenogra stenographic phic notes of hearings hearings attended by Lumigued clearly show that he was confident of his capacity and so opted he represent himself. The hearing conducted by the investigating committee was not part of a criminal prosecution. prosecution. This was even made more pronounced when, after after finding Lumiqued administratively liable, it hinted hinted at the filing of a criminal criminal case for malversati malversation on through falsification of public documents in its report and recommendation.
77 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer IV. IV.
Doct Doctri rine ne of Prim Primar ary y Juri Jurisd sdic icti tion on A.
Definition and objective
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction jurisdiction requires that a plaintiff should first seek relief in an administrative proceeding before he seeks a remedy in court, even though the matter is properly presented to the court, which is within its jurisdiction. The court will not determine a controversy: 1.
2. 3.
Where Where the question question deman demands ds adminis administrativ trative e determination requiring special knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal Where Where the question question requires requires determin determination ation of of technical technical and intricate issues of fact Where Where uniformity uniformity of ruling ruling is is essential essential to comply comply with with the purposes of the regulatory statute administered. Industrial Enterprises vs CA, 184 SCRA 426
Smart Communications vs NTC G.R. No. 151908 12 August 2003 Facts: Facts: Petiti Petitione oners rs Isla Isla Com Commun munica icatio tions ns Co., Co., Inc. Inc. and Pilipi Pilipino no Telephone Corporation filed against the National Telecommunications Commission, Commissioner Joseph A. Santiago Santiago,, Deputy Deputy Commission Commissioner er Aurelio Aurelio M. Umali and Deputy Deputy Commission Commissioner er Nestor Nestor C. Dacanay, Dacanay, an action action for declaration declaration of nullity nullity of NTC Memorandum Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-200 13-6-2000 0 (the Billing Circular). Circular). Petitioners Petitioners allege that the NTC has no jurisdiction jurisdiction to regulate the sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since such jurisdiction belongs to the Department of Trade and Industry under the Consumer Act of the Philippines; that the Billing Circ Circul ular ar is oppr oppres essi sive ve,, conf confis isca cato tory ry and and viol violat ativ ive e of the the constitutional prohibition against deprivation of property without due process of law; that the Circular will result in the impairment of the viability of the prepaid cellular service by unduly prolonging the validity and expiration of the prepaid SIM and call cards; and that the requirements of identification of prepaid card buyers and call balance announcement are unreasonable. Hence, they prayed that the Billing Circular be declared null and void ab initio.
Held Held:: Peti Petiti tion ons s are are gran grante ted. d. The The issu issuan ance ce by the the NTC NTC of Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 and its Memorandum dated Octobe Octoberr 6, 2000 2000 was pursua pursuant nt to its quasiquasi-leg legisl islati ative ve or rulerulemaking power. As such, petitioners were justified in invoking the judicial power of the Regional Trial Court to assail the constitutionality and validity of the said issuances. What is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the admini administr strati ative ve agency agency in the perfor performan mance ce of its quasiquasilegislativ legislative e function, function, the regular regular courts courts have jurisdiction jurisdiction to pass upon the same. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution constitution is within the jurisdiction jurisdiction of the regular courts. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the powe powerr to decl declar are e a law, law, trea treaty ty,, inte intern rnat atio iona nall or exec execut utiv ive e agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts.25 This is within the scope of judicial power, which includes the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments.26 Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice justice to settle settle actual actual controver controversies sies involving involving rights rights which are legally legally demandab demandable le and enforceable, enforceable, and to deter determin mine e whethe whetherr or not not there there has been a grave grave abuse abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
B. Distingui Distinguished shed from the doctrine doctrine of exhaustio exhaustion n of administrative remedies
DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES applies wher where e a clai claim m is cogn cogniz izab able le in the the firs firstt inst instan ance ce by an administra administrative tive agency; agency; judicial judicial intervent intervention ion is withheld withheld until the administrative process has run its course. PRIMAR PRIMARY Y JURISD JURISDICT ICTION ION appli applies es where where a claim claim is origin originall ally y cogn cogniz izab able le in the the cour courts ts,, and and come comes s into into play play when whenev ever er enforcement of claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regula regulator tory y scheme scheme,, have have been been placed placed within within the specia speciall competence of an administrative body; in such a case the judicial proces process s is suspe suspende nded d pendin pending g referr referral al of such such issues issues to the administrative body for its views
Issue :WON the RTC has jurisdiction of the case Felizardo vs CA 233 SCRA 220
78 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer C.
Effect of doctrine
admin administ istrat rative ive tribuna tribunall matters of fact.
to determ determine ine techni technical cal and intric intricate ate
Villaflor vs CA 280 SCRA 327 FACT: This is petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals, affirming the dismissal by the trial court of Petitioner Petitioner Vicente Villaflor complaint complaint against against Private Respondent Nasipit Lumber Co., Inc. Villaflor in a Lease Agreement leased to Nasipit Lumber Co., Inc. a parcel of land. Villaflor claimed having discovered that after the execution of the lease agreement, that Nasipit Lumber 'in bad faith surreptiti surreptitiously ously grabbed and occupied occupied a big portion of plaintiff's plaintiff's property. Villafl Villaflor or execu executed ted a docume document, nt, denom denomina inated ted as a 'Deed 'Deed of Relinquishment of Rights, in favor of Nasipit Lumber. The Director of Lands issued an 'Order of Award in favor of Nasipit Lumber Company, Inc. Villaflor Villaflor filed with the Bureau of Lands, he protested protested the Sales Application of Nasipit Lumber, claiming that the company has not paid him P5,000.00 as provided in the Deed of Relinquishment of Rights. The Director of Lands found that the payment of the amount of P5,000.00 in the Deed xxx and the consideration in the Agreement to Sell were duly proven, and ordered the dismissal of Villaflor's protest and gave due course to the Sales Application of Nasipit Lumber. ISSUE: WON the director of land has primary jurisdiction over the case? RULING: Primary Jurisdiction of the Director of Lands and Finality of Factual Findings of the Court of Appeals Underlyin Underlying g the rulings of the trial and appellate appellate courts is the doctrine of primary Jurisdiction; courts cannot and will not resolve a controversy involving a question which is within the Jurisdiction of an admini administr strati ative ve tribuna tribunal, l, especi especiall ally y where where the questi question on demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the the spec specia iall know knowle ledg dge, e, expe experi rien ence ce and and serv servic ices es of the the
The rationale underlying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction finds application in this case, since the questions on the identity of the land in dispute and the factual qualification of private respondent as an awar awarde dee e of a sale sales s appl applic icat atio ion n requ requir ire e a tech techni nica call determination by the Bureau of Lands as the administrative agency with the expertise expertise to determine determine such matters. matters. Because Because these issues preclude prior judicial determination, it behooves the courts to stand aside even when they apparently have statutory power to proc procee eed, d, in reco recogn gnit itio ion n of the the prima primary ry Juri Jurisd sdic ictio tion n of the the administrative agency. Machete vs CA 250 SCRA 176 Facts: Facts: Celestino Celestino Villalon filed a complaint complaint for collection collection of back rentals and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City City again against st petiti petitione oners rs Lope Lope Mache Machete te and 11 others others.. The compla complaint int alleg alleged ed that that the partie parties s entere entered d into into a leaseh leasehold old agreemen agreementt with respect respect to Villanon’s Villanon’s landholdings landholdings at Poblacion Poblacion Norte, Norte, Carmen, Bohol, under which Machete Machete et al. were to pay privat private e respon responde dent nt a certai certain n amo amount unt or percen percentag tage e of their their harvests. However, despite repeated demands and with no valid reason, reason, Machete Machete et al. failed failed to pay their respective respective rentals. rentals. Private respondent thus prayed that petitioners be ordered to pay him back rentals and damages. Machete et al. moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject matter. They conten contended ded that the case arose arose out of or was connecte connected d with agrarian relations, hence, the subject matter of the complaint fell squarely squarely within the jurisdiction jurisdiction of the Department Department of Agrarian Agrarian Reform (DAR) in the exercise of its quasi-judicial powers under the Revised Rules of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and later denied the motion motion for reconside reconsideration ration.. On appeal, appeal, the petitione petitioners rs maintain maintain that the alleged cause of action of private respondent arose from an agrarian relation and that respondent appellate court failed to consider that the agreement involved is an agricultural leasehold contra contract, ct, hence, hence, the dispute dispute is agrari agrarian an in nature nature.. The laws
79 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer governing governing its execution execution and the rights rights and obligations obligations of the parries thereto are necessarily R.A. 3844, R.A. 66577 and other pertin pertinent ent agrari agrarian an laws. laws. Consid Consideri ering ng that that the applic applicati ation, on, implementa implementation, tion, enforcement enforcement or interpreta interpretation tion of said laws are matters which have been vested in the DAR, this case is outside the jurisdiction of the trial court. The CA found the petition to be impressed with merit. E.O. 2298 vested the DAR DAR with quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters as well as exclusive exclusive original jurisdiction jurisdiction over all matters involving involving implementation of agrarian reform except those failing under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the the Depa Depart rtme ment nt of Envi Enviro ronm nmen entt and and Natu Natura rall Reso Resour urce ces s in accordance with law, hence, this case. Issue: WON the CA’s decision is correct. Ruling: There exists an agrarian dispute in the case at bench which is exclusively cognizable by the DARAB. The failure of petitioners to pay back rentals pursuant to the leasehold contract with private resp respon onde dent nt is an issu issue e whic which h is clea clearl rly y beyo beyond nd the the lega legall competence competence of the trial court court to resolve. The doctrine of primary primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority authority to resolve resolve a controve controversy rsy the jurisdiction jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence. Thus, respondent appellate court erred in directing the trial court to assume jurisdiction over this case. At any rate, the present legal battle is "not altogether lost" on the part of private respondent because as this Court was quite emphatic in Quismundo v. Court o Appeals,the resolution by the DAR is to the best advantage of the parties since it is in a better position to resolve agrarian disputes, being being the admini administr strati ative ve agency agency presum presumabl ably y posses possessin sing g the necessary necessary expertise expertise on the matter. matter. Further, Further, the proceedin proceedings gs therein are summary in nature and the department is not bound by the technical technical rules of procedure procedure and evidence evidence,, to the end that agrarian reform disputes and other issues will be adjudicated in a just, expeditious and inexpensive proceeding. The decision of responden respondentt Court of Appeals Appeals as well as its resolution resolution denying reconsider reconsideration ation is REVERSED REVERSED and SET ASIDE. ASIDE. The orders of the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City dated 22 August and 28 September 1989 are REINSTATED. Director of Lands vs CA 194 SCRA 224
Provident Tree Farms vs Batario 231 SCRA 463 Facts Facts : PETITION PETITIONER ER PROVIDENT PROVIDENT TREE FARMS, FARMS, INC. (PTFI), is a Philippine corporation engaged in industrial tree planting. It grows gubas gubas trees in its plantatio plantations ns in Agusan Agusan and Mindoro Mindoro which it supplies supplies to a local match manufacturer manufacturer solely for productio production n of matche matches. s. In conson consonanc ance e with with the state state policy policy to encour encourage age qualified persons to engage in industrial tree plantation, Sec. 36, par. (1), of the Revised Revised Forestry Forestry Code 1 confers on entities entities like PTFI a set of incentives among which is a qualified ban against import importati ation on of woo wood d and "wood"wood-de deriv rivate ated" d" produc products. ts. Privat Private e respondent A. J. International Corporation (AJIC) imported four (4) contai containe ners rs of matche matches s from from Indon Indonesi esia, a, which which the Burea Bureau u of Customs, and two (2) more containers of matches from Singapore. Upon request of of PTFI, Secretary Fulgencio Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., of the Departmen Departmentt of Natural Natural Resources Resources and Enviro Environmen nmentt issued issued a certification that "there are enough available softwood supply in the Philippines for the match industry at reasonable price." PTFI then filed with the Region Regional al Court Court of Manila Manila a complaint complaint for for injunction and damages with prayer prayer for a temporary restraining order against respondents Commissioner of Customs and AJIC to enjoin enjoin the latter latter from importing importing matches and "wood-derivat "wood-derivative" ive" products, and the Collector of Customs from allowing and releasing the importations. AJIC moved to dismiss the case asseverating that the enforcement of the import ban under Sec. 36, par. (1), of the Revised Forestry Code is within the exclusive realm of the Bureau of Customs, and direct recourse of petitioner to the Regional Trial Court to compel the Commissioner of Customs to enforce the ban is devoid of any legal basis. Issue : WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the case. Ruling Ruling : PTFI's PTFI's correspo corresponde ndence nce with with the Bureau Bureau of Custom Customs s contesting the legality of match importations may already take the nature nature of an administrative administrative proceeding proceeding the pendency pendency of which would preclude the court from interfering with it under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Under Under the sense-ma sense-making king and expeditio expeditious us doctrine doctrine of primary primary jurisdiction . . . the courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of an admin administ istrat rative ive tribun tribunal, al, where where the questi question on demand demands s the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special
80 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer knowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determ determine ine techni technical cal and intricat intricate e matter matters s of fact, fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with the purposes of the regula regulator tory y statut statute e admini administe stered red (Pambu (Pambujan jan Sur United United Mine Mine Workers v. Samar Mining Co., Inc., 94 Phil. 932, 941 [1954].). In this this era of clogge clogged d court court docke dockets, ts, the need for speciali specialized zed administrative boards or commissions with the special knowledge, experience and capability to hear and determine promptly disputes on technical technical matters matters or essential essentially ly factual factual matters, matters, subject subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion, has become well nigh indispensable . . . Moreover Moreover,, however however cleverly the complaint complaint may be worded, worded, the ultimate relief sought by PTFI is to compel the Bureau of Customs to seize seize and forfeit forfeit the match importat importation ions s of AJIC. AJIC. Since Since the determination to seize or not to seize is discretionary upon the Bureau of Customs, the same cannot be subject of mandamus. But this this does does not preclud preclude e recour recourse se to the courts courts by way of the extraordinary relief of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court if the Bureau of Customs should gravely abuse the exercise of its jurisdiction. Otherwise stated, the court cannot compel an agency to do a partic particula ularr act or to enjoin enjoin such act which which is with with its prerogative; except when in the excrcise of its authority it claerly abuses or exceeds its jurisdiction. In the case at bench, we have no occassion occassion to rule on the issue of grave grave abuse of discretion discretion as excess of jurisdiction as it is not before us. Philippine Veterans Bank vs CA 322 SCRA 139 Facts: Facts: Philippine Philippine Veterans Veterans Bank owned four parcels parcels of land in Tagum, Davao, which are covered by Transfer Certificates. The lands lands were were taken taken by the Depar Departme tment nt of Agrari Agrarian an Refor Reform m for distributio distribution n to landless landless farmers farmers pursuant pursuant to the Comprehe Comprehensive nsive Agrari Agrarian an Refor Reform m Law (R.A. (R.A. No. No. 6657). 6657). Dissat Dissatisf isfied ied with with the valuat valuation ion of the land made made by respon responden dents ts Land Land Bank Bank of the Philippines and the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), petitioner filed a petition for a determination of the just compensation for its property. The petition was filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Tagum, Davao, which dismissed the petiti petition on on the ground ground that that it was filed beyond beyond the 15-day 15-day reglem reglement entary ary period period for filing filing appeal appeals s from from the orders orders of the DARAB. Since this case was filed only on January 26, 1994, the
fifteen-day period provided for under Section 51 of Republic Act 6657 which is the Comprehensi Comprehensive ve Agrarian Agrarian Reform Law within within which to appeal, already lapsed. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision was affirmed. It was held that: Jurisdiction over land valuation cases is lodged in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatio Adjudication n Board, Board, as is plainly provided provided under under Rule II of the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but its motion was likewise denied. Hence, this petition for review. Petitione Petitionerr argues argues that DAR adjudicat adjudicators ors have no jurisdictio jurisdiction n to determine the just compensation for the taking of lands under the Comp Compre rehe hens nsiv ive e Agra Agrari rian an Refo Reform rm Prog Progra ram, m, beca becaus use e such such jurisdiction is vested in Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Agrarian Courts and, therefore, therefore, a petition petition for the fixing of just compensa compensation tion can be filed beyond beyond the 15-day period of appeal appeal provided from the decision of the DAR adjudicator.On the other hand, hand, respon responden dents ts argue argue that that action actions s for the fixing fixing of just just compensation must be filed in the appropriate courts within 15 days from receipt of the decision of the DAR adjudicator, otherwise such decision becomes final and executory, pursuant to §51 of R.A. No. 6657. Issue: Which contention is meritorious? Ruling Ruling:: Petitio Petitioner ner's 's conten contentio tion n has no merit. merit. R.A. R.A. No. 6657 6657 provides provides:: The DAR is hereby hereby vested with primary primary jurisdictio jurisdiction n to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclu exclusiv sive e origin original al jurisd jurisdict iction ion over over all matter matters s involv involving ing the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Departmen Departmentt of Environme Environment nt and Natural Natural Resources Resources (DENR) . . . .The Special Special Agrarian Agrarian Courts shall have original original and exclusive exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offens offenses es under this Act. Act. The The Rules Rules of Court Court shall shall apply apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act. The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under under their their specia speciall jurisd jurisdict iction ion within within thirty thirty (30) (30) days days from from submission of the case for decision. D.
When doctrine does not apply
81 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
Where the administrative agency has no jurisdiction, the doctrine does not apply. It does not apply in any of the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
based on such closure. Not every activity inside a forest area is subject to the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Forest Development. V.
Doct Doctri rine ne of exha exhaus ustio tion n of of adm admin inis istr trat ativ ive e rem remed edie ies s
Lagua vs Cusi 160 SCRA 260 A.
Facts : This petition for mandamus originated from a complaint for damage damages s which which was instit institute uted d by the petiti petitione oners rs agains againstt the private respondents for closing a logging road without authority. From the facts, petitioners were hauling logs to be loaded on a vessel. vessel. Private Private responde respondent nt EastCoas EastCoastt ordered ordered the closure closure of the road, a national highway, through their security force, to prevent passage of the trucks hauling the logs for the Japanese vessel. Private respondent claim that they were the only authorized timber licensee to use the road. Petitioners filed a case before the trial court, which was dismissed on lack of jurisdiction, the court a quo holding that the issue is within the realm of the Bureau of Forestry which should have heard the case before filing t case in court. Issue : WON the j urisdiction of the Bureau of Forestry applies. Held Held : The petition petitioners ers mainta maintain in that that since since their their action action is for damages, damages, the regular regular courts courts have jurisdiction jurisdiction over the same. According to them, the respondent court had no basis for holding that the Bureau of Forestry Development must first determine that the closure of a logging road is illegal before an action for damages can be instituted. P.D. No. 705 upon which the respondent court based its order does not vast any power in the Bureau Bureau of Fores Forestt Develo Developme pment nt to determine whether or not the closure of a logging road is legal or illegal and to make such determination a pre-requisite before an action for damages may be maintained. Moreover, the complaint instituted by the petitioners is clearly for damages based on the alleged illegal closure of the logging road. Whether or not such closure was illegal is a matter to be established on the part of the peti petiti tion oner ers s and and a matt matter er to be disp dispro rove ved d by the the priv privat ate e respondents. This should appropriately be threshed out in a judicial proceeding. It is beyond the power and authority of the Bureau of Forest Forest Develo Developme pment nt to determ determine ine the unlawf unlawful ul closur closure e of a passage way, much less award or deny the payment of damages
Definition and purpose
As a general rule, recourse through court action cannot prosper until all the remedies have been exhausted at the administrative level.
Rosales vs CA 165 SCRA 344 Ruling Ruling : Under Under the doctri doctrine ne of exhau exhausti stion on of admini administr strati ative ve remedies, recourse through court action, as a general rule, cannot prospe prosperr until until all the remedies remedies have have been been exhau exhauste sted d at the administrative level. When When an adequa adequate te remedy remedy may be had within the Execut Executive ive Department of the government, but nevertheless, a Litigant fails or refuses to avail himself of the same, the judiciary shall decline to interfere. This traditional attitude of the courts is based not only on convenien convenience ce but likewise likewise on respect; respect; convenie convenience nce of the party litigants and respect for a co-equal office in the government. If a remedy remedy is available available within the administra administrative tive machinery machinery,, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to (the) court." Petitione Petitioners rs however, however, claim that they were denied due process, process, obviously to show that their case falls within one of the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Such contention is however untenable, because in the first place, they were made to avail in the same administrative agency, the opportunity or right to oppose, which in fact they did, when they filed a motion for reconsideration and later when the motion was denied, they appealed to the Secretary of Education and Culture. Precisely Precisely,, a motion motion for reconsiderat reconsideration ion or appeal appeal is curative in character on the issue of alleged denial of due process. Gonzales vs Secretary of Education 5 SCRA 657
82 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
Facts: Jose L. Gonzales, a senior teacher civil service eligible, was appointed Principal of the Lambunao High School established in the municipality of Lambunao, Iloilo. Lambunao High School was later converted into a Regional Vocational Vocational High School under the name name of Iloilo Vocational High School. Gonzales then received a letter from the Secretary of Education appointing him as Head of the Related Subjects Department of the Bureau of Public School. He also received a copy of a letter of the Director of Public Schools addressed to respondent Alfredo Pineda, at the time Principal of the Samar Trade School, appointing him as Principal of the Iloilo Vocationa Vocationall School. School. When Pineda came to assume the office office of Principal of the latter school, Gonzales refused to yield the same to him, and sent a written protest against Pineda's appointment as well well as agains againstt his own appoi appointm ntment ent as Head Head of the Related Related Subjects Department, addressed to the Superintendent of the Iloilo School of Arts and Trades, who forwarded it without undue delay to the Director of Public Schools by a second indorsement. Without waitin waiting g for any action action on his protes protest-i t-in n fact fact even even before before said protest could be forwarded and submitted to the Director of Public Schools-G Schools-Gonza onzales, les, filed the present present petition petition for prohibitio prohibition n with preliminar preliminary y injunction injunction in the Court of First Instance Instance of Iloilo to restrain restrain the Secretary Secretary of Education Education and the Director Director of Public Public Schools from giving effect to the appointment of Alfredo Pineda as Principal of the Iloilo Vocational School, and to recover damages. After due trial, the lower court rendered the appealed judgment. Appellants claimed that the lower court erred in not holding that the present action was instituted prematurely. Issue: WON the appellee initiated the appropriate administrative proceeding. Ruling Ruling:: The The facts facts of this this case case disclo disclose se that that appell appellee ee initia initiated ted appropria appropriate te administrat administrative ive procedures procedures to obtain obtain relief relief from the orders that he considered prejudicial to his rights by means of his first, addressed addressed to the Superintend Superintendent ent of the Iloilo School of Arts and Trades. Trades. This protes protestt was forwarde forwarded d by the latter latter to the Director Director of Public Public Schools, Schools, but even even before before this date appellee instituted the present action. It is, therefore, clear that he did not give give his superi superior or office officers rs any opport opportuni unity ty to recons reconside iderr the questioned orders before seeking judicial intervention. The rule of exhaustion of appropriate remedies before resorting to the courts to seek relief appears to be of stronger application to the present case where, according according to the record, record, appellant appellant Pineda and the
superior officers of appellee did not appear to have exerted any undue pressure upon him to compel him to yield and give up the position in question. The decision appealed from is reserved, with the result that the present action is dismissed. Carale vs Abarintos 269 SCRA 132 Facts Facts:: Privat Private e respon responde dent nt Pontej Pontejos os was issued issued a perman permanen entt appointme appointment nt as Labor Labor Arbitration Arbitration Associate by herein herein petitione petitionerr Carale who is the NLRC Chairman. Carale, pursuant to his exercise of admin. authority and supervision supervision over all NLRC NLRC officials , issued an admin. Order detailing and re-assigning private respondent to NLRC 4th division in Cebu. In this regard, private respondent filed a case before the RTC of Cebu against petitioner for Illegal Transfer tantamount to removal without cause in violation of the security of tenure under the Constitution. Petitioner moved for a motion to dismis dismiss s the case case but RTC denied denied the petiti petitione oner. r. Petitio Petitioner ner questione questioned d the court’s jurisdiction jurisdiction to try the case without first resorting resorting to exhaustio exhaustion n of administra administrative tive remedy to the Civil Service Commission. Issue: WON private respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies available to him? Ruling: Ruling: Private Private responde respondent nt did not exhaust exhaust the administra administrative tive remedies available to him. Respondent Pontejos is subject to civil service laws and regulations pursuant to the Constitution as Labor Arbitration Associate. Responde Respondent’s nt’s grievances grievances must be first raised before the Civil Service Service Commission Commission before resorting resorting to judicial judicial interven intervention. tion. Therefore the instant case is premature and that respondent should exhaust all the available remedies to his grievances before resorting to courts. The petition was granted and that respondent court {RTC} was ordered to dismiss the case filed by Pontejos. The exceptions under under the “Doctrine of Exahaustion Exahaustion of Administrative Remedies” mentioned in this case are the following; 1) where the question is purely l egal,
83 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer (2) where judicial intervention is urgent, (3) when its application may cause great and irreparable damage, (4) where the controverted acts violate due process, (5) failure of a high government official from whom relief is sought to act on the matter, and (6) when the issue of non-exhaustion non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot. B.
Effect of failure to exhaust remedies
It does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. The only effect of non-compliance with the rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is ground for a motion to dismiss. Nonexhaustion of administrative remedies is a ground for motion to dismiss or is a defense which may be raised in the answer. De los Santos vs Limbaga 4 SCRA 224 Facts: This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Basilan City dismissing dismissing a petition petition for mandamus mandamus to compel compel Limbaga, the engineer engineer of that city, to authorize authorize de los Santos to to construct a residential house on the land described in the petition. It is alleged the respondent without any lawful cause refused to grant grant said said permit permit;; and and that that in view view of this this refusa refusal, l, petitio petitioner ner suffered damages. In his answer, the respondent, represented by the City Fiscal of Basilan, denied the allegations of the petition and interposed the following affirmative defenses: that after a fire which occurred in Lamita Lamitan n that that raged raged down down a major major portio portion n of the market market site site therei therein, n, the city city gover governme nment nt approv approved ed the purcha purchase se of an additional area to enlarge the said site and that, incidentally, the lot claimed by the petitioner petitioner was included included in the area; that by virtue virtue thereof, thereof, expropria expropriation tion proceedin proceedings gs had been instituted instituted thereon, hence, the denial of the permit applied for by petitioner. The city fiscal moved to dismiss the petition on the following grounds: grounds: that mandamus will not lie since the issuance issuance of the permit applied for was a discretionary and not a ministerial duty on the part of the city engineer to which the trial court agreed. Issue: WON the case will prosper and WON there is compliance with the DEAR.
Ruling: Ruling: Mandamus Mandamus cannot cannot prosper in this case for the simple reason that, as the record shows, the land in question is already the subjec subjectt matter matter of exprop expropria riatio tion n procee proceedin ding g instit institute uted d by Basilan City pursuant to a resolution approved by the City Council, which proceeding is now pending in the Court of First Instance of Basilan. Basilan. Moreover, Moreover, herein herein petitione petitionerr has failed to exhaust exhaust the administra administrative tive remedies remedies available available to him. Petitione Petitionerr should should have first brought the matter to the Director of Public Works who, under the law, exercise exercise supervision supervision and control control over city engineer engineers s of chartered cities (see Commonwealth Act No. 424), and if he was not satisfied with the Director's decision he should have appealed to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. The principle is fundamental that a party aggrieved by a decision of an administrative official should. before coming to court, apply for review of such decision by higher administrative authority. This principle rests on the presumption that the administrative agency if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter. Republic vs Sandiganbayan 255 SCRA 438 Factora, Jr. vs CA 320 SCRA 530 C.
When applied
The rule requiring exhaustion exhaustion of administrative remedies remedies applies only where the agency exercise judicial or quasi-judicial function. I t does not apply in the exercise of its rule-making power or legislative power.
Ang Tuan Kai vs Import Control Control Commission L-4427, 21 April 1952 1952 Facts: Facts: The petitioner, petitioner, a duly registered registered partnersh partnership ip of Manila, alleges alleges in substanc substance e (1) that it had placed orders orders for textiles textiles amounting to about P340,000 with foreign suppliers which orders were accepted before July 31, 1949; (2) that in November 1950 it requeste requested d the respondent respondent to allow importation importation of the textiles against its quota for 1949 pursuant to circular No. 12 and (3) but that respondent with grave abuse of authority and discretion has denied the request and instead ordered that said orders of Ang Tuan Kai & Co., be charged against the firm's 1951 quota and exchange allocations in pursuant to the order issued previously by the same board. Hence this case.
84 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
Issue: WON the petitioner has cause of action in the herein case before the court.
On July 31, 1987, the herein private respondents filed a petition with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for the cancellation of the TLA, on the ground of serious violations of its conditions and the provisions of forestry laws and regulations.
Ruling: Special civil actions of certiorari and mandamus against the Import Control Commission do not lie if the petitioner has a plain and adequate remedy by an appeal to the President. Certiorari or mand mandam amus us agai agains nstt admi admini nist stra rati tive ve offi office cers rs shou should ld not not be entertaine entertained d if superior superior administrat administrative ive officers officers can grant relief. Thus, the petition is denied. denied.
The same charges were subsequently made, also by the herein private respondents, in a complaint for injunction with damages against the petitioner, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 2732 in the Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City.
D. • • •
•
• •
•
• •
•
•
Exceptions to the doctrine When there is a violation of due process When the issue involved is purely a legal question When the administrative agency is patently illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction When there is estoppels on the part of the administrative agency concerned When there is irreparable inquiry When the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President hears the implied and assumed approval of the latter When to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable unreasonable When it would amount to a nullification of a claim When the subject matter is private land in land cases proceedings When the rule does not provide a plain speedy and adequate remedy There are circumstances circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention (Paat vs. vs. CA)
Sunville Timber Products vs Abad 206 SCRA 482 Facts: Facts: The petitioner petitioner was granted a Timber Timber License License Agreement Agreement (TLA), authorizing it to cut, remove and utilize timber within the conces concessio sion n area area coveri covering ng 29,500 29,500 hectar hectares es of forest forest land land in Zamb Zamboa oang nga a del del Sur, Sur, for for a perio period d of ten ten year years s expi expiri ring ng on September 31, 1992.
The petitioner moved to dismiss this case on three grounds, to wit: 1) the court had no jurisdiction over the complaint; 2) the plaintiffs had had not yet yet exhaus exhausted ted admini administr strati ative ve remedi remedies; es; and 3) the injunction sought was expressly prohibited by Section I of PD 605. Judge Alfonso G. Abad denied the motion to dismiss on December 11, 11, 1987,1 1987,1 and the motio motion n for recons reconside iderat ration ion on Febru February ary 15,1 15,198 988. 8.2 2 The The peti petiti tion oner er then then elev elevat ated ed the the matt matter er to the the respondent Court of Appeals, which sustained the trial court in a decision dated July 4, 1988,3 and in its resolution of September 27, 1988, denying the motion for reconsideration. Issue: Whether or not the lower court correctly applied the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Ruling: The lower court erred in misapplying the doctrine. One of the reasons reasons for the doctrine doctrine of exhaustio exhaustion n is the separatio separation n of powers, powers, which enjoins enjoins upon the Judiciary a becoming becoming policy of nonin noninter terfer ferenc ence e with with matter matters s coming coming primar primarily ily (albei (albeitt not exclusively) within the competence of the other departments. The theory is that the administrative authorities are in a better position to resolve resolve questions questions addressed addressed to their particular particular expertise expertise and that errors committed by subordinates in their resolution may be rectif rectified ied by their their superi superiors ors if given given a chance chance to do so. The argument that the questions raised in the petition are purely legal is also not acceptable. The private respondents have charged, both in the administrative case before the DENR and in the civil case before the Regional Trial Court of Pagethan City, that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the TLA and the provisions of forestry forestry laws and regulatio regulations.21 ns.21 The charge charge involves involves factual issues issues calling calling for the presenta presentation tion of supportin supporting g evidence. evidence. Such evidence is best evaluated first by the administrative authorities, employing their specialized knowledge of the agreement and the rules allegedly violated, before the courts may step in to exercise
85 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer their powers of review. here is no question that Civil Case No. 2732 come comes s with within in the the juri jurisd sdic icti tion on of the the resp respon onde dent nt cour court. t. Neve Nevert rthe hele less ss,, as the the wron wrong g alle allege ged d in the the comp compla lain intt was was supposedly committed as a result of the unlawful logging activities of the petitioner, it will be necessary first to determine whether or not the TLA and the forestry laws and regulations had indeed been violated. To repeat for emphasis, determination of this question is the primary responsibility of the Forest Management Bureau of the DENR. DENR. The The applic applicati ation on of the exper expertis tise e of the admin administ istrat rative ive agen agency cy in the the reso resolu luti tion on of the the issu issue e rais raised ed is a cond condit itio ion n precedent for the eventual examination, if still necessary, of the same question by a court of justice. Gonzales vs Hechanova, 60 OG 802 Facts : Respondent executive secretary authorized the importation of severa severall tons tons of foreig foreign n rice rice to be purcha purchased sed from priva private te sources, and created a rice procurement committee composed of the other other respon responden dents ts herein herein for the implem implement entati ation on of said said proposed importation. Petitione Petitionerr is the president president of the Iloilo Palay Palay and Corn Planters Association engaged in the production of rice and corn, filed the petition herein, averring that, in making or attempting to make said importation of foreign rice, the aforementioned respondents "are, "are, acting acting withou withoutt jurisd jurisdict iction ion or in exces excess s of jurisd jurisdict iction ion", ", because Republic Act No. 3452 which allegedly repeals or amends Republic Act No. 2207, explicitly prohibits the importation of rice and corn by "the "the Rice Rice and Corn Admini Administr strati ation on or any any other other government agency; that petitioner has no other plain, speedy and adequa adequate te remedy remedy in the ordinary ordinary course course of law; law; and that a prelinaina prelinainary ry injunction injunction is necessary necessary for the preserva preservation tion of the rights rights of the parties parties during during the penden pendency cy of this this case case and to prev preven entt the the judg judgme ment nt ther therei ein n from from beco becomin ming g inef ineffe fect ctua ual. l. Respondent, among others, countered that the petitioner did not exhaust all administrative remedies available to him before coming to court. Issue : WON the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable in this case. Ruling Ruling : The princi principle ple requir requiring ing the previo previous us exhaus exhaustio tion n of administrative remedies is not applicable "where the question in dispute is purely a legal one”, or where the controverted act is
"patently illegal" or was performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or where the respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as an alter-ego of the President bear the implied or assumed assumed approval approval of the latter, unless unless actually actually disapprov disapproved ed by him, or where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. The case at bar falls under each one of the foregoing exceptions to the general rule. Respondents' contention is, therefore, untenable. Paat vs CA 266 SCRA 167 Facts: The controversy on hand had its incipiency on May 19, 1989 when the truck of private respondent Victoria de Guzman while on its way to Bulacan from San Jose, Baggao, Cagayan, was seized by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR, for brevity) brevity) personnel personnel in Aritao, Aritao, Nueva Nueva Vizcaya Vizcaya because because the driver could not produce the required documents for the forest products found found concea concealed led in the truck. truck. Petitio Petitioner ner Jovito Jovito Layuga Layugan, n, the Community Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) in Aritao, Cagayan, issued on May 23, 1989 an order of confiscation of the truck and gave the owner thereof fifteen, (15) days within which which to submit submit an expla explanat nation ion why the truck should should not be forfei forfeited ted.. Privat Private e respon responde dents nts,, howev however, er, failed failed to submit submit the required required explanation. explanation. On June 22, 1989, 1989, 1 Regional Regional Executive Executive Director Rogelio Baggayan of DENR sustained petitioner Layugan's action action of confis confiscat cation ion and ordere ordered d the forfei forfeitur ture e of the truck truck invoking invoking Section 68-A of Presidenti Presidential al Decree Decree No.of No.of temporary temporary restraining order of petitioners was granted by this court. Invoking the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, petitioners aver aver that the trial court could not legally entertain entertain the suit for replev replevin in becau because se the buck buck was under under admini administr strati ative ve seizur seizure e proceedings pursuant to Section 68-A of P.D. 705, as amended by E.O. 277. Private respondents, on the other hand, would seek to avoid the operation of this principle asserting that the instant case falls within the exception of the doctrine upon the justification that (1) due process process was violated violated because because they were not given the chance to be heard, and (2) the seizure and forfeiture was unlawful on the the grou ground nds: s: (a) (a) that that the the Secr Secret etar ary y of DENR DENR and and his his repres represent entati atives ves have have no author authority ity to confis confiscat cate e and forfei forfeitt conveyances utilized in transporting illegal forest products, and (b) that the truck as admitted admitted by petitione petitioners rs was not used in the commission of the crime.
86 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Ruling: This Court in a long line of cases has consistently held that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first before court's judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of court's intervention is fatal to one's cause of action. Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel the case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action. This doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not without its practi practical cal and and legal legal reason reasons, s, for one thing, thing, availm availment ent of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. It is no less true to state that the courts of justice for reasons of comity and convenience will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed and complied with so as to give the administrative agency agency concerned concerned every every opportun opportunity ity to correct correct its error and to dispose of the case. However, we are not amiss to reiterate that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies as tested by a battery of cases is not an ironclad rule. This doctrine is a relative one and its flexib flexibilit ility y is called called upon upon by the peculiar peculiarity ity and and uniqueness of the factual and circumstantial settings of a case. Thus, while the administration grapples with the complex and multifarious problems caused by unbriddled exploitation of these resour resources ces,, the judiciar judiciary y will will stand stand clear. clear. A long long line line of cases cases establish the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which which are addres addressed sed to the sound sound discre discretio tion n of govern governmen mentt agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical knowledge and training of such agencies." To sustain the claim of private respondents would in effect bring the instant controversy beyond the pale of the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies and fall within the ambit of excepted cases heretofore stated.
Corpus vs Cuaderno L-17860 30 March 1962 Facts: Facts: While While petiti petitione oner-a r-appe ppella llant nt was holdin holding g the positi position on of Specia Speciall Assist Assistant ant to the Governo Governorr of the Central Central Bank Bank of the Philippines, he was charged in an administrative case, for alleged dishon dishonest esty, y, incomp incompete etence nce,, neglec neglectt of duty duty and/or and/or abuse abuse of authority, oppression, misconduct, etc., preferred against him by
employ employees ees of the Bank, Bank, result resulting ing in his suspensi suspension on by the Mone Moneta tary ry Boar Board d of the the Bank Bank and and the the crea creatio tion n of a 3-ma 3-man n committee committee to investiga investigate te him. The committee committee was composed composed of representatives of the Bank, Bureau of Civil Service and the Office of the City Fiscal Fiscal of Manil Manila. a. After After receiv receiving ing the answer answer of the responde respondent nt therein, therein, the committee committee heard the case, case, receiving receiving testim testimon onies ies of witnes witnesses ses on both both sides. sides. On May 5, 1959, 1959, the committee submitted its Final Report, the pertinent conclusion and recommend recommendation ation therein therein reading reading as follows: follows: "(1) In view of the foregoing, the Committee finds that there is no basis upon which to recommend disciplinary action against respondent and therefore respectfu respectfully lly recommend recommends s that he be immediatel immediately y reinstated reinstated." ." Unable to agree with the committee report, the Monetary Board adopted Resolution No. 957 on July 20, 1959 which considered "the respo responde ndent, nt, R. Marino Marino Corpus, Corpus, resign resigned ed as of the date of his suspension." The pertinent portion of the resolution reads thus: "After an exhaustive and mature deliberation of the report of the aforesaid aforesaid fact finding finding committee, committee, in conjuncti conjunction on with the entire entire records of the case and representations of both complainants and respondent, through their respective counsel; and, further, after a thor thorou ough gh revi review ew of the the serv servic ice e reco record rd of the the resp respon onde dent nt,, particula particularly rly the various cases presente presented d against against him, object of Monetary Board Resolution No. 1527 dated August 30, 1955, which all involves fitness, discipline, etc. of respondent, and moreover, upon formal statement of the Governor that he has lost confidence in the responden respondentt as Special Assistant Assistant to the Governor Governor and InCharge Charge of the Export Department Department (such position position being primarily primarily confidential and highly technical in nature), the Monetary Board finds that the continuance of the respondent in the service of the Centra Centrall Bank Bank would would be prejud prejudici icial al to be best best intere interests sts of the Central Bank, and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Bank Charter, considers the respondent, Mr. R. Marino Corpus, resigned as of the .date of his suspension." Three days after, the Monetary Board adopted Resolution No. 995, dated dated July July 23, 1959, 1959, approv approving ing the appoin appointme tment nt of herein herein responde respondent nt Mario Marcos Marcos to the position position involved involved in place of petitioner R. Marino Corpus. The lower court was of the opinion that petitionerappellant should have exhausted all administrative remedies available to him, such as an appeal to the Commissioner of Civil Service, under Republic Republic Act 2260, or the President President of the Philippines who under the Constitution and the law is the head of all the executive executive departments departments of the government government including its
87 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer agencies and instrumentalities. This is the main issue disputed in this appeal. Ruling: Ruling: True, the appellant appellant did not elevate elevate his case for review either by the President or the Civil Service Commission. However, it is our our opinio opinion n that that a resort resort to these these admini administr strati ative ve appeal appeals s is voluntary or permissive, taking into account the facts obtaining in this case. (1) There is no law requiring an appeal to the President in a case like the one at bar. The fact that the President had, in two instances cited in the orders appealed from, acted on appeals from decisions of the Monetary Board of the Central Bank, should not be regarded as precedents, but at most may be viewed as acts of condescension on the part of the Chief Executive. (2) While there are provisions in the Civil Service Law regarding appeals to the Commis Com missio sioner ner of Civil Civil Servic Service e and the Civil Civil Servic Service e Boa Board rd of Appeals, We believe the petitioner is not bound to observe them, considerin considering g his status and the Charter of the Central Bank. In Castillo vs,. Bayona, et al., 106 Phil., 1121, We said that Section 14, Republic Act 265, creating the Central Bank of the Philippines, particularly paragraph (c) thereof, "is sufficiently broad to vest the Monetary Board with the power of investigation and removal of its officials, officials, except the Governor Governor thereof. thereof. In other words, words, the Civil Service Service Law is the general legal provision provision for the investiga investigation, tion, suspension or removal of civil service employees, whereas Section 14 is a spec specia iall prov provis isio ion n of law law whic which h must must gove govern rn the the investigation, suspension or removal of employees of the Central Bank-, though they may be subject to the Civil Service Law and Regulations in other respects." In this case, the respondent Monetary Board considered petitioner resigned from the office to which he has been legally appointed as of the date of his suspension, after he has been duly indicted and tried before a committee created by the Board for the purpose. An appeal to the Civil Service Commission would thereby be an act of supererogation, requiring the presentation of practically the same witnesses and documents produced in the investigation conducted at the instance of the Monetary Board. Moreover, Section 16(i) of the Civil Service Law provides that "except as otherwise provided by law," law," the Commissi Commissione onerr of Civil Civil Servic Service e shall shall have have "final "final authority to pass upon the removal, separation and suspension of all perman permanent ent offici officials als and employ employees ees in the compet competeti etive ve or classified classified service and upon all matters relating to the conduct, conduct, discipline, and efficiency of such officials and employees; * * *." Considering again the fact that the Charter of the Central Bank
provides for its own power, through the Monetary Board, relative to the investigation investigation,, suspension suspension or removal removal of its own employees employees except except the Governor, Governor, coupled coupled with the fact that Petitioner Petitioner has admitted that he belongs to the non-competetive or unclassified serv servic ice, e, it is evid eviden entt that that an appe appeal al by peti petiti tion oner er to the the Commis Com missio sioner ner of Civil Civil Servic Service e is not required required or at most most is permissive and voluntary. "The reason is obvious. While it may be desirable that administrative remedies be first resorted to, no one is compelled or bound to do so; and as said remedies neither are prerequisite to nor bar the institution of quo warranto proceedings it follow follows s that that he who claims claims the right right to hold hold a public public office office allegedly usurped by another and who desires to seek redress in the courts courts,, should should file file the proper proper judici judicial al action action within within the reglementa reglementary ry period. period. As emphasize emphasized d in Bautista Bautista vs. Fajardo, Fajardo, 38 Phil. 621, and Tumulak vs. Egay, 82 Phil., 828; 46 Off. Gaz., 3683, public interest requires that the right to a public office should be determined as speedily as practicable."
Smart Communications vs NTC G.R. No. 151908 12 August 2003 Facts Facts:: petit petition ioners ers Isla Isla Com Commun munica icatio tions ns Co., Co., Inc. Inc. and and Pilipi Pilipino no Telephone Corporation filed against the National Telecommunications Commission, Commissioner Joseph A. Santiago Santiago,, Deputy Deputy Commission Commissioner er Aurelio Aurelio M. Umali and Deputy Deputy Commissio Commissioner ner Nestor C. Dacanay, Dacanay, an action action for declaratio declaration n of nullity nullity of NTC Memorandum Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-200 13-6-2000 0 (the Billing Circular). Circular). Petitioners Petitioners allege that the NTC has no jurisdictio jurisdiction n to regulate the sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since such jurisdiction belongs to the Department of Trade and Industry under the Consumer Act of the Philippines; that the Billing Circ Circul ular ar is oppr oppres essi sive ve,, conf confis isca cato tory ry and and viol violat ativ ive e of the the constitutional prohibition against deprivation of property without due process of law; that the Circular will result in the impairment of the viability of the prepaid cellular service by unduly prolonging the validity and expiration of the prepaid SIM and call cards; and that the requirements of identification of prepaid card buyers and call balance announcement are unreasonable. Hence, they prayed that the Billing Circular be declared null and void ab initio. Issue :WON the RTC has jurisdiction of the case
88 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
Held Held:: Peti Petiti tion ons s are are gran grante ted. d. The The issu issuan ance ce by the the NTC NTC of Memorandum Circular No. 13-6-2000 and its Memorandum dated October October 6, 2000 was pursuant pursuant to its quasi-legisla quasi-legislative tive or rulemaking power. As such, petitioners were justified in invoking the judicial power of the Regional Trial Court to assail the constitutionality and validity of the said issuances. What is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the admini administr strati ative ve agency agency in the perfo performa rmance nce of its quasiquasilegislativ legislative e function, function, the regular regular courts courts have jurisdiction jurisdiction to pass upon the same. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the law or the constitution constitution is within within the jurisdiction jurisdiction of the regular courts. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or the powe powerr to decl declar are e a law, law, trea treaty ty,, inte intern rnat atio iona nall or exec execut utiv ive e agreemen agreement, t, president presidential ial decree, decree, order, order, instructio instruction, n, ordinance ordinance,, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts.25 This is within the scope of judicial power, which includes the authority of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validity of the acts of the political departments. 26 Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice justice to settle settle actual actual controve controversies rsies involving involving rights rights which are legally legally demandabl demandable e and enforceable enforceable,, and to determ determine ine whether whether or not there has been been a grave grave abuse abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
Marinduque Iron Mines v. Sec. of Public Works 8 SCRA 179 Facts: Facts: It appears appears from the allegations allegations of the petition petition that the petiti petitione onerr was denoun denounced ced before before the Port Port and and Harbo Harborr Boa Board, rd, Manila for making certain constructions near the mouth of Calat-an Creek in Sipalay, Negros Occidental; that on September 11, 1958, petitioner was served with copy of the charges filed against it by two investigators investigators of responden respondentt Secretary Secretary of Public Public Works and Communications who conducted an investigation of said charges; that that on the basis basis of this this invest investiga igatio tion, n, respon responden dentt Secret Secretary ary rendered a decision dated January 16, 1959 ordering the petitioner herein to remove the causeway illegally constructed at the mouth of the Calat-an River and restore the bed of said river to its original condition within thirty days from receipt of copy of the decision,
otherwise, the removal shall be effected by the government at the expense of herein petitioner. Without appealing the decision of the respondent Secretary to the President, herein petitioner has filed with this Court the present petition for certiorari seeking that the decision of respondent be annulled." Ruling: Nowhere in the foregoing provisions, or in any other part of Republic Act No. 2056, is it required that appeal to the President should precede recourse to the courts. The silence of the statute, to be sure, does not mean that the President may not review the action action of the Secreta Secretary. ry. His power power to do so is implicit implicit in his constitutional power of control of all the executive departments (Section (Section 10, Works and Communicat Communications ions par. 1, Art. VII of the Constitution). This, however, does not resolve the issue, which is not whether petitioner could have appealed to the President but whether he should have done so before seeking judicial relief. The answer depends, in turn, upon whether an appeal to the President would have been sufficiently effective, adequate and expeditious, a negat negative ive findin finding g in this this respe respect ct being being the basis on which which the extraordinary writ of certiorari, as prayed for by petitioner, may be issued. The absence of an express provision in Republic Act No. 2056 2056 for an appeal appeal to the Preside President nt from from the decisio decision n of the Secretary, considered together with the peremptory character of the period periods s therei therein n prescr prescribe ibed, d, shows shows that that such such an appeal appeal-assu assumi ming ng that that it may may be take taken n in view view of the the Pres Presid iden ent' t's s constitut constitutional ional power power of executive executive control-would control-would not affect affect the inexorable requirement that those periods be observe& the only excep exceptio tion n being being in favor favor of Works Works and Com Commun munica icatio tions ns the Secretary, if there is justifiable or valid reason for his failure or delay to terminate and decide a case or effect the removal of the illegal construction such as, for Instance, an injunction issued by a court. We are of the opinion that an appeal to the President from the the orde orderr of resp respon onde dent nt Secr Secret etar ary y woul would d not not have have been been expeditious enough for petitioner's purposes and hence the latter did not have to resort to it before seeking judicial relief. In any event, we believe the facts of this case place it within the rule enunciate enunciated d in Dimaisip vs. Court of Appeals, Appeals, 106 Phil., 237, as follows: "Such failure (to appeal from the decision of the Secretary of Agricultur Agriculture e and Natural Resources Resources to the President) President) cannot cannot preclu preclude de the plaintif plaintiffs fs from from taking taking court court action action in view view of the theory that the Secretary of a Department is merely an alter-ego of the President; President; the assumption assumption is that the action action of the Secretary Secretary bears the implied sanction of the President, unless the same is disapproved by the latter."
89 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
Bueno vs Patanao 9 SCRA 794 Facts: On April 29, 1958, Pedro B. Patanao commenced Special Civil Case No. 48 with the Court of First Instance of Agusan, against Valeriano Valeriano,, C. Bueno Bueno and one Juanito Merin, for injunction injunction and damages. In his amended petition, Patanao alleged that on March 10, 1958 the respondents therein disturbed him in his, possession of his timber concession by illegally entering the same and cutting and hauling logs therein; that when he went to the area to stop said respondents respondents and their laborers, laborers, truckers truckers and loggers from cutting and hauling logs "he was met with riot guns, pistols and other firearms"; and that defendants were able to cut no less than one million board feet of exportabl exportable e logs worth not less than $64,00 $64,000.0 0.00 0 and and would would be able able to cut and haul even a bigger bigger amou amount nt in the the spac space e of one one mont month h as they they had had alle allege gedl dly y concentrated all their logging machineries and equipment with the apparent intention of illegally denuding the forest area covered by his license. Patanao thus urged the court below to issue a writ of prelim prelimina inary ry injunc injunctio tion n so as to enjoi enjoin n the respon responden dents, ts, their their agents, laborers and lawyers, from entering the area and cutting and hauling logs therein pending trial and, after trial, to make the injunction final and permanent, and to condemn said respondents liable in an amount of not less than P175,000. 00 as actual and moral damages, attorney's fees and costs. Ruling: At first glance, petitioner's argument appears to be tenable. True, the common boundary of the parties was verified by the Bureau of Forestry way back in March 1955. It seems, however, that that while while petiti petitione onerr Bueno Bueno had endeav endeavore ored d to respec respectt the verificatio verification n report, report, responden respondentt Patanao Patanao had refused refused to conform conform thereto, so much so that the conflict was brought anew to the attention of the Director of Forestry who has formally taken a hand therein. On or about April 8, 1958, before Patanao instituted Civil Case No. 48 with the respondent court, he was officially requested to designate a representative to accompany Forestry officials in the verification of the common boundary line between him and petitioner (Exhibit 8, letter addressed to Patanao by Anastacio G. Sison, Sison, officer-inch officer-incharge arge,, Esperanz Esperanza a Forest Forest Station, Station, Agusan, Agusan, p. 5; Opposi Oppositio tion n to Urgent Urgent Motio Motion n to Dissol Dissolve ve Writ Writ of Prelimi Preliminar nary y Injunction, dated, July 23, 1958.) That said boundary dispute is still pending in the Bureau of Forestry at the filing of this petition is shown by the letter of the District Forester of Agusan, now in the
record record as Annex Annex A-Oppositi A-Opposition. on. The record record also discloses discloses that Patanao's application for renewal and consolidation of his timber licenses for 1957-58 had not yet been approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Its renewal depends upon the consideratio consideration n of the Director Director of Forestry. Forestry. The granting granting of timb timber er lice licens nses es,, thei theirr rene renewa wall or canc cancel ella latio tion, n, and and the the determina determination tion of conflictin conflicting g claims or boundary boundary lines involving involving forest forest zones, zones, such as those presently presently occupied occupied by the parties hereto, are all vested by law primarily upon the Director of Forestry and ultimately upon his Department head.
Continental Marble Corp. vs NLRC 161 SCRA 151 Facts: In his complaint before the NLRC, herein private respondent Rodito Rodito Nasay Nasayao ao claime claimed d that that someti sometime me in May 1974, he was appointed appointed plant manager manager of the petitioner petitioner corporatio corporation, n, with an allege alleged d compen compensat sation ion of P3,000 P3,000.00 .00,, a month, month, or 25% of the monthly net income of the company, whichever is greater, and when the company failed to pay his salary for the months of May, June, and July 1974, Rodito Nasayao filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission, Branch IV, for the recovery of said unpaid salaries. The case was docketed therein as NLRC Case No. LR6151. Answering, the herein petitioners denied that Rodito Nasayao was employed in the company as plant manager with a fixed monthly salary of P3,000.00. They claimed that the undertaking agreed upon by the parties was a joint venture, a sort of partnership, wherein Rodito Nasayao was to keep the machinery in good good workin working g condit condition ion and, in return return,, he would would get the contracts from end-users for the installation of marble products, in which which the compan company y would would not interf interfere ere.. In addit addition ion,, privat private e respondent Nasayao was to receive an amount equivalent to 25% of the net profits that the petitioner petitioner corporatio corporation n would realize, realize, should there be any. Petitioners alleged that since there had been no profits during said period, private respondent was not entitled to any amount. The case was submitted for voluntary arbitration and the parties selected the herein respondent Jose T. Collado as voluntary arbitrator. In the course of the proceedings, however, the herein petitioners challenged the arbitrator's capacity to try and decide the case fairly and judiciously and asked him to desist from farther hearing the case. But, the respondent arbitrator refused. In due time, or on 29 December 1975, he rendered judgment in favor of the complainant, ordering the herein petitioners to pay Rodito Nasayao Nasayao the amount amount of P9,000.00, P9,000.00, within 10 days from notice.
90 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Upon receipt of the decision, the herein petitioners appealed to the National National Labor Labor Relations Relations Commission Commission on grounds grounds that the labor labor arbiter arbiter gravely abused his discretion discretion in persisting persisting to hear and decide decide the case notwithstand notwithstanding ing petitione petitioners' rs' request request for him to desist therefrom: and that the appealed decision is not supported by evidence. On 18 March 1976, Rodito Nasayao filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the decision of the voluntary arbitrator is final, appealable, and immediately executory;3 and, on 23 March 1976, he filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. Acting on the motions, the respondent Commission, in a resolution dated 7 May 1976, dismissed the appeal on the ground that that the decisi decision on appeal appealed ed from from is final, final, unappe unappeala alable ble and immediatel immediately y executory executory,, and ordered ordered the herein herein petitione petitioners rs to comply with the decision of the voluntary arbitrator within 10 days from receipt of the resolution.5 The petitioners are before the Court in the present recourse. As praye prayed d for, for, the Court Court issued issued a tempo temporar rary y restra restraini ining ng order, order, restraining herein respondents from enforcing and/or carrying out the questioned decision and resolution.
Ruling: The contention is without merit. The doctrine of exhaustion of administra administrative tive remedies remedies cannot cannot be invoked in this case, as contended. In the recent case of John Clement Consultants, Inc. versus National Labor Relations Commission, the Court said: "As is well known, no law provides for an appeal from decisions of the National National Labor Relations Relations Commission; Commission; hence, there can be no review and reversal on appeal by higher authority of its factual or legal conclusions. When, however, it decides a case without or in excess excess of its jurisdiction, jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion discretion,, the party party thereb thereby y adver adversel sely y affect affected ed may obtain obtain a review review and nullification of that decision by this Court through the extraordinary writ writ of cert certio iora rari ri.. Sinc Since, e, in this this case case,, it appe appear ars s that that the the Commission has indeed acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in taking cognizance of a belated appeal sought to be taken taken from from a decis decision ion of Labor Labor Arbiter Arbiter and thereaft thereafter er reversing it, the writ of certiorari will issue to undo those acts, and do justice to the aggrieved party."
Facts Facts:: On 2 Septem September ber 1985, 1985, the Munici Municipal pal Govern Governmen mentt of Muntinlupa (hereinafter, Municipality), Metro Manila, thru its then Mayor Mayor Santia Santiago go Carlos Carlos,, Jr., enter entered ed into into a contra contract ct with with the KILUSANG KILUSANG BAYAN SA PAGLILINGKO PAGLILINGKOD D NG MCA MAGTITINDA MAGTITINDA SA BAGONG BAGONG PAMILIHANG PAMILIHANG BAYAN NG MUNTINLL MUNTINLLUPA, UPA, INC. (KBMBPM) (KBMBPM) represented by its General Manager, Amado Perez, for the latter's management and operation of the new Muntinlupa public market. The contract provides for for a twenty-five (25) year term commencing commencing on 2 September 1985, renewable for a like period, unless sooner terminated and/or rescinded by mutual agreement of the parties, at a monthl monthly y consid considera eratio tion n of Thirt Thirty-F y-Five ive Thousa Thousand nd Pesos Pesos (P35,000) to be paid by the KBMBPM within the first five (5) days of each month which shall, shall, however, however, be increased increased by ten percent (10%) each year during the first five (5) years only. Following his assumptio assumption n into office as the new mayor mayor succeeding succeeding Santiago Santiago Carlos, Carlos, Jr., petitione petitionerr Ignacio Ignacio Bunye, Bunye, claiming claiming to be particula particularly rly scanda scandaliz lized ed by the "virtu "virtual al 50-ye 50-year ar term term of the agree agreemen ment, t, contrary contrary to the provision provision of Section 143, paragraph paragraph 3 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337," and the "patently inequitable rental," directed a review of the aforesaid contract.3 He sought opinions from both the Commission on Audit and the Metro Manila Commission (MMC) on the validity validity of the in strume strument. nt. In separa separate te letter letters, s, these these agencies urged that appropriate legal steps be taken towards its rescission. The letter of Hon. Elfren Cruz of the MMC even granted the Municipality authority "to take the necessary legal steps for the cancellati cancellation. on. rescission rescission of the above cited contract contract and make representations with KBMBPM for the immediate transfer/takeover of the posses possessio sion, n, manag manageme ement nt and and opera operatio tion n of the New Muntinlupa Market to the Municipal Government of Muntinlupa." Conseque Consequently, ntly, upon representa representations tions made by Bunye with the Municipal Council, the latter approved on 1 August 1988 Resolution No. 45 abrogatin abrogating g the contract. To implement implement this resolution resolution,, Bunye, together with his co-petitioners and elements of the Capital Command of the Philippine Constabulary, proceeded, on 19 A ugust 1986, to the public market and announced to the general public and the stallholders thereat that the Municipality was taking over the manage managemen mentt and opera operatio tion n of the facilit facility, y, and that that the stallh stallhold olders ers should should thence thencefor forth th pay pay their their market market fees fees to the Municipal Municipality, ity, thru the Market Commission, Commission, and no longer to the KBMBPM.
Kilusang Bayan vs Dominguez 205 SCRA 92
Issue: Issue: Whether Whether or not the petitioners petitioners in the first case failed to follow the doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies.
Issue: Whether or not the contention of the private respondent that the petitioner failed to follow the doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies is tenable.
91 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
Ruling: As to failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the rule is well-s well-sett ettled led that that this this requir requireme ement nt does does not apply apply where where the respondent is a department secretary whose acts, as an alter ego of the President, bear the implied approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him.69 This doctrine of qualified political agency ensures speedy access to the courts when most needed. There was no need then to appeal the decision to the office of the Presid Presiden ent; t; recou recourse rse to the courts courts could could be had immedia immediatel tely. y. Moreover, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies also yields to other exceptions, such as when the question involved is purely legal, as in the instant case, or where the questioned act is patently illegal, illegal, arbitrary arbitrary or oppressiv oppressive. e. Such is the claim of petitioners which, as hereinafter shown, is correct.
was entitled Hilda Ralla Almine vs. MAR and docketed as AC-G.R. SP No. 08550. 08550. Private Private responde respondent nt filed a motion motion to dismiss the appeal. However, it was denied in an order dated May 28, 1986. A motion for reconsideration thereof was likewise denied. After the partie parties s filed filed their their respec respectiv tive e pleadi pleadings ngs,, the Court Court of Appeal Appeals s rendered a decision dated June 29, 19871 dismissing the appeal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction jurisdiction holding that questions questions as to whether a landowner should or should not be allowed to retain his land land holdi holdings ngs,, if admini administr strati ativel vely y decid decided ed by the Minist Minister er of Agrarian Reform, are appealable and could be reviewed only by the Court of Agrarian Agrarian Relations Relations and now by the Regional Regional Trial Courts pursuant to Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, otherwise known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.2 Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in a resolution dated October 22, 1987.
Almine vs CA 177 SCRA 796 Issue: Whether or not the contention of the CA is tenable. Facts: On December 25, 1975, petitioner filed a sworn application for retention retention of her riceland riceland or for exemption exemption thereof from the Operation Land Transfer Program with the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR), Regional Office in Tobaco, Albay. After due hearing, Atty. Cidarminda Arresgado of the said office filed an investigation report dated June 26, 1980 for the cancellation of the Certificate of Land Transfer Transfer (CLT) (CLT) of private respondent respondent who appears appears to be petitioner's tenant over her riceland. Upon failure of the Ministry to take the necessary necessary action, petitione petitionerr reiterated reiterated her applicatio application n sometime in 1979-1985 alleging that her tenant deliberately failed and refused to deliver her landowner's share from 1975 up to the time of the Ming of the said application and, that the latter had distributed his landholding to his children. A reinvestigation was conducted this time by Atty. Seth Evasco who on October 31, 1985 file filed d his his repo report rt reco recomm mmen endi ding ng the the canc cancel ella lati tion on of priv privat ate e responden respondent's t's CLT. Said report report was elevated elevated to the MAR. In an endors endorseme ement nt dated dated Novem Novembe berr 25, 1985, 1985, Region Regional al Direct Director or Salvador Pejo manifested his concurrence with the report of Atty. Evasco Evasco holding that the properties properties of the petitione petitionerr consist consist of 4.3589 hectares as evidenced by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 27167, 27168 and 27344 and hence not covered by the Operation Land Transfer Program. Juanito L. Lorena, the Officer-in-Charge of MAR likewise concurred concurred therewith. therewith. However, However, in the order dated dated Febr Februa uary ry 13, 13, 1986 1986,, then then Mini Minist ster er Conr Conrad ado o Estr Estrel ella la deni denied ed petitioner's application for retention. On April 17, 1986, petitioner appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). The case
Ruling Ruling:: A perusa perusall of the provis provision ion above above cited cited revea reveals ls that that questions questions as to whether a landowne landownerr should should or should should not be allowed to retain his landholdings are exclusively cognizable by the Minister (now Secretary) of Agrarian Reform whose decision may be appealed to the Office of the President and not to the Court of Agrarian Agrarian Relations. Relations. These These cases cases are thus excluded excluded from those those cognizable by the then CAR, now the Regional Trial Courts. There is no appeal from a decision decision of the President. President. However, However, the said decision decision may be reviewed reviewed by the courts through through a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, as the case may be under under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Court. Thus, Thus, the responde respondent nt appellate court erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction over the petit petition ion for review review by way of certio certiorar rarii brough broughtt before before it of a decision of the Minister of Agrarian Reform allegedly made in grave abuse of his discretion and in holding that this is a matter within the competence competence of the Court of Agrarian Agrarian Reform. The Court of Appea Appeals ls has concur concurren rentt jurisd jurisdict iction ion with with this this Court Court and the Regional Regional Trial Court over petitions petitions seeking seeking the extraord extraordinary inary remedy remedy of certiorari certiorari,, prohibitio prohibition n or mandamus. mandamus. The failure failure to appeal appeal to the Office of the President President from the decision decision of the Minister of Agrarian Reform in this case is not a violation of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies as the latter is the alter ego of the President.
92 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer Tapales vs President of UP 7 SCRA 553 Fact Facts: s: Ramo Ramon n Tapa Tapale les s was was duly duly appo appoin inte ted d Dire Direct ctor or of the the Conservatory Music in UP as recommended by the President of the University University of the Philippines Philippines after compliance compliance of the required qualificat qualifications ions under the Charter of the same. Conseque Consequently ntly,, the Board of Regents of the said University issued a resolution fixing the terms of the office of the Dean and Directors thereof allegedly in pursuant to same charter. Thereafter, the University President issued a memorandum reminding the Deans and Directors whose terms are about to expire that unless unless they are recommended recommended by the same for reappointment, their assumption to their respective office is deemed deemed terminated. terminated. Tapales Tapales was injured injured by the said resolu resolutio tion n and memora memorandu ndum m as such such filed filed before before the court court a question on the validity of the said resolution and memorandum. The respondent on the other hand alleged that that the petitioner failed to exhaust the required administrative remedies available.
approved by Phil Racing Club, Inc. On the very day when Quintos’ race-horse was scheduled to participate in race no. 15, the PRC announced thru the PA system before the start of race no. 13 that his horse was being being excluded excluded from taking taking part in race no. 15. It was then then allege alleged d that that the cancel cancellat lation ion of the certif certifica icate te of registration of his horse was arbitrary and oppressive, due process being being denied denied him in the absence absence of a formal formal invest investiga igatio tion n or inquir inquiry y prior prior theret thereto. o. The trial trial court court dismis dismissed sed the compla complaint int primarily on the ground of lack of EAR – that the admin remedy of Quintos was to ask the Board of Trustees of NSF to reconsider its resolution cancelling the certificate of registration, and in case of denial of appeal to the Games and Amusement Board or to the Office of the President. The CA certified the case to the SC since it found that a purely legal question was involved, to wit: WON the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Issue: Does Quintos have a valid cause for complaint?
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner failed to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Ruling: It is contended in this connection, that the appellee failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not asking the Board of Regents Regents to reconside reconsiderr the challenge challenged d resolutio resolution n before before bringing bringing the matter to court. court. An administrativ administrative e review review is not a condition precedent to judicial relief against a statute or ordinance which is claimed to be unconstitutional and void (73 C.J.S. 357), or where the question in dispute is purely a legal one, and nothing of an administrative nature is to be or can be done (73 C.J.S. 354). Here, appell appellee ee impugn impugned ed the consti constitut tution ionali ality ty and validi validity ty of the Resolution of October 2, 1959, and appellee's objection thereto is a purely legal one. Quintos v. National Stud Farm 54 SCRA 210 Facts: Quintos is the legitimate owner of a racehorse which was duly and officially registered with NSF and for which he is issued a certificate of registration, thereby entitling it to participate in horse races and sweepstakes draws in legally authorized racing clubs or tracks. In line with the SOP and usual racing practices for horse owners, Quintos applied for inclusion of his horse in a particular race 3 days before the date of the race which application was duly
Ruling: None. Quintos prematurely instituted a suit for damages. The reason for this short-circuiting of administrative processes is not explained by Quintos. His gives no reason for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Indeed, there is none. The order of dismissal, therefore, certainly cannot be considered as being in derogation of the due process guarantee. The judicial forum sought by Quintos was in effect an unwarranted disregard of the concept of primary jurisdiction. In the traditional language of administrative law, the stage of ripeness for j udicial review had not been reached. Quintos Quintos ignored factors not predetermined predetermined by formula formula but by seasoned balancing for and against the assumption of jurisdiction. All that had been said so far would seem to indicate that under such such a test, test, the lower lower court’ court’s s insist insistenc ence e of the fundam fundament ental al requirement of exhausting administrative remedies is more than justified. Soto v. Jareno 144 SCRA 116 Facts: Facts: This is MOTION MOTION TO CORRECT CORRECT ORIGINAL CERTIFICAT CERTIFICATE E OF TITLE NO. P-672 COVERING LOT NO. 4569 CAUAYAN CAD. FRANCISCA FRANCISCA SOTO. Specifically, Specifically, the change change sought is in the civil status of the registered owner, whom the petitioner wants to be described in the certificate of title as married to her rather than as a widower.
93 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer The said registered owner was Sergio Serfino, who was married in January 1933 to the petitioner. petitioner. In 1939, he filed an application for a homestea homestead d patent, patent, describing describing himself as "married "married to Francisca Francisca Soto Soto," ," but but in 1953 1953,, when when the the orig origin inal al cert certifi ifica cate te over over the the homestead was issued, it was in favor of "Sergio Serfino, widower." Serfino Serfino died in 1965, 1965, and soon thereafter thereafter the petitione petitionerr filed a motion motion with with the Court Court of First First Instan Instance ce of Negro Negros s Occide Occidenta ntall praying that his description as a "widower" be changed to "married to Francisca Soto." Two daughters daughters of the couple couple opposed opposed the motion. While conceding that their parents were married in 1933, the oppositors oppositors nonethele nonetheless ss pointed pointed out that their mother mother had abandone abandoned d them in 1942 to live with another another man. Later, Later, they said, she had adulterous relations with still a second man by whom she begot eleven children. According to these oppositors, it was their father himself who had described himself as a widower in 1953 because he had not heard from the petitioner since 1942. Their purpose, obviously, was to prevent the land from being considered conjugal and therefore equally owned by the spouses. The trial court originally granted the motion and ordered the change prayed for, but later it reconsidered its decision and held itself without jurisdiction to act on the matter. Its reason was that ther there e was was no obse observ rvan ance ce of the the doct doctri rine ne of exha exhaus usti tion on of administrative remedies. Issue: Does the trial court have jurisdiction to order an amendment of a cert certif ific icat ate e of titl title e with withou outt prev previo ious us exha exhaus usti tion on of administrative remedies? Held Held:: Fail Failur ure e to obse observ rve e the the doct doctri rine ne of exha exhaus usti tion on of administra administrative tive remedies does not affect the jurisdiction jurisdiction of the court. We have repeatedly stressed this in a long line of decisions. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can then take cognizance of the case and try it. Moreover, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable applicable to private lands, as also settled in a number of decisions rendered by this Court. Once registered, the homestead granted to Sergio Serfino ceased to have the character of public land and so was removed from the operation of the said doctrine. But notwithstanding the above principles, the petition will still have to be dismissed because because the change sought is not authorized authorized under Section 112 of Act 496, as interpreted by this Court.
Sunga v. NLRC 173 SCRA 338 Facts: Sunga, et al. filed before the NLRC a complaint against ACD Computer Services and Cabel for illegal dismissal and non-payment of certain benefits. The labor arbiter rendered a decision sustaining the petitioners' position. The labor arbiter, then, upon motion of the petitioners, issued a writ of execution to enforce said decision. The following day, the sheriff served served a notice of garnishment to the Commer Com mercia ciall Bank Bank of Manila Manila after after which which the total amo amount unt of P15,031.85 was garnished. This amount has already been turned over to the petitioners. A levy on execution was made upon the properties found in the responde respondents' nts' office premises. premises. ACD Group Group Inc., an American American firm based based in California, California, U.S.A., U.S.A., through through its Chairman, Chairman, Dulay filed a third-party claim in the NLRC case on the ground that it is the real owner owner of the computers computers levied levied upon and schedule scheduled d for auction. This third-party claim was denied. denied. ACD Computer Services and Cabel filed before the NLRC a petition for relief from judgment judgment in NLRC-NCR NLRC-NCR Case No. 6-2423-86 6-2423-86 with prayer prayer for the issuance issuance of writ of preliminar preliminary y injunction injunction and/or restraining order. The NLRC then i ssued the questioned resolutions incidental to Injunction Case. The petitioners filed before the NLRC a motion to dismiss and/or answer to the petition on the ground that a petition for relief is not a remedy granted under the Labor Code and NLRC Rules. Withou Withoutt waitin waiting g for the NLRC's NLRC's resolu resolutio tion n on their their motion motion to dismiss, dismiss, the petitioners petitioners filed the present present petition. petition. This petition seeks to annul the three NLRC resolutions, to prohibit the NLRC from taking further proceedings in Injunction Case and to direct the NLRC to dismiss said injunction case and to order the full execution of the decision. The Solicitor General recommends that the petition be dismissed for being being premat premature ure,, applyi applying ng the doctr doctrine ine of exhaus exhaustio tion n of administrative remedies. He further stressed the jurisdiction of the NLRC and its exercise of sound discretion. Issue: WON the Soc Gen’s position is tenable. Ruling: The Court gave due course to this petition on a finding, among others, that the instant case falls under the exceptions to the general rule. The doctrine of exhaustio exhaustion n of administra administrative tive
94 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer remed remedies ies is not not an inflexibl inflexible e rule. rule. In fact, fact, it yields yields to many many accepted accepted exceptions exceptions.. As we have noted in a number number of cases, exhaustion is not necessary where inter alia there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine; where the challenged admini administr strati ative ve act is paten patently tly illega illegal, l, amo amount unting ing to lack lack of jurisdiction; where there is unreasonable delay or official action that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant: where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule impractical and oppressive; where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided anyway by the courts of justice. At least two of these exceptions are present in the instant case on exhaustion of administrative remedies. There had been no action on the challenge to the petition for relief from judgment for almost a year. This is considerably long considering that the labor arbiter's decision had already become final and in fact has been partially executed. The main case had been filed as early as June 20, 1986. Moreover, this case involving the propriety of a remedy and the suspension of an execution would only be further delayed if we remand it to the NLRC, only to have any decision raised again before this Court.
Sabello v. DECS 100 SCRA 623 Facts: Petitioner Sabello, was the Elementary School Principal of Talisay and also the Assistant Principal of the Talisay Barangay High School of the Division of Gingoog City. The barangay high school was in deficit at that time due to the fact that the students could hardly hardly pay for their monthly monthly tuition few. Since at that time also also,, the the Pres Presid iden entt of the the Phil Philip ippi pine nes s who who was was earn earnes estl tly y campaignin campaigning g was giving aid in the amount amount of P2,000.00 P2,000.00 for each barrio, barrio, the barrio council council through through proper resolutio resolutions ns alloted alloted the amount of P840.00 to cover up for the salaries of the high school teachers, teachers, with the honest honest thought in mind that the barrio high school was a barrio project and as such therefore, was entitled to its share of the RICD fund in question. The only part that the herein petitione petitionerr played played was his being being authorize authorized d by the said barrio coun counci cill to with withdr draw aw the the abov above e amou amount nt and and whic which h was was subsequently deposited in the City Treasurer's Office in the name of the Talisay Barrio High School. That was a grave error on the part of the herein petitioner as it involves the very intricacies in the disbursement of government funds and of its technicalities. Thus,
the herein herein petit petition ioner, er, togeth together er with with the barrio barrio captai captain, n, were were charge charged d of the violatio violation n of Republ Republic ic Act 3019, 3019, and and both both were were convicted to suffer a sentence of one year and disqualification to hold public office. The herein petitioner appealed his case to the Court Court of Appeal Appeals, s, Manil Manila. a. The The Court Court of Appeal Appeals s modifie modified d the decision decision by eliminatin eliminating g the subsidiary subsidiary imprisonme imprisonment nt in case of insolv insolven ency cy in the payme payment nt of one-ha one-half lf of the amo amount unt being being involved. The herein petitioner, being financially battered, could no longer hire a lawyer to proceed to the highest court of the land. Finall Finally, y, Sabel Sabello lo was grante granted d an ABSOLUT ABSOLUTE E PARDO PARDON N by the President of the Republic of the Philippines, restoring him to full civil and political rights. With this instrument on hand, the herein petitione petitionerr applied applied for reinstatem reinstatement ent to the governmen governmentt service, service, only to be reinstated to the wrong position of a mere classroom teache teacherr and not to his former former posit position ion as Elemen Elementar tary y Schoo Schooll Principal I. Issue: Issue: WON petit petition ioner er Sabel Sabello lo should should be reappo reappoint inted ed to his position. Ruling Ruling:: The question question of whethe whetherr or not petiti petitione onerr should should be reappointed to his former position is a matter of discretion of the appointing authority, but under the circumstances of this case, if the petitioner had been unfairly deprived of what is rightfully his, the discretion is qualified by the requirements of giving justice to the petitioner. It is no longer a matter of discretion on the part of the appointing power, but discretion tempered with fairness and justice. As to the argument that the Department of Education, Culture and Sports cannot be sued, the only answer is that its officials can be sued for alleged grave errors in their official acts. Again, We ignore technicality by considering this a suit against the officials of this government agency. Taking into consideration that this petition is filed by a nonlawyer, who claims that poverty denies him the services of a lawyer, the Court set aside the requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies and resolved to go direct to the merits of the petition. The petition is GRANTED in that that the Secretary of the Department Department of Educ Educat atio ion, n, Cult Cultur ure e and and Spor Sports ts and/ and/or or his his duly duly auth author oriz ized ed represen representativ tative e is hereby hereby directed directed to appoint appoint petitioner petitioner to the position of Elementary School Principal I or its equivalent Montes v. Civil Service Board of Appeals 101 Phil 490
95 | P a g e
Jose Rizal Memorial State University – College of Law Administrative Law Reviewer
Facts: Montes was charged with negligence in the performance of duty (Dredge No. 6 under him bad sunk because of water in the bilge, bilge, which he did not pump pump out while under under his care). care). the Commission Commissioner er of Civil Service Service exonerated exonerated him, on the basis basis of findings findings made by a committee. committee. But the Civil Service Board of Appeal Appeals s modifie modified d the decis decision ion,, findin finding g petit petition ioner er guilty guilty of contributory negligence in not pumping, the water from the bilge, and ordered that he be considered resigned effective his last day of duty duty with with pay, pay, without without prejud prejudice ice to reinst reinstate atemen mentt at the discretion of the appointing officer. Montes then filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila to review the decision, but the said court dismissed the action on a motion to dismiss, on the ground that petitioner had not exhausted all his administrative remedies before he instituted the action. The law which was applied by the lower court is Section 2 of Commonwea Commonwealth lth Act No. 598, which provides: provides: The Civil Service Service Board of Appeals shall have the power and authority to hear and decide all administrative cases brought before it on appeal, and its decisions in such cases shall be final, unless revised or modified by the President of the Philippines. Issu Issue: e: WON WON the the lowe lowerr cour courtt erre erred d in appl applyi ying ng Sec Sec Commonwealth Act No. 598 in the instant case.
2
of
Ruling Ruling:: There There is no duty duty impose imposed d on a party party agains againstt whom whom a decision has been rendered by the Civil Service Board of Appeals to appeal to the President, and that the tendency of courts has been not to subject the decision of the President to judicial review. It is further argued that if decisions of the Auditor General may be appealed to the courts, those of the Civil Service Board of Appeals need not be acted upon by the President also, before recourse may be had to the courts. It is also argued that if a case is appealed to the President, his action should be final and not reviewable by the courts because such a course of action would be derogatory to the high office of the President. The judgment appealed from is thus affirmed.
96 | P a g e