JD Batch 2017 Administrative Law Case Digests

USC Law JD Batch 2017. Administrative Law Review Digests.
PART I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION (POEA),

et al., respondents.
PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., G.R. No. 76633 (October 18, 1988). First
INC, vs. THE PUBLIC SERVICE Div, Cruz, J.
COMMISSION,
G.R. No. 47065 (June 26, 1940). EN BANC, The widow of an employee sued
LAUREL, J. petitioner-employer for damages before POEA
for the accidental death of her husband. Upon
On August 26, 1939, the petitioner filed with taking jurisdiction, POEA awarded monetary
the Public Service Commission an application claims pursuant to its Memorandum Circular
for authorization to operate ten additional new No. 2 prescribing the standard contract to be
Brockway trucks, on the ground that they were adopted by both foreign and domestic shipping
needed to comply with the terms and companies in the hiring of Filipino seamen for
conditions of its existing certificates and as a overseas employment. Petitioner questions the
result of the application of the Eight Hour validity of MC No. 2 as violative of the principle
of non-delegation of legislative power.
Labor Law. PSC granted with certain
The reason for the observation that
conditions. Contending these conditions,
delegation of legislative power has become the
petitioner filed an MR which the PSC denied.
rule and its non-delegation the exception is the
WON, PSC’s imposition of the conditions
increasing complexity of the task of
constitutes a valid delegation of legislative
government and the growing inability of the
power.
legislature to cope directly with the myriad
problems demanding its attention. The growth
Section 8 of Article XIII of the Constitution of society has ramified its activities and
provides, among other things, that no created peculiar and sophisticated problems
franchise, certificate, or any other form of that the legislature cannot be expected
authorization for the operation of a public reasonably to comprehend. Specialization even
utility shall be "for a longer period than fifty in legislation has become necessary. To many
years," and when it was ordained, in section 15 of the problems attendant upon present-day
of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended by undertakings, the legislature may not have the
Commonwealth Act No. 454, that the Public competence to provide the required direct and
Service Commission may prescribed as a efficacious, not to say, specific solutions. These
condition for the issuance of a certificate that it solutions may, however, be expected from its
"shall be valid only for a definite period of delegates, who are supposed to be experts in
time" and, in section 16 (a) that "no such the particular fields assigned to them.
certificates shall be issued for a period of more
than fifty years," the National Assembly meant
to give effect to the aforesaid constitutional SOLID HOMES, INC., vs.TERESITA
mandate. More than this, it has thereby also PAYAWAL and COURT OF APPEALS, G.R.
No. 84811 August 29, 1989, FIRST
declared its will that the period to be fixed by
DIVISION, CRUZ, J.:
the Public Service Commission shall not be
longer than fifty years. All that has been Solid Homes contracted to sell to
delegated to the Commission, therefore, is the Teresita Payawal a subdivision lot in Marikina
administrative function, involving the use for the agreed price of P 28,080.00. By
September 10, 1981, Payawal had already paid
discretion, to carry out the will of the National
Solid Homes the total amount of P 38,949.87
Assembly having in view, in addition, the in monthly installments and interests. Solid
promotion of "public interests in a proper and Homes subsequently executed a deed of sale
suitable manner.” over the land but failed to deliver the
corresponding certificate of title despite her
repeated demands because, as it appeared
Accordingly, with the growing complexity of later, the Solid Homes had mortgaged the
modern life, the multiplication of the subjects property in bad faith to a financing company.
of governmental regulation, and the increased Teresita filed a case before the RTC of Quezon
difficulty of administering the laws, there is a City. Solid Homes moved to dismiss the
constantly growing tendency toward the complaint on the ground that the court had no
jurisdiction, this being vested in the National
delegation of greater powers by the legislature,
Housing Authority under PD No. 957. The
and toward the approval of the practice by the private respondent, however, contends that
court. the applicable law is BP No. 129, which confers
on regional trial courts jurisdiction to hear and
decide cases mentioned in its Section 19.
EASTERN SHIPPING LINES INC.,
Between RTC and NHA, which has
petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS jurisdiction over the case?
1
whether or not the Administrative Code of

The applicable law is PD No. 957, as 1987 repealed or abrogated Section 699 of the
amended by PD No. 1344, entitled RAC, this petition was brought for the
"Empowering the National Housing Authority to
consideration of this Court.
Issue Writs of Execution in the Enforcement of
Its Decisions Under Presidential Decree No.
HELD: Comparing the two Codes, it is
957."The language of Section 1 of P.D. 957
leaves no room for doubt that "exclusive apparent that the new Code does not cover nor
jurisdiction" over the case between the attempt to cover the entire subject matter of
petitioner and the private respondent is vested the old Code. There are several matters
not in the Regional Trial Court but in the treated in the old Code which are not found in
National Housing Authority. the new Code, such as the provisions on
notaries public, the leave law, the public
The familiar cannon is that in case of
bonding law, military reservations, claims for
conflict between a general law and a special
law, the latter must prevail regardless of the sickness benefits under Section 699, and still
dates of their enactment. Thus, it has been others.
held that-
The fact that one law is special PRIMITIVO LEVERIZA, FE LEVERIZA,
and the other general creates a
presumption that the special PARUNGAO & ANTONIO C. VASCO, v.
act is to be considered as INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT,
remaining an exception of the
general act, one as a general MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES & CIVIL
law of the land and the other AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION,
as the law of the particular
case. G.R. No. L-66614 January 25, 1988, Third
xxx xxxxxx Division, BIDIN, J.
The circumstance that the
special law is passed before or
after the general act does not A dispute arises as to who has the
change the principle. Where
authority to execute contracts of lease
the special law is later, it will
be regarded as an exception covering properties under the administration of
to, or a qualification of, the
the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA).
prior general act; and where
the general act is later, the Under Art. 567 of the Revised Admin Code (the
special statute will be
1987 Admin Code), a contract of lease that the
construed as remaining an
exception to its terms, unless CAA will enter into must be executed by 1) the
repealed expressly or by
President of the Philippines, or 2) an officer
necessary implication.
It is obvious that the general law in this case is designated by him, or 3) an officer expressly
BP No. 129 and PD No. 1344 the special law.
vested by law. However, under RA 776 (the
Statutes conferring powers on their law creating the CAA), it is the Administrator of
administrative agencies must be liberally
the CAA who was given the power to
construed to enable them to discharge their
assigned duties in accordance with the administer CAA’s property. Who is authorized
legislative purpose. Following this policy in
to execute contracts of lease covering
Antipolo Realty Corporation v. National
Housing Authority, the Court sustained the properties under the administration of the
competence of the respondent administrative
CAA? It is the CAA Administrator.
body, in the exercise of the exclusive
jurisdiction vested in it by PD No. 957 and PD
No. 1344, to determine the rights of the The law creating CAA (RA 776) is a
parties under a contract to sell a subdivision
special law, thus prevails over the 1987
lot.
Admin Code which is a general law.
ANTONIO A. MECANO, v. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, G.R. No. 103982 December 11, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
1992, TRANSPORTATION AND
En Banc., J. Campos. Jr. COMMUNICATIONS (DOTC) vs. ROBERTO
MABALOT, February 27, 2002, G.R. No.
FACTS: Mecano is a Director II of the NBI. He 138200, EN BANC, BUENA, J.
was hospitalized for cholecystitis. In a
memorandum to the NBI Director, Director Lim
requested reimbursement for his expenses on
the ground that he is entitled to the benefits FACTS: DOTC secretary Jesus Garcia issued
under Section 699of the RAC. The sole issue of MO addressed to LTFRB chairman directing
2
latter to transfer regional functions of that Held: The CESB was created pursuant to PD
office to DOTC-CAR regional office, pending the No 1 of 1974. It cannot be disputed, therefore,
creation of a regular regional franchising and that as the CESB was created by law, it can
regulatory office. Respondent Roberto Mabalot only be abolished by the legislature, not by the
filed a petition praying that MO be declared CSC. This follows an unbroken stream of
illegal and without effect. The court issued a rulings that the creation and abolition of public
TRO enjoining petitioner from implementing offices is primarily a legislative function, not
the MO. Later, Secretary Lagdemao issued DO administrative. Further, CESB is an
establishing DOTC-CAR as the regional office of autonomous entity attached to the CSC. The
the LTFRB and shall exercise the regional power to reorganize does not extend to
functions of the LTFRB in the CAR subject to attached agencies as the relationship of
the direct supervision and control of the LTFRB attachment pertains to “policy and program
central office. The court rendered MO and DO coordination”.
as null and void and without any legal effect as
being violative of the provision of the De La Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294
constitution against encroachment on the
FACTS: The petitioners questioned the
powers of the legislative department. Were the
constitutionality of the Judiciary Reorganization
MO and DO violative of the provision of the
Act of 1980 (BP 129) by imputing the lack of
Constitution against encroachment on the
good faith in its enactment and characterizing
powers of the legislative department to abolish
as an undue delegation of legislative power to
offices and create new ones.
the president with regards to his authority to
fix compensation and allowance of the justices
and judges thereafter appointed and the
HELD: NO. Contrary to the opinion of the determination of the date when the
lower court, the President - through his duly reorganization shall be deemed completed. On
constituted political agent and alter ego, the the one hand, the solicitor general interposed a
DOTC Secretary in the present case - may defense of legitimate exercise of the power
legally and validly decree the reorganization of vested in the Batasang Pambansa. WON the
the Department, particularly the establishment enactment of BP 129 is unconstitutional by
of DOTC-CAR as the LTFRB Regional Office at reason of undue delegation
the Cordillera Administrative Region, with the
concomitant transfer and performance of public HELD: No. BP 129 is not unconstitutional
functions and responsibilities appurtenant to a because there was valid delegation. The basic
regional office of the LTFRB. At this point, it postulate that underlies the doctrine of
is apropos to reiterate the elementary rule non-delegation is that it is the legislative
in administrative law and the law on body which is entrusted with the
public officers that a public office may be competence to make laws and to alter and
CREATED through any of the following repeal them, the test being the
modes, to wit, either (1) by the completeness of the statue in all its terms
Constitution (fundamental law), (2) by and provisions when enacted. As pointed
law (statute duly enacted by Congress), out in Edu v. Ericta: "To avoid the taint of
or (3) by authority of law. Verily, Congress unlawful delegation, there must be a standard,
can delegate the power to create positions. which implies at the very least that the
This has been settled by decisions of the Court legislature itself determines matters of
upholding the validity of reorganization principle and lays down fundamental policy.
statutes authorizing the President to Otherwise, the charge of complete abdication
create, abolish or merge offices in the may be hard to repel. A standard thus defines
executive department. legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its
boundaries and specifies the public agency to
PART II. ADMINISTRATIVE apply it. It indicates the circumstances under
AGENCIES and ORGANIZATIONS which the legislative command is to be
effected. It is the criterion by which legislative
Aida D. Eugenio v. CSC, Teofisto Guingona, purpose may be carried out. Thereafter, the
Jr and Salvador Enriquez, GR No. 115863, executive or administrative office designated
31 March 1995, En Banc, Puno. may in pursuance of the above guidelines
promulgate supplemental rules and
Facts: Eugenio is the deputy director of the regulations. The standard may be either
Philippine Nuclear Research Institute who express or implied.
applied for a Career Executive Service Officer
rank but a CSC Resolution abolishing the Aquilino Larin v. The Executive Secretary,
Career Service Executive Board became an Secretary of Finance, Commissioner of the
impediment to her appointment. Bureau of Internal Revenue and the
3
Committee Created to Investigate The

Administrative Complaint Against Aquilino Section 2 of R.A. No. 6656 lists down the
Larin, October 16, 1997, GR No. 112745, circumstances evidencing bad faith in the
En Banc, Torres. removal of employees as a result of the
reorganization, thus:
The President issued Executive Order
132, reorganizing the BIR, which led to the The existence of any or some of the following
removal of Larin from office. Larin was a circumstances may be considered as evidence
presidential appointee: Assistant Commissioner of bad faith in the removals made as a result
of the Excise Tax Service of the Bureau of of the reorganization, giving rise to a claim for
Internal Revenue. reinstatement or reappointment by an
aggrieved party:
The position of the Assistant a) Where there is a significant increase in the
Commissioner of the BIR is part of the Career number of positions in the new staffing pattern
Executive Service. Under the law, Career of the department or agency concerned;
Executive Service officers, namely b) Where an office is abolished and another
Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary, Bureau performing substantially the same functions is
director, Assistant Bureau Director, Regional created;
Director, Assistant Regional Director, Chief of c) Where incumbents are replaced by those
Department Service and other officers of less qualified in terms of status of
equivalent rank as may be identified by the appointment, performance and merit;
Career Executive Service Board, are all d) Where there is a reclassification of offices in
appointed by the President. Thus, petitioner is the department or agency concerned and the
a presidential appointee who belongs to career reclassified offices perform substantially the
service of the Civil Service. Being a presidential same functions as the original offices;
appointee, he comes under the direct e) Where the removal violates the order of
disciplining authority of the President. This is in separation provided in Section 3 hereof."
line with the well settled principle that the
power to remove is inherent in the power to
CEBU UNITED ENTERPRISES, plaintiff-
appoint conferred to the President by Section
appellee, vs.JOSE GALLOFIN, Collector of
16, Article VII of the Constitution. This power Customs, Cebu Port, defendant-appellant,
of removal, however, is not an absolute one G.R. No. L-12859, November 18, 1959, EN
which accepts no reservation. It must be BANC, Reyes, J.B.L., J.
pointed out that petitioner is a career service
FACTS. Two imported shipments were refused
officer. Under the Administrative Code of 1987,
to be released because the ships carrying them
career service is characterized by the existence left after the Import License expired. The
of security of tenure, as contra-distinguished cargoes were, however, loaded onto the ship
from non-career service whose tenure is co- one day before the expiration thereof. Hence,
terminus with that of the appointing or subject the date of the bill of lading. The lower court
and the Court of appeals held that the
to his pleasure, or limited to a period specified
reckoning date should be the date of the bill, in
by law or to the duration of a particular project consonance to a Resolution issued by the
for which purpose the employment was made. defunct Import Control Commission.
As a career service officer, petitioner enjoys
HELD. “Although Republic Act No. 650,
the right to security of tenure. No less than the
creating the Import Control Commission,
1987 Constitution guarantees the right of expired on July 31, 1953, it is to be conceded
security of tenure of the employees of the civil that its duly executed acts can have valid
service. effects even beyond the life span of said
governmental agency.” Hence, the reliance on
the Resolution was correct.
While the President's power to
reorganize can not be denied, this does not ISABELO T. CRISOSTOMO, v. THE COURT
mean however that the reorganization itself is OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE OF THE
properly made in accordance with law. Well- PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 106296. July 5,
settled is the rule that reorganization is 1996, MENDOZA, J.
regarded as valid provided it is pursued in
good faith. Crisostomo was appointed President of
the Philippine College of Commerce (PCC) by
Citing Dario v Mison: "As a general rule, a the President of the Philippines. During
reorganization is carried out in good faith incumbency, two charges were filed against
him before the Office of the President and
if it is for the purpose of economy or to
violation of Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
make bureaucracy more efficient.”
4
before the Tanodbayan. He was preventively “The Board may create such other positions as
suspended. Subsequently, Pres. Marcos passed it may deem necessary for the management of
PD 1341 converting PCC into PUP with the the chapter” (section 1) or“National Liga
person who replaced Crisostomo, Dr. Mateo, as (section 2).” The LGC also authorized its
President. Crisostomo was then acquitted and creation: “493. Organization. The ligaxxx
all administrative charges were dismissed. directly elect a president, a vice-president, and
five (5) members of the board of directors. The
When the purpose is to abolish a board shall appoint its secretary and treasurer
department or an office or an organization and create such other positions as it may deem
and to replace it with another one, the necessary for the management of the chapter
lawmaking authority says so. PD 1314 xxx The board shall coordinate the activities of
merely states that PCC is converted into the chapters of the liga.”
PUP. The law does not state that the lands,
buildings and equipment owned by the PCC Issue: Whether, in making a delegation of this
were being transferred to the PUP but only that power to the board of directors of each chapter
they “stand transferred” to it. Stand of the LigangMga Barangay, Congress provided
transferred simply means, for example, that a sufficient standard so that, in the phrase of
lands transferred to the PCC were to be Justice Cardozo, administrative discretion
understood as transferred to the PUP as the may be canalized within proper banks that
new name of the institution. There was a keep it from overflowing.
change in academic status of the
educational institution, but not its Held: Yes. That Congress can delegate the
corporate life. Reinstatement of petitioner to power to create positions such as these has
the position of president of the PUP could not been settled by our decisions upholding the
be ordered by the trial court because P.D. No. validity of reorganization statutes authorizing
1437 had been promulgated fixing the term of the President of the Philippines to create,
office of presidents of state universities and abolish or merge offices in the executive
colleges at six (6) years, renewable for another department. Statutory provisions authorizing
term of six (6) years, and authorizing the the President of the Philippines to make
President of the Philippines to terminate the reforms and changes in GOCCs for the purpose
terms of incumbents who were not of promoting simplicity, economy and
reappointed. efficiency in their operations and empowering
the Secretary of Education to prescribe
CESAR G. VIOLA, Chairman, Bgy. 167, minimum standards of adequate and efficient
Zone 15, District II, Manila v. HON. instruction in private schools and colleges have
RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, Secretary, DILG, been found to be sufficient for the purpose of
ALEX L. DAVID, President/Secretary valid delegation. Judged by these cases, we
General, National Liga ng mga Barangay, hold that493 of the Local Government Code, in
LEONARDO L. ANGAT, President, City of directing the board of directors of the liga to
Manila, Ligangmga Barangay, G.R. No. create such other positions as may be deemed
115844. August 15, 1997, EN BANC necessary for the management of the
MENDOZA, J.: chapters, embodies a fairly intelligible
standard. There is no undue delegation of
Facts: Viola, brgy chair, filed a petition for power by Congress. Petition is DISMISSED for
prohibition contending that Art. III, 1-2 of the lack of merit.
Revised Implementing Rules and Guidelines for
the General Elections of the Liga ng mga NATIONAL LAND TITLES AND DEEDS
Barangay Officers is invalid as it expands the REGISTRATION ADMINISTRATION v.
law by creating positions (election of first, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (1993)
second and third VPs and for auditors for
National Liga and local chapters) in excess of FACTS: E.O. No. 649 authorized the
those provided in the Local Government Code restructuring of the Land Registration
(R.A. No. 7160), 493 of which mentions as Commission (LRC) to National Land Titles and
elective positions only those of president, vice Deeds Registration Administration (NALTDRA)
president, and five members of the board of and regionalized the Offices of the Registers
directors in each chapter at the municipal, city, therein. Petitioner Garcia, a Bachelor of Laws
provincial, metropolitan political subdivision, graduate and a first grade civil service eligible,
and national levels. The creation of these who was appointed previously to an office
positions was actually made in the Constitution under a permanent status, was issued an
and By-laws of the Ligang Mga Barangay, appointment as Deputy Register of Deeds II,
adopted by the First Barangay National now under atemporary status, for not being a
Assembly on January 11, 1994. In both Local member of the Philippine Bar. Garcia was later
Chapters and National Liga levels (article VI), on terminated on the ground that she was
5
"receiving bribe money" and such termination

was subject of an appeal to the Merit Systems Reorganization is carried out in good
Protection Board (MSPB). MSPB dropped the faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to
appeal of Garcia ratiocinating that since the make bureaucracy more efficient. To this end,
termination of her services was due to the the requirement of Bar membership to qualify
expiration of her temporary appointment, her forkey positions in the NALTDRA was imposed
separation is in order. However, in a to meet the changing circumstances and
Resolution, the Civil Service Commission newdevelopment of the times. Garcia DID NOT
directed that Garcia be restored to her position have such qualification. It is thus clear that she
as Deputy Register of Deeds II or itsequivalent cannot hold any keyposition in the NALTDRA,
in the NALTDRA. It held that "under the vested The additional qualification was not intended to
right theory the new requirement of BAR remove her from office.Rather, it was a
membership to qualify for permanent criterion imposed concomitant with a valid
appointment, would not apply to her (Garcia) reorganization measure.
butonly to the filling up of vacant lawyer
positions on or after February 9, 1981, the
date saidExecutive Order took effect." DRIANITA BAGAOISAN, et al v. NATIONAL
TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, represented
HELD: THERE IS NO VESTED PROPERTY by ANTONIO DE GUZMAN and PERLITA
RIGHT TO BE RE-EMPLOYED IN A BAULA, G.R. No. 152845. August 5, 2003,
REORGANIZED OFFICE. There is no such FIRST DIVISION, J. VITUG.
thing as a vested interest or an estate in an
President Joseph Estrada issued
office, or even an absolute right to hold it.
Executive Order No. 29, entitled Mandating the
Except constitutional offices which provide for
Streamlining of the National Tobacco
special immunity as regards salary and tenure,
Administration (NTA), a government agency
no one can be said to have any vested right in
under the Department of Agriculture. The order
an office or its salary.
was followed by another issuance, increasing
from four hundred (400) to not exceeding
E.O. NO. 649 EXPRESSLY PROVIDED
seven hundred fifty (750) the positions
THE ABOLITION OF EXISTING POSITIONS.
affected thereby. On 10 June 1996, petitioners,
The question of whether or not a law abolishes
all occupying different positions at the NTA
an office is one oflegislative intent about which
office received individual notices of termination
there can be no controversy whatsoever if
of their employment.
there is an explicitdeclaration in the law itself.
A closer examination of E.O. 649 reveals that
The reorganization was valid. Under
said law in express terms, provided for
Section 31, Book III of Executive Order No.
theabolition of existing positions. Thus, without
292 (otherwise known as the Administrative
need of any interpretation, the law mandates
Code of 1987), the President, subject to the
thatfrom the moment an implementing order is
policy in the Executive Office and in order
issued, all positions in the Land
to achieve simplicity, economy and
RegistrationCommission are deemed non-
efficiency, shall have the continuing
existent. This, however, does not mean
authority to reorganize the administrative
removal. Abolition of aposition does not involve
structure of the Office of the President.
or mean removal for the reason that removal
implies that the postsubsists and that one is It is an act well within the authority
merely separated therefrom. (Arao vs. Luspo, of President motivated and carried out,
20 SCRA 722 [1967]) Afterabolition, there is in according to the findings of the appellate court,
law no occupant. Thus, there can be no tenure in good faith, a factual assessment that this
to speak of. It is in this sensethat from the Court could only but accept.Reorganizations
standpoint of strict law, the question of any have been regarded as valid provided they are
impairment of security of tenure doesnot arise. pursued in good faith. Reorganization is
(De la Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294 [1982]) carried out in `good faith if it is for the
purpose of economy or to make
REORGANIZATION WAS VALID AS IT bureaucracy more efficient.
WAS PURSUED IN GOOD FAITH
Nothing is better settled in our law than that
the abolition of an office within the competence
of alegitimate body if done in good faith suffers KAPISANAN NG MGA KAWANI NG ENERGY
from no infirmity. Two questions therefore REGULATORY BOARD, Petitioner, vs.
arise: COMMISSIONER FE B. BARIN, DEPUTY
(1)was the abolition carried out by COMMISSIONERS CARLOS R. ALINDADA,
a legitimate body?; and LETICIA V. IBAY, OLIVER B. BUTALID, and
(2) was it done in good faith? MARY ANNE B. COLAYCO, of the ENERGY
6
REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondents, TRUTH COMMISSION [G.R. No. 192935.

G.R. No. 150974, June 29, 2007, Second December 7, 2010, EN BANC, MENDOZA, J
Division, J. Carpio.
Facts: RA 9136, known as EPIRA (for electric Facts: The Philippine Truth
Power Industry Reform Act) was enacted
Commission (PTC) was formed under the
wherein Sec. 38 of the said law provides for
the abolition of the ERB (Energy Regulatory Office of the President with the primary task to
Board) and creation of ERC (Energy Regulatory investigate reports of graft and corruption
Commission). However, KERB asserted that
committed by third-level public officers and
RA 9136 did not abolish the ERB or change the
ERB’s character, it merely changed the ERB employees, their co-principals, accomplices
name to ERC and expanded functions and and accessories during the previous
objectives.
administration, and thereafter to submit its
Ruling: The question of whether a law finding and recommendations to the President,
abolishes an office is a question of legislative Congress and the Ombudsman. Though it has
intent. There should not be any controversy if
been described as an "independent collegial
there is an explicit declaration of abolition in
the law itself. Section 38 of RA 9136 explicitly body," it is essentially an entity within the
abolished the ERB. However, abolition of an Office of the President Proper and subject to
office and its related positions is different from
his control. Doubtless, it constitutes a public
removal of an incumbent from his
office. Abolition and removal are mutually office, as an ad hoc body is one.
exclusive concepts. From a legal standpoint,
there is no occupant in an abolished The creation of an office is nowhere
office. Where there is no occupant, there is no
mentioned, much less envisioned in said
tenure to speak of. Thus, impairment of the
constitutional guarantee of security of tenure provision. Accordingly, the creation of PTC
does not arise in the abolition of an office. On is not within the power of the President to
the other hand, removal implies that the office organize.
and its related positions subsist and that the
occupants are merely separated from their
positions. A valid order of abolition must not The Chief Executive's power to create
only come from a legitimate body, it must also the Ad hoc Investigating Committee
be made in good faith. An abolition is made in
cannot be doubted. It should be stressed
good faith when it is not made for political or
personal reasons, or when it does not that the purpose of allowing ad
circumvent the constitutional security of tenure hoc investigating bodies to exist is to allow an
of civil service employees. Abolition of an office inquiry into matters which the President is
may be brought about by reasons of economy,
entitled to know so that he can be properly
or to remove redundancy of functions, or a
clear and explicit constitutional mandate for advised and guided.
such termination of employment.
BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
Where one office is abolished and
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. No. 177131,
replaced with another office vested with
7 June 2011.
similar functions, the abolition is a legal
nullity. When there is a void abolition, the COA issued Resolution No. 99-011 defining the
incumbent is deemed to have never ceased Commission’s Policy with respect to the audit
holding office. In this instant case, the Court of the Boy Scout of the Philippines. For the
finds that ERC indeed assumed the functions of purposes of audit supervision, the BSP shall be
the ERB. However, the overlap in the functions classified among the government corporations
of the ERB and of the ERC does not mean that to be audited by employing the team audit
there is no valid abolition of the ERB. The approach. The BSP sought reconsideration of
ERC has new and expanded functions which the COA Resolution saying that it is not subject
are intended to meet the specific needs of a to the COA’s jurisdiction.
deregulated power industry.
The SC finds that the BSP is a public
corporation and its funds are subject to the
LOUIS "BAROK" C. COA’s audit jurisdiction.
BIRAOGO, petitioner, vs. THE PHILIPPINE
7
The BSP is a public corporation or a power" although in the same article it touches
government agency or instrumentality with on the exercise of certain powers by the
juridical personality, which does not fall within President. Corollarily, the powers of the
the constitutional prohibition in Article XII, President cannot be said to be limited only to
Section 16, notwithstanding the amendments the specific powers enumerated in the
to its charter. Not all corporations, which are Constitution. In other words, executive power
not government owned or controlled, are ipso is more than the sum of specific powers so
facto to be considered private corporations as enumerated.It has been advanced that
there exists another distinct class of whatever power inherent in the government
corporations or chartered institutions which are that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be
otherwise known as “public corporations” executive.Herein, the power involved is the
These corporations are treated by law as President's residual power to protect the
agencies or instrumentalities of the general welfare of the people. It is founded on
government which are not subject to the tests the duty of the President, as steward of the
of ownership or control and economic viability people. Hence, Aquino did not act arbitrarily or
but to different criteria relating to their public with grave abuse of discretion in determining
purposes/interests or constitutional policies that the return of the Marcoses poses a serious
and objectives and their administrative threat to national interest and welfare.
relationship to the government or any of its
Departments or Offices. Citizen J. Antonio Carpio v.The Executive
Secretary, The Secretary of Local
Since the BSP, under its amended charter, Governments, The Secretary of National
continues to be a public corporation or a Defense, and the National Treasurer, G.R.
government instrumentality, we come to the No. 96409
inevitable conclusion that it is subject to the
exercise by the COA of its audit jurisdiction in
Congress passed Republic Act No. 6975
the manner consistent with the provisions of
entitled "AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE
the BSP Charter.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE UNDER A
REORGANIZED DEPARTMENT OF THE
Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, 15
INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND
September 1989. En Banc, Cortes.
FOR OTHER PURPOSES" Carpio, as citizen,
Executive Power, defined. taxpayer and member of the Philippine Bar
seeks for declaration of unconstitutionality of
Facts: RA 6975 with prayer for temporary restraining
order. Carpio contends that RA 6975 limits the
Former President Marcos, in his deathbed, power of the National Police Commission to
signified his wish to return to the Philippines to administrative control over the PNP, and hence
die. However, Aquino stood firmly in her this control remained with the Department
decision to bar the return of the Marcos family Secretary under whom both the National Police
in the Philippines in the interest of national Commission and the PNP were placed.
security and public safety.Invoking their right
to return under the Bill of Rights,UDHR and
Carpio is mistaken.
ICCPR, they contend that the President is
without power to impair the liberty of abode of
To begin with, one need only has to refer to
the Marcoses because only a court may do so
the fundamentally accepted principle in
“within the limits prescribed by law.”Nor may
Constitutional Law that the President has
the President impair their right to travel
control of all executive departments, bureaus,
because no law has authorized her to do so.
and offices to lay at rest Carpio's contention on
Thus, they advance the view that before the
the matter.This presidential power of control
right to travel may be impaired by any
over the executive branch of government
authority or agency of the government, there
extends over all executive officers from
must be legislation to that effect. In other
Cabinet Secretary to the lowliest clerk and has
words, they contend that the President’s
been held by us, in the landmark case
powers are limited to those specifically
of Mondano vs. Silvosa, to mean "the power of
enumerated under the Constitution and what is
[the President] to alter or modify or nullify or
not enumerated is impliedly denied to her.
set aside what a subordinate officer had done
Held: in the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the former with that
of the latter." It is said to be at the very "heart
The Constitution provides that "[t]he executive
of the meaning of Chief 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
8
The circumstance that the NAPOLCOM and the the fixing of tariff rates, because is this case,
PNP are placed under the reorganized tariff rate fixing is essentially legislative
Department of Interior and Local Government because it involves power of taxation.
is merely an administrative realignment that
would bolster a system of coordination and PROF. RANDOLF S. DAVID, v. GLORIA
MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, G.R. No. 171396,
cooperation among the citizenry, local
May 3, 2006. En Banc (Sandoval-
executives and the integrated law enforcement Gutierrez)
agencies and public safety agencies created
under the assailed Act, the funding of the PNP
The case involves seven consolidated petitions
being in large part subsidized by the national
for certiorari and prohibition which all allege
government.Such organizational set-up does that Presidential Proclamation 1017 (PP 1017)
not detract from the mandate of the and General Order No. 5 (GO No. 5) issued by
Constitution that the national police force shall President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on February
be administered and controlled by a national 24, 2006 were made with grave abuse of
police commission. discretion. In gist, PP 1017 declared a state of
national emergency while GO No. 5
implements PP 1017 where “the Armed Forces
Thus, and in short, "the President's power of of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine
control is directly exercised by him over the National Police (PNP), were directed to
members of the Cabinet who, in turn, and by maintain law and order throughout the
his authority, control the bureaus and other Philippines, prevent and suppress all form of
offices under their respective jurisdictions in lawless violence as well as any act of rebellion
and to undertake such action as may be
the executive department."
necessary.”
SOUTHERN CROSS CEMENT CORPORATION

Among others, it was contended that the said
v. THE PHILIPPINE CEMENT
issuances usurped the power of Congress
MANUFACTURERS CORP., ET. AL.
because it arrogates to PGMA the power to
TINGA, J.: Second Division, G.R. No.
enact laws and decrees and that “it amounts to
158540, July 8, 2004.
an exercise by the President of emergency
powers without congressional approval.”
The Department of Trade and Industry ("DTI")
accepted an application from Philcemcor The Supreme Court examined such issuances
alleging that the importation of gray Portland in the light of “emergency governance” where
cement in increased quantities has caused according to the Court “in times of emergency,
declines in domestic production, depressed our Constitution reasonably demands that we
local prices, among others. Accordingly, repose a certain amount of faith in the basic
Philcemcor sought the imposition of definitive integrity and wisdom of the Chief Executive
safeguard measures on the import of cement but, at the same time, it obliges him to operate
pursuant to Rep. Act No. 8800, also known as within carefully prescribed procedural
the Safeguard Measures Act ("SMA") limitations.”
The Tariff Commission, as mandated by the

As defined in the Administrative Code,
SMA, concluded that there was no serious
proclamations are merely "acts of the
injury to the local cement industry caused by
President fixing a date or declaring a
the surge of imports. The DTI Secretary
status or condition of public moment or
disagreed. However, the DTI Secretary made a
interest upon the existence of which the
decision citing the DOJ Opinion that he was
operation of a specific law or regulation is
bound by the negative finding of the Tariff
made to depend". A proclamation, on its
Commission.
own, cannot create or suspend any
constitutional or statutory rights or
Issue: Binding Effect of Tariff Commission's
obligations. There would be need of a
Factual Determination on DTI Secretary.
complementing law or regulation referred to in
Under the SMA, although the positive final
the proclamation should such act indeed put
determination of the Tariff Commission is a
into operation any law or regulation by fixing a
requisite in the application of the DTI’s
date or declaring a status or condition of a
safeguard measure, still, the DTI Secretary is
public moment or interest related to such law
tasked to decide by himself whether or not the
or regulation. And should the proclamation
application of the safeguard measures is in the
allow the operationalization of such law or
public interest.
regulation, all subsequent resultant acts
cannot exceed or supersede the law or
The measures enumerated by the SMA are
regulation that was put into effect.”
essentially imposts, which precisely are the
subject of delegation under Section 28(2),
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. [G.R. No. L-27524 July 31, 1970] JOSE C.
Nevertheless, the President’s control power TECSON, v. HON. RAFAEL SALAS Executive
over departments may still be limited by Secretary, HON. ANTONIO V. RAQUIZA,
Congress in matters which the President
respondent. En Banc. Penned by FERNANDO,
exercises delegated authority only, such as
J.
9
27811.November 17, 1967. En Banc

FACTS: Petitioner Jose C. Tecson, (Sanchez, J)
Superintendent of Dredging, Bureau of Public
Works, sought through a special civil action FACTS: Jose Paño was a farmer who asserted
for certiorari and prohibition the nullification of his claim over the same piece of land. The
his detail to the Office of the President to assist Director of Lands denied Paño’s request. The
in the San Fernando Port Project thru a Secretary of Agriculture likewise denied his
directive of the then Executive Secretary, petition hence it was elevated to the Office of
Rafael Salas, acting by presidential authority. the President.
He asserts that it is removal without caue since
Executive Secretary Juan Pajo ruled in favor of
it should be approved by the Budget
Paño. LMC averred that the earlier decision of
Commissioner and the Commissioner of Civil
the Secretary of Agriculture is already
Service. The lower court sustainted the motion
conclusive hence beyond appeal. He also
to dismiss filed by the respondents. The matter
averred that the decision of the Executive
was brought on appeal.
Secretary is an undue delegation of power. The
Constitution, LMC asserts, does not contain
ISSUE: WON the assignment of petitioner to
any provision whereby the presidential power
another office, by the President of the
of control may be delegated to the Executive
Philippines thru the Executive Secretary,
Secretary. It is argued that it is the
constitutes removal from office without cause?
constitutional duty of the President to act
personally upon the matter.
RULING: The order of dismissal is affirmed.
Principle: The act of the President cannot be
ISSUE: Whether or not the power of control
countermanded by a department secretary
may be delegated to the Executive Secretary.
who is a mere subordinate of the President nor
can a subordinate of a department secretary HELD: Yes. It is true that as a rule, the
disregard his superior’s altering his action in President must exercise his constitutional
the performance of his function as the powers in person. However, the president may
department secretary who has power of control delegate certain powers to the Executive
over him, acts as the President’s alter-ego and Secretary at his discretion. The president may
his action is presumed to be that of the delegate powers which are not required by the
President. Constitution for him to perform personally. The
reason for this allowance is the fact that the
The Villena decision no longer speaks with resident is not expected to perform in person
authority with regard to delineating the all the multifarious executive and
President’s power of control. Justice Padilla administrative functions. The office of the
in Mondano v. Silvosa states: supervision Executive Secretary is an auxiliary unit which
means "overseeing or the power or authority assists the President. The rule which has thus
of an officer to see that subordinate officers gained recognition is that “under our
perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect constitutional setup the Executive Secretary
to fulfill them the former may take such action who acts for and in behalf and by authority of
or step as prescribed by law to make them the President has an undisputed jurisdiction to
perform their duties." Control, on the other affirm, modify, or even reverse any order” that
hand, "means the power of an officer to alter the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
or modify or nullify or set aside what a Resources, including the Director of Lands,
subordinate had done in the performance of may issue.
their duties and to substitute the judgment of
the former for that of the latter." Insofar The act of the Executive Secretary, acting as
however, as the power of control over all the alter ego of the President, shall remain
executive departments, bureaus or offices is valid until reversed, disapproved, or
concerned, the Villena ruling establishing the reprobated by the President. In this case, no
qualified political agency concept applies with reprobation was made hence the decision
undiminished force. granting the land to Paño cannot be reversed.
Leonardo Montes v. The Civil Service

LACSON-MAGALLANES CO., INC., plaintiff-
Board of Appeals, G.R. No. L-10759, May
appellant,vs.JOSE PAÑO, HON. JUAN
PAJO, in his capacity as Executive 20, 1957, EN
Secretary, and HON. JUAN DE G.
RODRIGUEZ, in his capacity as Secretary Petitioner-appellant was, on and before
of Agriculture and Natural Resources,
January, 1953, a watchman of the Floating
defendants-appellees., G.R. No.L-
Equipment Section, Ports and Harbors Division,
10
Bureau of Public Works. In Administrative Case Upon review by the Civil Service Commission
No. R-8182 instituted against him for and affirmed by the Office of the President,
Mackay’s appointment was ordered revoked.
negligence in the performance of duty (Dredge
Despite such Order, the Mayor still appointed
No. 6 under him had sunk because of water in Dr. Mackay. The CSC disapproved the
the bilge, which he did not pump out while appointment. Mackay moved to reconsider but
before resolution by the CSC, Mackay sought
under his care), the Commissioner of Civil
to enjoin its implementation in the CFI. Medalla
Service exonerated him, on the basis of says CFI has no jurisdiction because of non-
findings made by a committee. But the Civil compliance with the doctrine of prior
exhaustion of administrative remedies and that
Service Board of Appeals modified the decision,
the City Mayor’s appointing power is limited by
finding petitioner guilty of contributory Civil Service law.
negligence in not pumping the water from the
Ruling: The appointing power of the local
bilge, and ordered that he be considered
executive can be limited by the same law that
resigned effective his last day of duty with pay, grants the power.Under the Revised Charter of
without prejudice to reinstatement at the the City of Caloocan (RA No.5502), it is clear
that the power of appointment by the City
discretion of the appointing officer.
Mayor of heads of offices entirely paid out of
city funds is subject to Civil Service law, rules
Petitioner filed an action in the Court of First and regulations. The Caloocan City General
Instance of Manila to review the decision, but Hospital is one of the city departments
provided for in said law. The Civil Service
the said court dismissed the action on a motion
Decree (PD No. 807), employees to be
to dismiss, on the ground that petitioner had promoted must be drawn from the next-in-
not exhausted all his administrative remedies rank.
before he instituted the action.
THE UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN
HILL, INC., represented by its President
The dismissal was correct. Clearly under the RODRIGO S. MACARIO, SR., petitioner, vs.
law, the decision of the Civil Service Board of COMMISSION ON THE SETTLEMENT OF
LAND PROBLEMS, G.R. No. 135945, March
Appeals is subject to review by the President,
7, 2001, SECOND DIVISION, DE LEON, JR.,
hence the decision of the former cannot be J.
directly reviewed by regular courts. The
President under whom the Civil Service directly A property called Dominican Hills was
donated to the Republic of the Philippines by
falls in our administrative system as head of
UCPB through its President for the priority
the executive department, may be able to programs of the Ministry of Human
grant the remedy that petitioner pursues, Settlements but which upon the abolition of
reasons of comity and orderly procedure the latter, it was transferred to Presidential
Management Staff (PMS). The latter received
demand that resort be made to him before
an application from petitioner UNITED
recourse can be had to the courts. RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN HILL, INC.
(UNITED, for brevity), a community housing
EUSTAQUIO M. MEDALLA, JR., petitioner, association composed of non-real property
vs. THE HONORABLE MARCELINO N. SAYO,
owning residents of Baguio City, to acquire a
Judge of the CFI of Rizal, Branch XXXIII
portion of the Dominican Hills property. On
and HONORATO G. MACKAY, acting
February 2, 1990, PMS Secretary Elfren Cruz
Hospital Administrator of the Caloocan
referred the application to the HOME
City General Hospital and the CITY MAYOR
INSURANCE GUARANTY CORPORATION
OF CALOOCAN, respondents, G.R. No. L-
(HIGC). On May 9, 1990, a Memorandum of
54554. March 30, 1981, First Division
Agreement was signed by and among the PMS,
(Melencio-Herrera, J.)
the HIGC, and UNITED. The Memorandum of
Facts: Petitioner Dr. Medalla, Jr. contests the Agreement called for the PMS to sell the
appointment by the City Mayor of Dr. Mackay Dominican Hills property to HIGC which would,
as Hospital Administrator of Caloocan City in turn, sell the same to UNITED. This was
General Hospital because first, the former consummated and HIGC executed a Deed of
holds a position higher (Chief of Clinics) than Absolute Sale to UNITED. However, private
that of the latter (Resident physician) and respondents entered the Dominican Hills
second, they have the same qualifications. property allocated to UNITED and constructed
11
houses thereon. Petitioner was able to secure a G.R. No. 97149, 31 March 1992, En Banc,
demolition order from the city mayor. Romero, J.
Consequently, private respondents, under the
name DOMINICAN HILL BAGUIO RESIDENTS The PPA General Manager charge Beja
HOMELESS ASSOCIATION (ASSOCIATION, for for dishonesty, grave misconduct, etc. The PPA
brevity) filed an action for injunction. While general manager indorsed it to the AAB “for
Civil Case No. 3316-R was pending, the appropriate action.” May the DOTC Sec and/or
ASSOCIATION, this time represented by the AAB initiate and hear administrative cases
Land Reform Beneficiaries Association, Inc. against PPA personnel below the rank of
Assistant General Manager?
(BENEFICIARIES, for brevity), filed a complaint
The court qualifiedly rules in favor of
for damages, injunction and annulment of the
petitioner. An attached agency has a larger
said Memorandum of Agreement between
measure of independence from the Department
UNITED and HIGC. To forestall the re-
to which it is attached than one which is under
implementation of the demolition order, private
departmental supervision and control or
respondents filed on September 29, 1998 a
administrative supervision. This is borne out by
petition for annulment of contracts with prayer the “lateral relationship” between the
for a temporary restraining order in the Department and attached agency. The
Commission on the Settlement of Land attachment is merely for policy reform and
Problems (COSLAP) against petitioner, HIGC, program coordination. With respect to the
PMS, the City Engineers Office, the City Mayor, management of personnel, an attached agency
as well as the Register of Deeds of Baguio City. is, to a certain extent, free from Departmental
On the very same day, public respondent interference and control. It is, therefore, clear
COSLAP issued the contested order requiring that the transmittal of the complaint by the
the parties to maintain the status quo. PPA General Manager to the AAB was
Petitioner filed the instant petition questioning premature. The PPA General Manager should
the jurisdiction of the COSLAP. have first conducted an investigation, made
the proper recommendation for the imposable
The COSLAP discharges quasi-judicial penalty and sought its approval by the PPA
functions. Quasi-judicial function is a term Board of Directors. It was discretionary on the
which applies to the actions, discretion, etc. of part of the herein petitioner to elevate the case
public administrative officers or bodies, who to the DOTC Secretary. Only then could the
AAB take jurisdiction of the case.
are required to investigate facts, or ascertain
the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw
conclusions from them, as a basis for their
official action and to exercise discretion of a
judicial nature. However, it does not depart MARIA ELENA MALAGA, doing business
from its basic nature as an administrative under the name B.E. CONSTRUCTION; et.
agency, albeit one that exercises quasi-judicial al. v. MANUEL R. PENACHOS, JR.,
ALFREDO MATANGGA, ENRICO TICAR AND
functions. Still, administrative agencies are not
TERESITA VILLANUEVA, in their
considered courts; they are neither part of the respective capacities as Chairman and
judicial system nor are they deemed judicial Members of the Pre-qualification Bids and
tribunals. The doctrine of separation of powers Awards Committee (PBAC) et. al., G.R. No.
observed in our system of government reposes 86695, 3 September 1992, FIRST
DIVISION, Cruz.
the three (3) great powers into its three (3)
branches the legislative, the executive, and the
judiciary each department being co-equal and The Iloilo State College of Fisheries
coordinate, and supreme in its own sphere. (ISCOF) through its Pre-qualification, Bids and
Accordingly, the executive department may Awards Committee (PBAC) caused the
publication of an Invitation to Bid for the
not, by its own fiat, impose the judgment of
construction of the Micro Laboratory Building at
one of its own agencies, upon the judiciary. ISCOF. Malaga, et. al, submitted their pre-
Indeed, under the expanded jurisdiction of the qualification documents. All three of them were
Supreme Court, it is empowered to determine not allowed to participate in the bidding
whether or not there has been grave abuse of because their documents were considered late,
having been submitted after the cut-off time of
discretion amounting to lack of or excess of
ten o’clock in the morning of Dec. 2,
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or 1998.Malaga, et. al filed a complaint with the
instrumentality of the Government. Regional Trial Court of Iloilo against the
chairman and members of PBAC in their official
FIDENCIO Y. BEJA, SR., petitioner, vs. and personal capacities. On the same date,
Judge Lodrigio L. Lebaquin issued a restraining
COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.
order prohibiting PBAC from conducting the
bidding and awarding the project. On
12
December 16, 1988, the defendants filed a In effect, this equates the award or decision of
motion to lift the restraining order on the the voluntary arbitrator with that of the
ground that the Court was prohibited from regional trial court. Consequently, in a petition
issued restraining orders, preliminary
for certiorari from that award or decision, the
injunctions and preliminary mandatory
Court of Appeals must be deemed to have
injunctions by P.D. 1818.
concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme
WON P.D. 1818 is applicable Court. As a matter of policy, this Court shall
notwithstanding the fact that ISCOF was a henceforth remand to the Court of Appeals
state college, it had its own charter and petitions of this nature for proper disposition.
separate existence and was not part of the ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to REFER
national government or of any local political
this case to the Court of Appeals.
subdivision?
IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY v. THE
The 1987 Administrative Code defines
a government instrumentality as follows: COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA CRISTINA
Instrumentality refers to any agency of
FERTILIZER CORPORATION, G.R. No.
the National Government, not integrated within
the department framework, vested with special 102976 October 25, 1995, Third Division,
functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with
FELICIANO, J.
some if not all corporate powers, administering
special funds, and enjoying operational
autonomy, usually through a charter. This term Facts: The National Steel Corporation (NSC),
includes regulatory agencies, chartered
an entity wholly owned by the National
institutions, and government-owned or
controlled corporations. (Sec. 2 (5) Government, embarked on the construction of
Introductory Provisions).
a steel mill in Iligan City, requiring it to acquire
The same Code describes a chartered
institution thus a tract of land owned by private corporation
Chartered institution — refers to any
Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corporation (MCFC). As
agency organized or operating under a special
charter, and vested by law with functions negotiations between NSC and MCFC
relating to specific constitutional policies or
pertaining to the purchase of the land failed,
objectives. This term includes the state
universities and colleges, and the monetary the Iron and Steel Authority (ISA), which was
authority of the state. (Sec. 2 (12)
created by PD 272 in order to develop and
Introductory Provisions).
promote the iron and steel industry in the
LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK,
Philippines, instituted expropriation
vs.ASSOCIATION OF LUZON
DEVELOPMENT BANK EMPLOYEES and proceedings covering the property. While the
ATTY. ESTER S. GARCIA in her capacity as trial was ongoing, however, the statutory
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR, G.R. No. existence of ISA expired. MCFC then filed a
120319 October 6, 1995, En Banc. , J.
motion to dismiss, contending that no valid
ROMERO.
judgment could be rendered against ISA which
FACTS: At a conference, the parties agreed on
had ceased to be a juridical person. For its
the submission of their respective Position
Papers. Respondent's Position was received. part, ISA urged that the Republic of the
LDB, on the other hand, failed to submit its Philippines, being the real party-in-interest,
Position Paper despite a letter from the
should be allowed to be substituted in the
Voluntary Arbitrator reminding them to do so.
The VA ruled that the Bank has not adhered to case. Should the RP be allowed to substitute
the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision ISA in the expropriation proceedings?
nor the Memorandum of Agreement on
promotion. Held: Yes.
HELD: The voluntary arbitrator no less

First, ISA is a non-incorporated agency, not
performs a state function pursuant to a
governmental power delegated to him under having a separate and distinct personality from
the provisions therefor in the Labor Code and the Government.
he falls, therefore, within the contemplation of
the term "instrumentality" in the aforequoted The following are the powers and functions of
Sec. 9 of B.P. 129. The fact that his functions
the ISA as stated on PD 272.
and powers are provided for in the Labor Code
does not place him within the exceptions to
said Sec. 9 since he is a quasi-judicial
instrumentality as contemplated therein.
13
- to initiate expropriation of land through the SUGAR REGULATORY

required for basic iron and steel ADMINISTRATION, and REPUBLIC
PLANTERS BANK, v. THE HONORABLE
facilities xxx
COURT OF APPEALS, 15th Division, THE
- to negotiate, and when necessary, HONORABLE CORONA IBAY-SOMERA, in
to enter into contracts for and in her official capacity as Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court, National Capital
behalf of the government xxx
Region, Branch 26, Manila, JORGE C.
VICTORINO and JAIME K. DEL ROSARIO,
Clearly, ISA was vested with some of the
in their official capacities as RTC Deputy
powers or attributes normally associated with Sheriffs of Manila, ROGER Z. REYES,
juridical personality. There is, however, no ERNESTO L. TREYES, JR., and EUTIQUIO
M. FUDOLIN, G.R. No. 90482, August 5,
provision in PD 272 recognizing ISA as
1991, EN BANC, DAVIDE, JR., J.
possessing general or comprehensive juridical
personality separate and distinct from that of
the Government. The ISA in fact appears to be FACTS: Republic Planters Bank, acting through
a non-incorporated agency or instrumentality the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA), et
al., filed a complaint with the RTC “for sum of
of the Republic of the Philippines, or more
money and/or delivery of personal property
precisely of the Government of the Republic of with restraining order and/or preliminary
the Philippines. injunction” against the Philippine Sugar
Commission (PHILSUCOM) and the National
Second, being a non-incorporated entity, all Sugar Trading Corporation (NASUTRA). The
lower court dismissed the petition. The
its powers, duties, etc. revert back to the
SOLGEN maintains that the SRA has no legal
Republic of the Philippines upon expiration of personality to file the instant petition in the
its charter. name of the Republic of the Philippines for
under its charter, E.O. no. 18, the SRA is not
When the statutory term of a non- vested legal capacity to sue.
incorporated agency expires, the powers, Held: The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that
duties and functions as well as the assets petitioner Sugar Regulatory Administration
and liabilities of that agency revert back may not lawfully bring an action behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines and that the Office
to, and are re-assumed by, the Republic of
of the Government Corporate Counsel does not
the Philippines, in the absence of special have the authority to represent said petitioner
provisions of law specifying some other in this case. It is a fundamental rule that
an administrative agency has only such
disposition thereof. When the expiring
powers as are expressly granted to it by
agency is an incorporated one, the law and those that are necessarily implied
consequences of such expiry must be in the exercise thereof. (Guerzonvs Court of
Appeals, et al., 77707, August 8, 1988, 164
looked for, in the first instance, in the
SCRA 182,189, citing Makati Stock Exchange,
charter of that agency and, by way of Inc. vs. SEC, 14 SCRA 620, and Sy vs. Central
supplementation, in the provisions of the Bank, 70 SCRA 570.)
Corporation Code. Since, in the instant case,
The SRA no doubt, is an administrative agency
ISA is a non-incorporated agency or or body.
instrumentality of the Republic, its powers,
duties, functions, assets and liabilities are
properly regarded as folded back into the Office of the Ombudsman and Dennis M.
Villa-Ignacio in his capacity as Special
Government of the Republic of the Philippines
Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman v.
and hence assumed once again by the Atty. Gil Valera and CA Special First
Republic, no special statutory provision having Division, GR No. 164250, 30 September
2005, En Banc, Callejo.
been shown to have mandated succession
thereto by some other entity or agency of the Facts: PNP Director filed a complaint against
Republic. Valera, a Customs director, for violations of the
Tariff Code in entering into compromise
agreements with certain cargo companies.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, acting
14
Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo inhibited from assailed action is a mere reorganization under
Valera’s case and ordered Special Prosecutor the general provisions of the law consisting
Villa-Ignacio to act in his stead. An order by mainly of streamlining the NTA in the interest
Villa-Ignacio preventively suspending Valera of simplicity, economy and efficiency. It is an
was assailed through a petition for certiorari act well within the authority of the President
for having been issued by a Special Prosecutor motivated and carried out, according to the
beyond the scope of his authority, as he does findings of the appellate court, in good faith, a
not have such power like the Ombudsman. factual assessment that this Court could only
but accept.
Held: The Ombudsman, pursuant to his power
of supervision and control over the Special
Prosecutor, may authorize the latter to conduct
administrative investigation. The power of the PART III. POWERS OF
Ombudsman under the Constitution and RA ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES IN GENERAL
6770 is plenary and unqualified but that of the
Rufino Matienzo, Godofredo Espiritu,
Special Prosecutor is limited to
Dioscorro Franco, and La Suerte
recommendation of preventive suspension if
the same is warranted based on the Special Transportation Corporation v Hon.
Prosecutor’s investigation. Stated differently, Leopoldo Abellera, Acting Chairman of the
with respect to the conduct of administrative Board of Transportation, Hon. Godofredo
investigation, the Special Prosecutors Asuncion, Member of the Board of
authority, insofar as preventive suspension is Transportation, Arturo Dela Cruz, MS
concerned, is recommendatory in nature. It Transportation Co., Inc., New Familia
bears stressing that the power to place a public Transportation Co., Roberto Mojares, Et
officer or employee under preventive al., June 1, 1988, GR No. L-45839, Third
suspension pending an investigation is lodged Division, Gutierrez.
only with the Ombudsman or the Deputy
Ombudsmen. Private respondents are authorized taxi
operators who operate “kabit” taxi units. They
Atty. Sylvia Banda, et al. vs. Ermita GR no.
sought the legalization of their “excess taxicab
166620
units” with the Board of Transportation (BOT),
FACTS: This is a challenge on the as the latter promulgated orders setting the
constitutionality of EO 378 issued by Pres. applications for hearing and granting
Arroyo; and is an action class suit filed by applicants provisional authority to operate their
employees of the National Printing Office excess units. Petitioners allege that the BOT
(NPO). NPO was created by Pres. Aquino by acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance
virtue of EO 285 which was the merger of the of the petitions for legalization and awarding
Govt Printing Office and printing units of special permits to private respondents.
Philippine Information Agency. On Oct. 25,
1994, President Arroyo issued EO 378, It is a settled principle of law that in
amending Sec 6 EO 285 by removing the determining whether a board or commission
exclusive jurisdiction of the NPO over the has a certain power, the authority given should
printing services requirements of govt. be liberally construed in the light of the
agencies and instrumentalities. Executive purposes for which it was created, and that
Order No. 378 also limited NPOs appropriation which is incidentally necessary to a full
in the General Appropriations Act to its income. implementation of the legislative intent should
be upheld as being germane to the law.
Perceiving Executive Order No. 378 as a threat
Necessarily, too, where the end is required, the
to their security of tenure as employees of the
NPO, petitioners now challenge its appropriate means are deemed given.
constitutionality, contending that: (1) it is Presidential Decree No. 101 vested in the
beyond the executive powers of President Board of Transportation the power, among
Arroyo to amend or repeal Executive Order No. others "To grant special permits of limited term
285 issued by former President Aquino when for the operation of public utility motor vehicles
the latter still exercised legislative powers; and as may, in the judgment of the Board, be
(2) Executive Order No. 378 violates necessary to replace or convert clandestine
petitioners security of tenure, because it paves operators into legitimate and responsible
the way for the gradual abolition of the NPO. operators."
WON the EO 378 is constitutional
HELD: YES. It is constitutional. ALFREDO L. AZARCON, v.

(Reorganization) In the present case, involving SANDIGANBAYAN, PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES and JOSE C.
neither an abolition nor transfer of offices, the
15
BATAUSA, G.R. No. powers which an administrative agency

116033. February 26, 1997, THIRD may exercise is defined in the agency's
DIVISION, Panganiban, J. enabling act. The power conferred upon an
FACTS. Azarcon, despite being a private administrative agency to issue rules and
person, who was appointed as regulations necessary to carry out its functions
depository/custodian of a truck distrained (or has been held "to be an adequate source of
seized) by the BIR, was charged before the authority to delegate a particular function,
Sandiganbayan of malversation under the RPC, unless by express provision of the Act or by
by causing the release of the said truck without
implication it has been withheld."
the consent of the BIR. The case is sought to
be dismissed because Azarcon was not a public
officer, considering that the BIR had no CESAR G. VIOLA, Chairman, Bgy. 167,
authority to make him such. Zone 15, District II, Manila v. HON.
RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, Secretary, DILG,
HELD. The criminal case against Azarcon must ALEX L. DAVID, President/Secretary
be dismissed. BIR’s acts did not make him a
General, National Liga ng mga Barangay,
public officer, because it did not have the
authority to do so under the law. LEONARDO L. ANGAT, President, City of
Manila, Ligangmga Barangay, G.R. No.
“It is axiomatic in our constitutional 115844. August 15, 1997, EN BANC
framework, which mandates a limited
MENDOZA, J.:
government, that its branches and
administrative agencies exercise only that
Facts: Viola, brgy chair, filed a petition for
power delegated to them as defined either in
the Constitution or in legislation or in both.x x prohibition contending that Art. III, 1-2 of the
xthe quantum of powers possessed by an Revised Implementing Rules and Guidelines for
administrative agency forming part of the the General Elections of the Liga ng mga
executive branch will still be limited to that Barangay Officers is invalid as it expands the
conferred expressly or by necessary or fair law by creating positions (election of first,
implication in its enabling act. Hence, (a)n
second and third VPs and for auditors for
administrative officer, it has been held, has
only such powers as are expressly granted to National Liga and local chapters) in excess of
him and those necessarily implied in the those provided in the Local Government Code
exercise thereof. Corollarily, implied powers (R.A. No. 7160), 493 of which mentions as
are those which are necessarily included elective positions only those of president, vice
in, and are therefore of lesser degree than president, and five members of the board of
the power granted.” directors in each chapter at the municipal, city,
REALTY EXCHANGE VENTURE provincial, metropolitan political subdivision,
CORPORATION AND/OR MAGDIWANG, and national levels. The creation of these
REALTY CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. positions was actually made in the Constitution
LUCINA S. SENDINO and the OFFICE OF and By-laws of the Ligang Mga Barangay,
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, Office of the adopted by the First Barangay National
President, Malacañang, Assembly on January 11, 1994. In both Local
Manila, respondents, G.R. No. 109703 July Chapters and National Liga levels (article VI),
5, 1994, KAPUNAN, J., First Division. “The Board may create such other positions as
it may deem necessary for the management of
Sendino filed a complaint for Specific the chapter” (section 1) or“National Liga
Performance against REVI with the (section 2).” The LGC also authorized its
Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) of the creation: “493. Organization. The ligaxxx
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board directly elect a president, a vice-president, and
(HLURB). The HLURB, whose authority to hear five (5) members of the board of directors. The
and decide the complaint was challenged by board shall appoint its secretary and treasurer
REVI, rendered its judgment in favor of private and create such other positions as it may deem
respondent. An appeal from this decision was necessary for the management of the chapter
taken to the HLURB OAALA Arbiter, which xxx The board shall coordinate the activities of
affirmed the Board's decision. The decision of the chapters of the liga.”
the OAALA Arbiter was appealed to the Office
of the President which dismissed the same. Issue: Whether, in making a delegation of this
power to the board of directors of each chapter
While E.O. 85 abolished the Ministry of of the LigangMga Barangay, Congress provided
Human Settlements (MHS), it is patently clear a sufficient standard so that, in the phrase of
from a reading of its provisions that the said Justice Cardozo, administrative discretion
executive order did not abolish the Human may be canalized within proper banks that
Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC), keep it from overflowing.
renamed HLURB, which continued to exercise
its powers and functions. In general, the Held: Yes. That Congress can delegate the
quantum of judicial or quasi-judicial power to create positions such as these has
16
been settled by our decisions upholding the clearly an interference with the exclusive
validity of reorganization statutes authorizing jurisdiction of theBureau of Customs (BOC)
the President of the Philippines to create, over seizure and forfeiture cases.
abolish or merge offices in the executive
The enforcement of statutory rights is NOT
department. Statutory provisions authorizing
foreclosed by theabsence of a statutory
the President of the Philippines to make procedure. The Commissioner of Customs has
reforms and changes in GOCCs for the purpose the power to "promulgate allrules and
of promoting simplicity, economy and regulations necessary to enforce the provisions
efficiency in their operations and empowering of this (Tariff and Customs) Code … subject to
the Secretary of Education to prescribe the approval of the Secretary of Finance."
Moreover, it has been held that where the
minimum standards of adequate and efficient
statute does not require any particular
instruction in private schools and colleges have method of procedure to be followed by an
been found to be sufficient for the purpose of administrative agency,the agency may
valid delegation. Judged by these cases, we adopt any reasonable method to carry out
hold that493 of the Local Government Code, in its functions."
directing the board of directors of the liga to
create such other positions as may be deemed
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE
necessary for the management of the
SYSTEM (GSIS) v.CIVIL SERVICE
chapters, embodies a fairly intelligible
COMMISSION, HEIRS OF ELIZAR NAMUCO,
standard. There is no undue delegation of
and HEIRS OF EUSEBIO MANUEL, G.R. No.
power by Congress. Petition is DISMISSED for
96938 October 15, 1991, EN BANC,
lack of merit.
NARVASA, J.
PROVIDENT TREE FARMS, INC. (PTFI) v.
In May, 1981, the Government Service
BATARIO (1994)
Insurance System (GSIS) dismissed six (6)
employees as being "notoriously undesirable,"
FACTS: PTFI is engaged in industrial tree
they having allegedly been found to be
planting and it supplies to a local match
connected with irregularities in the canvass of
manufacturer solely for production of matches.
supplies and materials. However, the Civil
In consonance with the state policy to
Service Commission ruled that the dismissal of
encourage qualified persons to engage in
all five was indeed illegal. Thereafter,
industrial tree plantation, Sec. 36, par. (1), of
Commission granted the motion for execution
the Revised Forestry Code confers on entities
and accordingly directed the GSIS "to pay the
like PTFI a set of incentives among which is a
compulsory heirs of deceased
qualified ban against importation of wood and
Elizar0020Namuco and Eusebio Manuel for the
"wood-derivated" products. Sometime on
period from the date of their illegal separation
1989, A. J. International Corporation (AJIC)
up to the date of their demise." GSIS contends
imported 4 containers of matches from
that the Civil Service Commission has no
Indonesia. PTFI filed with the RTC of Manila a
power to execute its judgments and final
complaint for injunction and damages with
orders or resolutions. WON Civil Service
prayer for a TRO against AJIC to enjoin the
Commission has the power to execute its
latter from importing matches and "wood-
judgments and final orders or resolutions.
derivated" products, and the Collector of
Customs from allowing and releasing the
importations. AJIC filed a motion to dismiss
alleging, among others, that the Commissioner In light of constitutional and statutory
of Customs under Sec. 1207 of the Tariff and provisions, it would appear absurd to deny to
Customs Code and not the regular court, has the Civil Service Commission the power or
"exclusive jurisdiction to determine the legality authority or order execution of its decisions,
of an importation…” RTC dismissed the case on resolutions or orders which, it should be
the ground that it had “no jurisdiction to stressed, it has been exercising through the
determine what are legal or illegal years. It would seem quite obvious that the
importations.” Hence, such dismissal is the authority to decide cases is inutile unless
subject of present petition. accompanied by the authority to see that what
has been decided is carried out. Hence, the
HELD: The enforcement of the importation grant to a tribunal or agency of
ban under Sec. 36, par. (l), of the Revised adjudicatory power, or the authority to
Forestry Code is within the exclusive realm of
hear and adjudge cases, should normally
the Bureau of Customs, and direct recourse of
PTFI to the RTC to compel the Commissioner of and logically be deemed to include the
Customs to enforce the ban is devoid of grant of authority to enforce or execute
anylegal basis. To allow the regular court to the judgmentsit thus renders, unless the
direct the Commissioner to impound the law otherwise provides.
importedmatches, as petitioner would, is
17
PART IV. QUASI-LEGISLATIVE temporarily restraining the execution of the

POWER death convict Leo Echegaray by lethal
injection. It is the main submission of public
respondents that the Decision of the case
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff- having become final and executory, its
appellant, vs. PEDRO R. execution enters the exclusive ambit of
EXCONDE defendant-appellant, G.R. No. L- authority of the executive authority.
9820, 30 August 1957, En Banc, J. J.B.L.
Reyes. HELD: The power to control the
execution of the Court’s decision is an essential
Facts: The accused was convicted of violating aspect of jurisdiction. It cannot be the subject
Central Bank Circular No. 37, limiting to P100 of substantial subtraction for our Constitution
the amount of Philippine currency that an vests the entirety of judicial power in one
outgoing passenger could have on his person. Supreme Court and in such lower courts as
The aforesaid circular was promulgated in may be established by law. To be sure, the
connection with sec. 34 of Republic Act 265 most important part of litigation, whether civil
(Central Bank Act), which grants the Monetary or criminal, is the process of execution of
Board the power to regulate the expansion and decisions where supervening events may
contraction of money supply. The accused change the circumstance of the parties and
argued that the said Circular went beyond the compel courts to intervene and adjust the
mandate of the law and that the said law did rights of the litigants to prevent unfairness. It
not grant authority to the Monetary Board to is because of these unforeseen, supervening
prohibit the exportation of Philippine currency. contingencies that courts have been conceded
the inherent and necessary power of control of
Ruling: It is well established in this jurisdiction
its processes and orders to make them
that, while the making of laws is a non-
conformable to law and justice. For this
delegable activity that corresponds exclusively
purpose, Section 6 of Rule 135 provides that
to Congress, nevertheless the latter may
when by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court
constitutionally delegate authority to
or judicial officer, all auxiliary writs, processes
promulgate rules and regulations to implement
and other means necessary to carry it into
a given legislation and effectuate its policies,
effect may be employed by such court or
for the reason that the legislature often finds it
officer and if the procedure to be followed in
impracticable (if not impossible) to anticipate
the exercise of such jurisdiction is not
and provide for the multifarious and complex
specifically pointed out by law or by these
situations that may be met in carrying the law
rules, any suitable process or mode of
into effect. All that is required is that the
proceeding may be adopted which appears
regulation should be germane to the objects
conformable to the spirit of said law or rules.
and purposes of the law; that the regulation be
not in contradiction with it, but conform to the
standards that the law prescribes. Circular No. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
37 here in question was a valid exercise of the petitioner vs. LEONILA P. CELADA,
regulatory power delegated by the Central respondent.
Bank Act, and that said Circular is in harmony G.R. No. 164876 (January 23, 2006).
with the objectives sought to be achieved by
FIRST DIVISION (YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.)
that law. Therefore violation of Circular No. 37
comes within the penal sanctions of the Central
Leonila P. Celada owns 22.3167
Bank Act; because a violation or infringement
hectares of agricultural land of which 14.1939
of a rule or regulation validly issued can
hectares was identified in 1998 by the
constitute a misdemeanor or a crime
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as
punishable as provided in the authorizing
suitable for compulsory acquisition under the
statute, and by virtue of the latter.
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
LEO ECHEGARAY, v. SECRETARY OF (CARP). The matter was then indorsed to
JUSTICE, ET AL., G.R. No. 132601, petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
January 19, 1999, En Banc. J. Puno. for field investigation and land valuation. The
DAR offered the amount determined by LBP as
FACTS: The SC affirmed the conviction just compensation but it was rejected. The
of petitioner Leo Echegaray for the crime of
matter was referred to the DAR Adjudication
rape of the 10 year-old daughter of his
Board (DARAB) pursuant to Sec. 16(d) of RA
common-law spouse and the imposition upon
6657. While the DARAB case was pending,
him of the death penalty for the said crime.
respondent filed, on February 10, 2000, a
This is the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration
petition for judicial determination of just
and the Supplement thereto of the Resolution
compensation against LBP, the DAR and the
of the Supreme Court dated January 4, 1999
18
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of President and the Secretary of Energy because
Carmen, Bohol, before the Regional Trial Court it does not provide a determinate or
of Tagbilaran City. The same was docketed as determinable standard to guide the Executive
Civil Case No. 6462 and raffled to Branch 3, Branch in determining when to implement the
the designated Special Agrarian Court (SAC). full deregulation of the downstream oil
On April 27, 2000, LBP filed its Answer raising industry. Likewise, the law does not provide
non-exhaustion of administrative remedies as any specific standard to determine when the
well as forum-shopping as affirmative defense. prices of crude oil in the world market are
According to petitioner, respondent must first considered to be declining nor when the
exchange rate of the peso to the US dollar is
await the outcome of the DARAB case before
considered stable.
taking any judicial recourse.
Held:
The SAC did not err in assuming
jurisdiction over respondents petition for The true distinction is between the delegation
determination of just compensation despite the of power to make the law, which necessarily
pendency of the administrative proceedings involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and
before the DARAB. In Land Bank of the conferring authority or discretion as to its
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, it was held that execution, to be exercised under and in
it was clear from Sec. 57 that the RTC, sitting pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done;
as a Special Agrarian Court, has original and to the latter no valid objection can be
exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the made.Section 15 can hurdle both the
determination of just compensation to completeness test and the sufficient standard
test. It will be noted that
landowners. This original and exclusive
Congress expressly provided in R.A. No. 8180
jurisdiction of the RTC would be undermined if
that full deregulation will start at the end of
the DAR would vest in administrative officials
March 1997, regardless of the occurrence of
original jurisdiction in compensation cases and
any event. Full deregulation at the end of
make the RTC an appellate court for the review
March 1997 is mandatory and the Executive
of administrative decision. Thus, although the
has no discretion to postpone it for any
new rules speak of directly appealing the
purported reason. Thus, the law is complete on
decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as the question of the final date of full
Special Agrarian Courts, it is clear from Sec. 57 deregulation. The discretion given to the
that the original and exclusive jurisdiction to President is to advance the date of full
determine such cases is in the RTCs. Any effort deregulation before the end of March
to transfer such jurisdiction to the adjudicators 1997. Section 15 lays down the standard
and to convert the original jurisdiction of the to guide the judgment of the President --- he is
RTCs into appellate jurisdiction would be to time it as far as practicable when the
contrary to Sec. 57 and therefore would be prices of crude oil and petroleum products in
void. Thus, direct resort to the SAC by private the world market are declining and when the
respondent is valid. It would be well to exchange rate of the peso in relation to the US
emphasize that the taking of property under dollar is stable.
RA No. 6657 is an exercise of the power of
Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander
eminent domain by the State. The valuation of
Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin vs.
property or determination of just compensation
Commision on Elections, Jesus Delfin,
in eminent domain proceedings is essentially a
Alberto Pedrosa and Carmen Pedrosa, in
judicial function which is vested with the courts
their capacities as founding members of
and not with administrative agencies.
the People's Initiative for Reforms,
Modernization and Action (PIRMA), G.R.
Eastern Shipping, Supra. No. 127325.
Tatad v. Dept of Sec. Energy, G.R. No.

124360, 5 November 1997. En Banc, Delfin filed a petition with the COMELEC (Delfin
Puno. Petition) by virtue of the constitutional
provision on people's initiative to amend the
Delegation of Legislative Power. Constitutionto Lift Term Limits of Elective
Officials. Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago,
Facts:
Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin —
The constitutionality of RA 8180, “An Act filed this special civil action for prohibition
Deregulating the Downstream Oil Industry and contending that the constitutional provision on
For Other Purposes”, was questioned to be an people's initiative to amend the Constitution
undue delegation of legislative power to the can only be implemented by law to be passed
19
by Congress. No such law has been passed. dynasties. A revision cannot be done by
The petitioners also asservate that while it is initiative.
true that R.A. No. 6735 provides for three
systems of initiative, namely, initiative on the KILUSANG MAYO UNO LABOR CENTER vs.
Constitution, on statutes, and on local HON. JESUS B. GARCIA, JR., LTFRB, ET.
legislation, it however, failed to provide any AL.KAPUNAN, J.: FIRST DIVISION, G.R.
subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike No. 115381, December 23, 1994.
in the other modes of initiative, which are
specifically provided for in Subtitle II and The instant petition for certiorari assails the
constitutionality and validity of certain
Subtitle III. This deliberate omission indicates
memoranda, circulars and/or orders of the
that the matter of people's initiative to amend Department of Transportation and
the Constitution was left to some future law. It Communications (DOTC) and the Land
is not self-executing. Moreover to put to the Transportation Franchising and Regulatory
fore the argument that COMELEC has no power Board (LTFRB) which, among others, authorize
to provide rules and regulations for the provincial bus and jeepney operators to
exercise of the right of initiative to amend the increase or decrease the prescribed
transportation fares to plus twenty (20%) and
Constitutionand cannot therefore govern "the
minus twenty-five (-25%) percent, without
conduct of initiative on the Constitution and application therefor with the LTFRB and
initiative and referendum on national and local without hearing and approval thereof by said
laws” by virtue of COMELEC Resolution No. agency.
2300. Only Congress is authorized by the
Constitution to pass the implementing law.The Issue: On the fare range scheme.
people's initiative is limited to amendments to
the Constitution, not to revision thereof. The Legislature delegated to the LTFRB the
Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes power of fixing the rates of public services.
a revision and is, therefore, outside the power Such delegation of legislative power to an
administrative agency is permitted in order to
of the people's initiative.
adapt to the increasing complexity of modern
life. As subjects for governmental regulation
The Court held for the petitioners.
multiply, so does the difficulty of administering
the laws. Hence, specialization even in
Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self e legislation has become necessary.
xecutory, thus, without an
implementinglegislation the same cannot With this authority, an administrative body and
operate. Although the Constitution has in this case, the LTFRB, may implement broad
recognized or granted the right,the people policies laid down in a statute by "filling in" the
cannot exercise it if Congress does not provide details which the Legislature may neither have
for its implementation. time or competence to provide. However,
nowhere under the aforesaid provisions of law
While R.A. No. 6735 specially detailed the are the regulatory bodies, the PSC and LTFRB
alike, authorized to delegate that power to a
process in implementing initiative and
common carrier, a transport operator, or other
referendum on national and local laws, it
public service.
intentionally did not do so on the system of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution. In the case at bench, the authority given by
the LTFRB to the provincial bus operators to
The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 set a fare range over and above the authorized
which prescribes rules and regulations on existing fare, is illegal and invalid as it is
theconduct of initiative on amendments to the tantamount to an undue delegation of
Constitution, is void. legislative authority. Potestas delegata non
delegari potest. What has been delegated
It has been an established rule that cannot be delegated. This doctrine is based
what has been delegated, cannot be delegated on the ethical principle that such a delegated
power constitutes not only a right but a duty to
(potestas delegata non delegari potest).
be performed by the delegate through the
instrumentality of his own judgment and not
The delegation of the power to the COMELEC
through the intervening mind of another.
being invalid, the latter cannot validly
promulgate rules and regulations to implement
the exercise of the right to people’s initiative.
AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY v. THE
The lifting of the term limits was held to be DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, G.R. No. L-26803,
that of a revision, as it would affect October 14, 1975. Second Division
other provisions of the Constitution such as the (Antonio).
synchronization of elections, the constitutional
guarantee of equal access to opportunities for Petitioner companies filed a petition for
public service, and prohibiting political mandamus with preliminary injunction,
challenging the validity of Rule 168 of the
20
"Revised Rules of Practice before the Philippine CPG No. 80-4 does not control, nor even relate
Patent Office in Trademark Cases" as to, the DENR evaluation project for at least 2
amended. Said rules was drafted and reasons: firstly, the evaluation project was not
promulgated by the Director of Patents and
a "special project" within the meaning of CPG
approved by the then Secretary of Agriculture
No. 80-4; secondly, that same evaluation
and Commerce. It granted the Director of
Patents the power to designate any ranking project was a Foreign-Assisted Project to which
official of said office to act as hearing officers NCC No. 53 is specifically applicable.
in pertinent trademark cases (e.g. opposition
to registration, cancellation) pending with the It seems that COA does not agree with the
Patent Office and at the same time it required policy basis of NCC No. 53 in relation to CPG
that "all judgments determining the merits of No. 80-4. The court ruled that “We do not
the case shall be personally and directly consider that the COA is, under its
prepared by the Director and signed by him."
constitutional mandate, authorized to
The companies complained that the
designation of hearing officers contravenes the substitute its own judgment for any applicable
Trademark Law that vests jurisdiction on the law or administrative regulation with the
Director of Patents and that states that the wisdom or propriety of which, however, it does
Director must personally hear the cases. not agree, at least not before such law or
regulation is set aside by the authorized
Anent the contest based on the doctrine on agency of government — i.e., the courts — as
“potestas delegata non delegari potest,” the unconstitutional or illegal and void. The COA,
Supreme Court ruled in this wise: “It has been like all other government agencies, must
held that power-conferred upon an respect the presumption of legality and
administrative agency to which the
constitutionality to which statutes and
administration of a statute is entrusted to
issue such regulations and orders as may administrative regulations are entitled until
be deemed necessary or proper in order such statute or regulation is repealed or
to carry out its purposes and provisions amended, or until set aside in an appropriate
maybe an adequate source of authority to case by a competent court (and ultimately this
delegate a particular function, unless by Court).
express provisions of the Act or by
implication it has been withheld.” COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and
[G.R. No. 108310 September 1, 1994]
FORTUNE TOBACCO
RUFINO O. ESLAO, in his capacity as
CORPORATION,respondents., G.R. No.
President of Pangasinan State
119761 August 29, 1996. First Division
University, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON
(Vitug,J).
AUDIT, respondent., FELICIANO, J.:
Facts: Fortune Tobacco registered "Champion,"
FACTS: PSU entered into a MOA with the DENR
"Hope," and "More" cigarettes. BIR classified
for the evaluation of 11 government
them as foreign brands since they were listed
reforestation operations in Pangasinan as part
in the World Tobacco Directory as belonging to
of the commitment of the ADB. They were
foreign companies. However, Fortune changed
given notices to proceed. The Asst. Project
the names of 'Hope' to 'Hope Luxury'and 'More'
Director requested the Office of the President
to 'Premium More,' thereby removing the said
to have the University’s Board of Regents
brands from the foreign brand category.
confirm the appointments including the rates of
honoraria and per diems. The BOR approved A 45% Ad Valorem taxes were imposed on
the MOA but this was later found to be higher these brands. Then Republic Act ("RA") No.
than the rates provided hence adjusted 7654 was enacted – 55% for locally
downward to conform to NCC No. 53. COA manufactured foreign brand while 45% for
alleged that still there were excess payments locally manufactured brands. 2 days before the
leading them to issue notices of disallowances effectivity of RA 7654, Revenue Memorandum
as based on CPG No. 80-4 which rates were Circular No. 37-93 ("RMC 37-93"), was issued
lower. PSU contends that it should be NCC No. by the BIR saying since there is no showing
53 which pertains to foreign-assisted projects; who the real owner/s are of Champion, Hope
while COA applied CPG No. 80-4. and More, it follows that the same shall be
considered locally manufactured foreign brand
ISSUE: WON the set of circulars particularly
for purposes of determining the ad valorem tax
NCC No. 53 or CPG No. 80-4 should apply in
- 55%. BIR sent via telefax a copy of RMC 37-
respect of the honoraria to be paid to PSU
93 to Fortune Tobacco addressed to no one in
personnel?
particular. Then Fortune Tobacco received, by
ordinary mail, a certified xerox copy of RMC
RULING: We consider the Petition meritorious.
37-93. CIR assessed Fortune Tobacco for ad
21
valorem tax deficiency amounting to those who have exhausted their leave credits
P9,598,334.00. in order to enjoy such right. The fact remains
that government employees, whether or not
Issue: WON it was necessary for BIR to follow they have accumulated leave credits, are not
the legal requirements when it issued its RMC required by law to work on Saturdays,
Sundays, and Holidays and thus they cannot
Held. YES. CIR may not disregard legal
be declared absent on such non-working days.
requirements in the exercise of its quasi-
legislative powers which publication, filing, and
prior hearing. MIGUEL MELENDRES, JR., petitioner, vs
.THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and
When an administrative rule is merely
RUPERTO P. CONCEPCION, respondents,
interpretative in nature, its applicability needs
G.R. No. 129958. November 25, 1999, En Banc
nothing further than its bare issuance for it
(Ynares-Santiago, J.)
gives no real consequence more than what the
law itself has already prescribed. BUT when, Facts: Melendres and Concepcion ran for
upon the other hand, the administrative rule Barangay Chairman of Caniogan, Pasig City.
goes beyond merely providing for the means Concepcion was proclaimed the winner. When
that can facilitate or render least cumbersome Melendres filed his election protest before the
the implementation of the law but substantially MTC, he failed to pay filing fees. Concepcion
increases the burden of those governed, the moved to dismiss the protest on the ground of
agency must accord, at least to those directly lack of jurisdiction. But the MTC denied the
affected, a chance to be heard, before that motion, ordered Melendres to pay the fees
new issuance is given the force and effect of because it an administrative procedural matter
law. and is not jurisdictional and, hence, non-
compliance therewith at theoutset will not
MAYNARD PERALTA, petitioner, vs CIVIL
operate to deprive the court of jurisdiction
SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.
conferred upon it by law andacquired pursuant
G.R. No. 95832, August 10, 1992, En Banc,
to the Rules. When appealed to the COMELEC,
Padilla, J.
the MTC was reversed.
Petitioner questions the following policy Ruling: Generally, the interpretation of an

of the CSC interpreting RA 2625, amending the administrative government agency, which is
Revised Administrative Code: “when an tasked to implement a statute, is accorded
employee is on leave without pay on a day great respect and ordinarily controls the
before or on a day immediately preceding a construction of the courts because of its
Saturday, Sunday, or Holiday, such Saturday, specialized function.The judicial department
Sunday, or Holiday shall also be without pay.” can set aside an administrative agency’s action
When an administrative or executive if there is an error of law, abuse of power, lack
agency renders an opinion or issues a of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre- clearly conflicting with the letter and spirit of
existing law; and the administrative the law.
interpretation of the law is at best advisory and
not binding upon the courts for it is the courts The COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Rule 37,
that finally determine what the law means. Sec. 6 states that “No protest shall be given
Interpretative regulations need not be due course without the payment of a filing fee
published. Action of an administrative agency of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00) and the legal
may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial research fee as required by law.” Citing
department if there is an error of law, or abuse Gatchalian v. CA, it is the payment of the filing
of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse fee which vests jurisdiction of the court over
of discretion clearly conflicting with either the the election protest.COMELEC’s decision is
letter or the spirit of a legislative enactment. upheld as it conforms with the governing
statute and controlling case law that non-
The construction by respondent of RA 2625 is payment of filing fees is a jurisdictional
not in accordance with the legislative intent. defect.
RA 2625 specifically provides that government
employees are entitled to 15 days vacation
leave of absence with full pay and 15 days sick Land Bank v. Celada, Supra.
leave with full pay, exclusive of Saturdays,
Sundays, and Holidays in both cases. Thus, the WILLIAM C. DAGAN, et. al., v. PHILIPPINE
law speaks of the granting of a right and the RACING COMMISSION, MANILA JOCKEY
law does not provide or a distinction between CLUB, and PHILIPPINE RACING CLUB,
G.R. No. 175220, 12 February 2009,
those who have accumulated leave credits and
TINGA, J.:
22
maps out its boundaries and specifies the

An 11 August 2004 directive was public agency to apply it. It indicates the
issued by the Philippine Racing Commission circumstances under which the legislative
(Philracom) directing the Manila Jockey Club, command is to be effected.
Inc. (MJCI) and Philippine Racing Club, Inc. As to the second requisite, petitioners
(PRCI) to immediately come up with their raise some infirmities relating to Philracom’s
respective Clubs House Rule to address Equine guidelines. As a rule, the issuance of rules and
Infectious Anemia (EIA) problem and to rid regulations in the exercise of an administrative
their facilities of horses infected with EIA. Said agency of its quasi-legislative power does not
directive was issued pursuant to Administrative require notice and hearing. In Abella, Jr. v.
Order No. 5 by the Department of Agriculture Civil Service Commission, this Court had the
declaring it unlawful for any person, firm or occasion to rule that prior notice and hearing
corporation to ship, drive, or transport horses are not essential to the validity of rules or
from any locality or place except when regulations issued in the exercise of quasi-
accompanied by a certificate issued by the legislative powers since there is no
authority of the Director of the Bureau of determination of past events or facts that have
Animal Industry (BAI). In compliance with the to be established or ascertained.
directive, MJCI and PRCI ordered the owners of
racehorses stable in their establishments to TAYUG RURAL BANK, plaintiff-appellee,
submit the horses to blood sampling and
vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
administration of the Coggins Test to
defendant-appellant, G.R. No. L-46158,
determine whether they are afflicted with the
EIA virus. Subsequently, on 17 September November 28, 1986, Second Division., J.
2004, Philracom issued copies of the guidelines Paras.
for the monitoring and eradication of EIA.
FACTS: Appellant issued a Memorandum
WON the Philracom directive and the Circular which imposes to all rural banks an
subsequent guidelines are valid? additional penalty interest rate of 10% per
annum that would include all past due loans, in
The validity of an administrative pursuance of the provisions of the Rules and
issuance, such as the assailed guidelines, Regulations Governing Rural Banks under
hinges on compliance with the following
authority of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 720,
requisites:
1. Its promulgation must be authorized as amended.
by the legislature;
2. It must be promulgated in HELD: There are, however, limitations to the
accordance with the prescribed rule-making power of administrative agencies.
procedure; A rule shaped out by jurisprudence is that
3. It must be within the scope of the when Congress authorizes promulgation of
authority given by the legislature; administrative rules and regulations to
4. It must be reasonable.
implement given legislation, all that is required
The rule is that what has been
delegated cannot be delegated, or as is that the regulation be not in contradiction
expressed in the Latin maxim: potestas with it, but conform to the standards that the
delegate non delegare potest. This rule is law prescribes. There must be strict
based upon the ethical principle that such compliance with the legislative enactment. In
delegated power constitutes not only a right case of discrepancy between the basic law and
but a duty to be performed by the delegate by
a rule or regulation issued to implement said
the instrumentality of his own judgment acting
law, the basic law prevails because said rule or
immediately upon the matter of legislation and
not through the intervening mind of regulation cannot go beyond the terms and
another. This rule however admits of provisions of the basic law. When promulgated
recognized exceptions such as the grant of in pursuance of the procedure or authority
rule-making power to administrative agencies. conferred upon the administrative agency by
They have been granted by Congress with the law, the rules and regulations partake of the
authority to issue rules to regulate the
nature of a statute, and compliance therewith
implementation of a law entrusted to them.
Delegated rule-making has become a practical may be enforced by a penal sanction provided
necessity in modern governance due to the in the law. Hence an administrative agency
increasing complexity and variety of public cannot impose a penalty not so provided in the
functions. law authorizing the promulgation of the rules
However, in every case of permissible and regulations, much less one that is applied
delegation, there must be a showing that the retroactively. Such clause was not a part of the
delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the
promissory notes executed by Appellee to
law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth
therein the policy to be executed, carried out, secure its loans. The rule cannot be given
or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes retroactive effect.
a standard—the limits of which are sufficiently
determinate and determinable—to which the SALVADOR A. ARANETA, ETC., ET AL., v.
delegate must conform in the performance of THE HON. MAGNO S. GATMAITAN, ETC., ET
his functions. A sufficient standard is one which
defines legislative policy, marks its limits,
23
AL., G.R. Nos. L-8895 and L-9191, April OF LTO, SUBIC BAY FREE PORT ZONE, v.
30, 1957, EN BANC, FELIX, J. SOUTHWING HEAVY INDUSTRIES, INC.,
represented by its President JOSE T.
Facts: Congress passed the Fisheries Code and DIZON, UNITED AUCTIONEERS, INC.,
authorized the Secretary of Agriculture and represented by its President DOMINIC
Natural Resources to issue rules and
SYTIN, and MICROVAN, INC., represented
regulations on the regulation and banning of
certain forms of prohibited fishing. Now, in by its President MARIANO C. SONON, G.R.
response to the general clamor among the No. 164171, February 20, 2006, EN BANC,
majority of the residents in the coastal towns YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
of San Miguel Bay that resources in the area
are in danger of depletion because of the FACTS: President Arroyo, through Executive
effects of trawl fishing, the President issued EO Secretary Romulo, issued E.O. 156, entitled
22 prohibiting the use of trawls in San Miguel “Providing for a comprehensive industrial policy
Bay.
and directions for the motor vehicle
development program and its implementing
Issue: The SC resolved that trawl fishing is
guidelines”. Respondents instituted a
among the prohibited fishing activities since it declaratory relief case praying that judgment
obnoxious for it carries away fish eggs and fry. be rendered declaring Article 2, section 3.1. of
E.O. 156 unconstitutional and illegal. The trial
Hence, the Secretary of Agriculture has the
court declared that Article 2, Section 3.1. of
authority to issue rules and regulations E.O. 156 constitutes an unlawful usurpation of
prohibiting trawl fishing. The remaining legislative power vested by the Constitution
with Congress and therefore unconstitutional
relevant issue then is: Can the President of
and illegal. The Court of Appeals invalidated
the Philippines exercise that same power and the article on the ground of lack of any
authority? statutory basis for the President to issue the
same. It held that the prohibition on the
importation of used motor vehicles is an
HELD: Yes, the President can. He has the
exercise of police power vested on the
power of control over executive the legislature and absent any enabling law, the
department based on Section 10(1), Article VII exercise thereof by the president through an
executive issuance is void.
of the Constitution of the Philippines, Section
63 of the Revised Admin Code, Section 74 of HELD: Police power is inherent in a
the Revised Admin Code. government to enact law, within constitutional
limits, to promote the order, safety, health,
morals, and general welfare of society. It is
Moreover, "executive orders,
lodged primarily with legislature. By virtue of a
regulations, decrees and proclamations relative valid delegation of legislative power, it may
to matters under the supervision or jurisdiction also be exercised by the President and
administrative bodies, as well as the
of a Department, the promulgation whereof is
lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels,
expressly assigned by law to the President of including the barangay. Such delegation
the Philippines, shall as a general rule, be confers upon the President quasi-legislative
power which may be defined as the authority
issued upon proposition and recommendation
delegated by the law-making body to the
of the respective Department", and there can administrative body to adopt rules and
be no doubt that the promulgation of the regulations intended to carry out the provisions
questioned Executive Orders was upon the of the law and implement legislative policy. To
be valid, an administrative issuance, such
proposition and recommendation of the as an executive order, must comply with
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural the following requisites: 1. Its
Resources. promulgation must be authorized by the
legislature; 2. It must be promulgated in
accordance with the prescribed
HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. procedure; 3. It must be within the scope
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF of the authority given by the legislature;
TRANSPORTATION AND and 4. It must be reasonable.
COMMUNICATIONS (DOTC),
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ASSISTANT Boie-Takeda Chemicals v. Dionisio Dela
SECRETARY, LAND TRANSPORTATION Serna, Acting Secretary of the DOLE, GR
OFFICE (LTO), COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, No. 92174, 10 December 1993, Second
SUBIC BAY FREE PORT ZONE, AND CHIEF Division, Narvasa.
24
Facts: Secretary Franklin Drilon of the Labor and 82 in excess of his rule-making power
Department issued the 1987 Revised because these are inconsistent with the
Guidelines on the Implementation of PD 851 or provisions of EO 279. Whether AO nos. 57 and
the 13th month pay law. Such guidelines 82, which are promulgated by the DENR, are
specifically included commissions earned by valid and constitutional.
employees in the computation of 13th month
pay. Petitioner herein was directed by the HELD: AO Nos. 57 and 82 are both
Labor Department to deliver the underpayment constitutional and valid. This is due to the fact
of the 13th month pay which should have that EO 279, in effect, gave the Secretary of
included the commissions of its employees Natural Resources the authority to conclude
based on the Revised Guidelines. joinly venture, co-production or production
sharing agreements for the exploration,
Held: In including commissions in the development and utilization of mineral
computation of the 13th month pay the second resources. Furthermore, the constitutionality of
paragraph of Section 5(a) of the Revised these administrative orders goes to show that
Guidelines on the Implementation of the 13th the utilization of inalienable lands of public
Month Pay Law unduly expanded the concept domain is not merely done through “license,
of "basic salary" as defined in P.D. 851. It is a concession or lease” since the options are now
fundamental rule that implementing rules also open to the State through direct
cannot add to or detract from the provisions of undertaking or by entering into co-production,
the law it is designed to implement. joint venture, or production sharing
Administrative regulations adopted under agreements.
legislative authority by a particular department
must be in harmony with the provisions of the The People of the Philippines v Hon.
law they are intended to carry into effect. They Maximo Maceren CFI, Sta Cruz, Laguna,
cannot widen its scope. An administrative Jose Buenaventura, Godofredo Reyes,
agency cannot amend an act of Congress Benjamin Reyes, Nazario Aquino and Carlo
Del Rosario, GR No. L-32116, Oct. 18,
Miners Association vs. Factoran 1977, Second Division, Aquino.
FACTS: This petition is about the validity of 2

Accused were electro fishing in Sta.
administrative orders 57 and 82 issued by the
Cruz (using electrocuting device), and were
Secretary of DENR to carry out the provisions
charged with violation of Fisheries Admin Order
of EO 279 and 211. Pres. Aquino promulgated
EO 211, which prescribes the interim 84-1 (which amended Admin Order 84).
procedures in the processing and approval of Section 11 of the Fisheries Law prohibits "the
applications for the exploration, development use of any obnoxious or poisonous substance"
and utilization of minerals in accordance with in fishing. It does not expressly prohibit electro
the 1987 Constitution. President Aquino also fishing. Notwithstanding such silence in the
promulgated EO 279 authorizing the DENR to law, the Commissioner of Fisheries
negotiate and conclude Joint venture, co- promulgated the Admin Order prohibiting the
production or production-sharing agreements act.
for the exploration, development and
utilization of mineral resources prescribing for
guidelines for such agreements and those The Fisheries Law does not expressly
agreements involving technical or financial prohibit electro fishing. As electro fishing is not
assistance by foreign-owned corporations for banned under that law, the Secretary of
large-scale exploration, development and Agriculture and Natural Resources and the
utilization of minerals. In line with EO 279, the Commissioner of Fisheries are powerless to
DENR Secretary issued AO 57 “Guidelines for penalize it. Administrative regulations adopted
Mineral Production Sharing Agreement under under legislative authority by a particular
EO 279” and AO 82 “Procedural Guidelines on
department must be in harmony with the
the Award of Mineral Production Sharing
provisions of the law, and should be for the
Agreement (MPSA) through negotiation.” This
sole purpose of carrying into effect its general
order provides that the person or entity is
provisions. By such regulations, of course, the
required to submit a LETTER OF INTENT and
law itself cannot be extended.
MINERAL PRODUCTION SHARING AGREEMENT
within 2 years from affectivity of AO no. 57.
Failure to do so within the prescribed period
PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS,
shall cause the abandonment of mining, vs.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
quarry, gravel and sand. Petitioner, Miners REVENUE, COURT OF TAX APPEALS
Association of the Philippines, mainly contend and COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No.
that the DENR Secretary issued both AOs 57
25
112024. January 28, 1999, employers should have both

SECOND DIVISION, Quisumbing, J. provident/retirement and housing benefits for
FACTS. PBComm had an excess tax payment, all its employees in order to qualify for
which it sought to be refunded. Relying on the exemption from the Fund, it effectively
Revenue Memorandum issued by the BIR amended Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752. And
which stated a different period (10 years) when the Board subsequently abolished that
within which to file their petition, instead of the exemption through the 1996 Amendments, it
statutory period (2 years), PBComm filed its repealed Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752. Such
petition after the 2-year period.
amendment and subsequent repeal of Section
HELD. “Further, fundamental is the rule that 19 are both invalid, as they are not within the
the State cannot be put in estoppel by the delegated power of the Board.
mistakes or errors of its officials or agents. As
PILOTS' ASSOCIATION OF THE
pointed out by the respondent courts, the
PHILIPPINES, INC. and MANILA PILOTS'
nullification of RMC No. 7-85 issued by the
ASSOCIATION, respondents, G.R. No.
Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue is an
100481. January 22, 1997, EN BANC
administrative interpretation which is not in
MENDOZA, J.
harmony with Sec. 230 of 1977 NIRC, for
being contrary to the express provision of a
Facts: The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) is
statute. Hence, his interpretation could not be
the govt agency which regulates pilotage.
given weight for to do so would, in effect,
President Marcos, responding to the clamor of
amend the statute…in case of discrepancy,
harbor pilots for an increase in pilotage rates,
the basic Act prevails, for the reason that
issued E.O. No. 1088, PROVIDING FOR
the regulation or rule issued to implement
UNIFORM AND MODIFIED RATES FOR
a law cannot go beyond the terms and
PILOTAGE SERVICES RENDERED TO FOREIGN
provisions of the latter.”
AND COASTWISE VESSELS IN ALL PRIVATE
AND PUBLIC PORTS. The E.O. increased
ROMULO, MABANTA,
substantially the rates of the existing pilotage
BUENAVENTURA, SAYOC & DE LOS
fees previously fixed by the PPA. Petitioners
ANGELES, v. HOME DEVELOPMENT
contend that E.O. No. 1088 was merely an
MUTUAL FUND, G.R. No. 131082. June 19,
administrative issuance of then President
2000, DAVIDE, JR., C.J., First Division.
Marcos and, as such, it could be superseded by
The HDMF Board of Trustees issued an order of the PPA.
Board Resolution amending and modifying the
Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. Held: The orders previously issued by the PPA
7742. As amended, the rule provides that for a were in the nature of subordinate legislation,
company to be entitled to a waiver or promulgated by it in the exercise of delegated
power. As such these could only be amended
suspension of Fund coverage, it must have a
or revised by law, as the President did by E.O.
plan providing for both provident/ No. 1088. What determines whether an act is a
retirement and housing benefits superior to law or an administrative issuance is not its
those provided under the Pag-IBIG Fund. form but its nature. Here, the power to fix the
Petitioner contends that since the Amendments rates of charges for services, including pilotage
to the Rules and Regulations Implementing service, has always been regarded as
legislative in character.Nor is there any doubt
Republic Act No. 7742 involve an imposition of
of the power of the then President to fix rates.
an additional burden, a public hearing should
As the President could delegate the
have first been conducted to give chance to ratemaking power to the PPA, so could he
the employers to be heard before the HDMF exercise it in specific instances without
adopted the said Amendments. Absent such thereby withdrawing the power vested by
public hearing, the amendments should be P.D. No. 857.
voided.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v.
Rules and regulations, which are SUTTON, et al. (2005)
the product of a delegated power to
FACTS: This case involves land owned by
create new and additional legal provisions
Respondents which has been devoted
that have the effect of law, should be
exclusively to cow and calf breeding. On 1987,
within the scope of the statutory authority pursuant to the then existing agrarian reform
granted by the legislature to the program of the government, respondents
administrative agency. It is required that made a voluntary offer to sell (VOS) their
the regulation be germane to the objects and landholdings to DAR to avail of certain
purposes of the law, and be not in incentives under the law.
On June 10, 1988, R.A. No. 6657, also
contradiction to, but in conformity with, the
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
standards prescribed by law. When the Board Law (CARL) of 1988, took effect. It included in
of Trustees of the HDMF required that
26
its coverage farms used for raising livestock, On March 5, 1972, former President
poultry and swine. Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation No.
1826, reserving a parcel of land in Constitution
However, on December 4, 1990, in an en banc
Hills, Quezon City, covering a little over 440
decision in the case of Luz Farms v.
hectares as a national government site to be
Secretary of DAR, SC ruled that lands
devoted to livestock and poultry-raising are not known as the National Government Center
included in the definition of agricultural land. (NGC). On August 11, 1987, then President
Hence, the Court declared as unconstitutional Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 137,
certain provisions of CARL insofar as they excluding 150 of the 440 hectares of the
included livestock farms in the coverage of reserved site from the coverage of
agrarian reform. In view of the Luz Farms
Proclamation No. 1826 and authorizing instead
ruling, respondents filed with petitioner DAR a
formal request to withdraw their VOS as their the disposition of the excluded portion by
landholding was devoted exclusively to cattle- direct sale to the bona fide residents therein.
raising and thus exempted from the coverage On May 14, 2003, President Gloria Macapagal-
of the CARL. On December 27, 1993, DAR Arroyo signed into law R.A. No. 9207 otherwise
issued A.O. No. 9, series of 1993, which known as the National Government Center
provided that only portions of private (NGC) Housing and Land Utilization Act of
agricultural lands used for the raising of
2003. Named respondents are the ex-
livestock, poultry and swine as of June 15,
1988 shall be excluded from the coverage of officio members of the National Government
the CARL. In determining the area of land to Center Administration Committee
beexcluded, the A.O. fixed certain retention (Committee). In accordance with Section 5 of
limits. R.A. No. 9207, the Committee formulated the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of
HELD: DAR A.O. No. 9 is unconstitutional.
R.A. No. 9207 on June 29, 2004. WHETHER
The fundamental rule in administrative law is
that, to be valid, administrative rules OR NOT THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF
andregulations must be issued by (1) authority REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9207, OTHERWISE KNOWN
of a law and (2) must not contravene the AS NATIONAL GOVERNMENT CENTER (NGC)
provisions ofthe Constitution. The rule-making HOUSING AND LAND UTILIZATION ACT OF
power of an administrative agency may not be 2003 SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID
used toabridge the authority given to it by FOR BEING INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAW IT
Congress or by the Constitution. Nor can it be
SEEKS TO IMPLEMENT.
used to enlargethe power of the administrative
agency beyond the scope intended.
HELD: NO, VALID IRR. In Section 5 of R.A.
Constitutional andstatutory provisions control
with respect to what rules and regulations may No. 9207, the Committee is granted the
bepromulgated by administrative agencies and power to administer, formulate guidelines
the scope of their regulations. and policies, and implement the disposition of
the areas covered by the law. Implicit in this
In the case at bar, the Court finds that the authority and the statutes objective of urban
impugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes the
poor housing is the power of the Committee to
Constitution. The A.O. sought to regulate
livestock farms by including them in the formulate the manner by which the reserved
coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a property may be allocated to the beneficiaries.
maximum retention limit for their ownership. Under this broad power, the Committee is
However, thedeliberations of the 1987 mandated to fill in the details such as the
Constitutional Commission show a clear qualifications of beneficiaries, the selling
intent to exclude, interalia, all lands price of the lots, the terms and conditions
exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and
governing the sale and other key
poultry- raising. The assailed A.O. of petitioner
DAR was properly stricken down as particulars necessary to implement the
unconstitutional as it enlarges the coverageof objective of the law. These details are
agrarian reform beyond the scope intended by purposely omitted from the statute and their
the 1987 Constitution. determination is left to the discretion of the
Committee because the latter possesses
special knowledge and technical expertise over
HOLY SPIRIT
these matters.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. and
NESTORIO F. APOLINARIO, in his personal The Committees authority to fix the
capacity and as President of Holy Spirit selling price of the lots may be likened to
Homeowners Association, Inc. vs. the rate-fixing power of administrative
SECRETARY MICHAEL agencies. In case of a delegation of rate-fixing
DEFENSOR, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, G.R. power, the only standard which the legislature
No. 163980, August 3, 2006, EN BANC, is required to prescribe for the guidance of the
TINGA, J. administrative authority is that the rate be
reasonable and just.
27
ATTY. REYNANTE B. ORCEO, v. exchange notwithstanding, the applicant's

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. sound financial condition is still capable of
190779, March 26, 2010, En Banc, J. maintaining efficient service. Commissioner
Peralta Enrique Medina, issued an order directing the
Auditor General to conduct an examination of
Facts: RA 7166 prohibits an unauthorized respondent MERALCO's books of accounts.
person from bearing, carrying or transporting After hearing, Commissioner Medina approved
firearms or other deadly weapons in public the application for the increased rate adding
places, including all public buildings, streets, that provisional rates should apply if the
parks, and private vehicles or public decision if appealed.
conveyances, even if licensed to possess or
carry the same, during the election period. RULING: Section 16(c) of the Public Service
However, the term firearm was not defined by Acgt (Commonwealth Act No. 146), in its first
the aforementioned law. Hence, Comelec proviso, expressly prescribes —“That the
issued a resolution defining the term “firearm” Commission may, in its discretion, approve
which includes airgun, airsoft guns, and their rates proposed by public services provisionally
replica/imitation in whatever form that can and without necessity of any hearing; but it
cause an ordinary person to believe that they shall call a hearing thereon within 30 days
are real. Petitioner assailed such resolution as thereafter, upon publication and notice to the
an invalid one and that Comelec gravely abuse concerns operating in the territory
its discretion. affected...”If the Commission is empowered to
approve provisional rates even without a
Ruling: COMELEC did not gravely abuse its hearing, a fortiori it may act on such rates
discretion in including airsoft guns and airguns upon a six-day notice to persons concerned. In
in the term “firearm” in Resolution No. 8714 fact, when the provisional rates were approved
for purposes of the gun ban during the election on 20 May, the full 10 days notice had been
period. The COMELEC’s intent in the inclusion published. To be sure petitioner Gonzalez
of airsoft guns in the term “firearm” and their argues that the proviso quoted applies only
resultant coverage by the election gun ban is to initial, not revised, rates. The Public Service
to avoid the possible use of recreational guns Act however, makes no distinction; it speaks of
in showing fear ,intimidation or terror during rates proposed by public services; and whether
the election period. An ordinary citizen may initial or revised, these rates are
not be able to distinguish between a real gun necessarily proposed merely, until the
and an airsoft gun. It is fear subverting the will Commission approves them. The Public Service
of a voter, whether brought Commission practice, moreover, is to hear and
about by the use of a real gun or a recreational approve revised rates without published
gun, which is sought to be averted. notices or hearing. The reason is easily
Ultimately, the objective is to ensure the discerned: The provisional rates are by their
holding of free, honest, credible and peaceful nature temporary and subject to adjustment in
elections. However, the replicas and imitations conformity with the definitive rates approved,
of airsoft guns and airguns are excluded from and in the case at bar, the Public Service
the term “firearm” in Resolution No. 8714 Commission order so provided. We also
because these were not included in any conclude that the claim of denial of due
regulation unlike airsoft guns. process is unfounded and must be overruled.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. HON. SENATOR ERNESTO MACEDA, Petitioner,

ENRIQUE MEDINA, HON. GREGORIO
vs. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD (ERB),
PANGANIBAN, HON. JOSUE L. CADIAO,
HON. FILOMENO KINTANAR, HON. PAZ et. al., G.R. Nos. 95203-05 : December
VETO PLANAS, as Associate 18, 1990, EN BANC, SARMIENTO, J.
Commissioners of the Public Service
Commission and MANILA ELECTRIC
COMPANY,
G.R. No. L-32068, October 4, 1971, En Facts: The petitioners pray for injunctive
Banc, J.B.L. Reyes. relief, to stop the Energy Regulatory Board
(Board hereinafter) from implementing its
FACTS: Manila Electric Company (MERALCO)
filed an application with the Public Service Order, dated September 21, 1990, mandating
Commission seeking approval of revised rate a provisional increase in the prices of
schedules. The Republic and other oppositors
petroleum and petroleum products. It appears
filed an opposition to respondent MERALCO's
main application for increase in rate charges that on September 10, 1990, Caltex
on the ground that the floating rate of (Philippines), Inc., Pilipinas Shell Petroleum
28
Corporation, and Petron Corporation proferred the application. Section 37 paragraph (e) is
separate applications with the Board for akin to a temporary restraining order or a writ
permission to increase the wholesale posted of preliminary attachment issued by the courts,
prices of petroleum products and for which are given ex parte, and which are
provisional authority to increase temporarily subject to the resolution of the main case.
such wholesale posted prices pending further
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE
proceedings. The petitioners submit that the
PHILIPPINES, INC. (RCPI) vs. NATIONAL
above Order had been issued with grave abuse TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
of discretion, tantamount to lack of jurisdiction, (NTC), G.R. No. 93237, 6 November 1992.
and correctible by Certiorari.

Private respondent sent two (2) rush telegrams
through petitioner RCPI’s facilities. Both
The petitioner, Senator Ernesto Maceda, also telegrams did not reach their destinations on
submits that the same was issued without the expected dates. Private respondent filed a
proper notice and hearing in violation of letter-complaint against the RCPI with the
National Telecommunications Commission
Section 3, paragraph (e), of Executive Order
(NTC) for poor service, with a request for the
No. 172. imposition of the appropriate punitive sanction
against the company. The NTC found RCPI
The Court finds no merit in these petitions. administratively liable for deficient and
inadequate service and imposed the penalty of
Senator Maceda and Atty. Lozano, in
fine.
questioning the lack of a hearing, have
overlooked the provisions of Section 8 of NTC has no jurisdiction to impose a fine. Globe
Wireless Ltd. vs. Public Service Commission
Executive Order No. 172, which we quote:
says so categorically. “Too basic in
administrative law to need citation of
"SECTION 8. Authority to Grant Provisional
jurisprudence is the rule that jurisdiction
Relief . — The Board may, upon the filing of and powers of administrative agencies,
an application, petition or complaint or at like respondent Commission, are limited
any stage thereafter and without prior to those expressly granted or necessarily
implied from those granted in the
hearing, on the basis of supporting papers
legislation creating such body; and any
duly verified or authenticated, grant order without or beyond such jurisdiction
provisional relief on motion of a party in is void and ineffective.”
the case or on its own initiative, without Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc.
prejudice to a final decision after hearing, (PCFI) v. Sec. of Education Culture and
should the Board find that the pleadings, Sports, G.R. No. 78385, 31 August 1987.
En Banc, Gancayco.
together with such affidavits, documents
and other evidence which may be Notice and Hearing in the exercise of quasi-
legislative proceedings.
submitted in support of the motion,
substantially support the provisional Facts:
order: Provided, That the Board shall
The Department of Education, Culture and
immediately schedule and conduct a hearing Sports (DECS) issued Department Order No.
thereon within thirty (30) days thereafter, 37 prescribing the maximum school fee that
may be charged by all private schools from
upon publication and notice to all affected
10% to 15%. Claiming that such increase was
parties.” too high, PCFI sought the suspension of the
implementation thereof through a telegram to
What must be stressed is that while under
the President. Unheeded, PCFI thus files this
Executive Order No. 172, a hearing is present Petition for prohibition questioning the
indispensable, it does not preclude the Board constitutionality of the DO on the ground that
such was issued: 1) without any legal basis;
from ordering, ex parte, a provisional increase,
and 2) in violation of the due process clause of
as it did here, subject to its final disposition of the Constitution for PCFI was not given due
whether or not: (1) to make it permanent; (2) notice and hearing before said DO was issued.
to reduce or increase it further; or (3) to deny
Held:
29
The function of prescribing rates by an facilities and services and the fixing of rates.
administrative agency may be either a Implementing said Executive Order No. 196,
legislative or an adjudicative function. If it NTC required PHILCOMSAT to apply for the
were a legislative function, the grant of prior requisite certificate of public convenience and
notice and hearing to the affected parties is necessity covering its facilities and the services
not a requirement of due process. As regards it renders, as well as the corresponding
rates prescribed by an administrative agency in authority to charge rates therefor.
the exercise of its quasi-judicial function, prior
notice and hearing are essential to the validity PHILCOMSAT also asseverates that nowhere in
of such rates. the provisions of Executive Order No. 546,
providing for the creation of respondent NTC
When the rules and/or rates laid down by an and granting its rate-fixing powers, nor of
administrative agency are meant to apply to all Executive Order No. 196, placing PHILCOMSAT
enterprises of a given kind throughout the under the jurisdiction of NTC, can it be inferred
country, they may partake of a legislative that NTC is guided by any standard in the
character. Where the rules and the rates exercise of its rate-fixing and adjudicatory
imposed apply exclusively to a particular party, powers. While PHILCOMSAT in its petition-in-
based upon a finding of fact, then its function chief raised the issue of undue delegation of
is quasi-judicial in character. The assailed legislative power, it subsequently clarified its
Department Order prescribes the maximum said submission to mean that the order
school fees that may be charged by all private mandating a reduction of certain rates is undue
schools in the country for school year 1987 to delegation not of legislative but of quasi-
1988. This being so, prior notice and hearing judicial power to respondent NTC, the exercise
are not essential to the validity of its issuance. of which allegedly requires an express
conferment by the legislative body.
Philippine Communications Satellite
Corporation v. Jose Luis Alcuaz, as NTC PHILCOMSAT is mistaken.
Commissioner, and National
Telecommunications Commission, G.R. No. Fundamental is the rule that delegation of
84818. legislative power may be sustained only upon
the ground that some standard for its exercise
Commissioner Jose Luis Alcuaz of the National is provided and that the legislature in making
Telecommunications Commission issued an the delegation has prescribed the manner of
Order which directs the provisional reduction of the exercise of the delegated power.
the rates which may be charged by Therefore, when the administrative agency
PHILCOMSAT for certain specified lines of its concerned, respondent NTC in this case,
services by fifteen percent (15%) with the establishes a rate, its act must both be non-
reservation to make further reductions later. confiscatory and must have been established in
PHILCOMSAT assails this Order for being the manner prescribed by the legislature;
violative of the constitutional prohibition otherwise, in the absence of a fixed standard,
against undue delegation of legislative power the delegation of power becomes
and a denial of procedural, as well as unconstitutional.
substantive, due process of law.
In case of a delegation of rate-fixing power,
By virtue of Republic Act No. 5514, the only standard which the legislature is
PHILCOMSAT was granted "a franchise to required to prescribe for the guidance of the
establish, construct, maintain and operate in administrative authority is that the rate be
the Philippines, at such places as the grantee reasonable and just. However, it has been held
may select, station or stations and associated that even in the absence of an express
equipment and facilities for international requirement as to reasonableness, this
satellite communications." Under this standard may be implied.
franchise, it was likewise granted the authority
to "construct and operate such ground facilities We need not go into an in-depth analysis of
as needed to deliver telecommunications the pertinent provisions of the law in order to
services from the communications satellite conclude that respondent NTC, in the exercise
system and ground terminal or terminals." of its rate-fixing power, is limited by the
requirements of public safety, public interest,
Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5514, reasonable feasibility and reasonable rates,
PHILCOMSAT was exempt from the jurisdiction which conjointly more than satisfy the
of the then Public Service Commission, now requirements of a valid delegation of legislative
respondent NTC. However, pursuant to power.
Executive Order No. 196, PHILCOMSAT was
placed under the jurisdiction, control and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
regulation of respondent NTC, including all its vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.
30
COURT OF TAX APPEALS and FORTUNE Samar who was charged with dishonesty,
TOBACCO CORPORATION, VITUG, J.: nepotism, oppression and violation of Civil
FIRST DIVISION, G.R. No. 119761 August Service Rules by teachers of the school before
29, 1996 the Merit System Protection Board (MPSB) of
the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The MPSB
conducted a preliminary inquiry and then
The initial position of the BIR was to classify formally charged Rubenecia and required him
the products of Fortune Tobacco Corporation, to file his answer with the CSC Regional Office
namely: 'Champion,' 'Hope,' and 'More' as in Tacloban where the MPSB transmitted the
foreign brands since they were listed in the records of the case for investigation. Because
World Tobacco Directory as belonging to Rubenecia failed to file an answer despite
foreign companies. However, Fortune Tobacco several opportunities given to do so, the
changed the names of 'Hope' to Regional Office deemed the case submitted for
'Hope Luxury' and 'More' to 'Premium More,' resolution and eventually submitted an
thereby removing the said brands from the investigation report to the MPSB. However,
foreign brand category. Later, Revenue before the MPSB could render a decision, the
Memorandum Circular No. 37-93 was issued CSC issued Resolution 93-2387 which provided
reclassifying cigarettes, and subjecting the said that all cases pending before the MPSB were to
products to excise tax. BIR sent via telefax a be elevated to the Commission for Decision.
copy of RMC 37-93 to Fortune Tobacco but it Thus, the CSC took over the case and then
was addressed to no one in particular. rendered Resolution No. 94-0553 dismissing
Rubenecia from Service.
Issue: Observance of the prescribed procedure
in the exercise of BIR's quasi-legislative
Raising it as one of two issues, Rubenecia
functions.
claims that the Commission had no jurisdiction
to take over the case because Resolution 93-
The Supreme Court distinguished between the
2387 was invalid. He reasons that MPSB was
two kinds of administrative issuances —
created by law and since a creation of law
a legislative rule and aninterpretative rule. On
could only be abolished by law, Resolution
one hand, a legislative rule is in the nature of
No. 93-2387 was accordingly an ultra vires act
subordinate legislation, designed to implement
on the part of the Commission.
a primary legislation by providing the details
thereof . When it substantially adds to or
increases the burden of those governed, it The Supreme Court found that although it is
behooves the agency to accord at least to true that P.D. No. 1409 had "created in the
those directly affected a chance to be heard, Civil Service Commission [the] Merit Systems
and thereafter to be duly informed, before that Board." Section 16 of the then present Civil
new issuance is given the force and effect of Service Law found in the 1987 Administrative
law. In the same way that laws must have the Code followed the same line and re-created the
benefit of public hearing, it is generally Merit Systems Board as an office of the
required that before a legislative rule is Commission and gave it a new name: "Merit
adopted there must be hearing. In this System Protection Board." The 1987
connection, the Administrative Code of 1987 Administrative Code thus made clear that the
provides that in the fixing of rates, no rule or MSPB was intended to be an office of the
final order shall be valid unless the proposed Commission like any of the other thirteen (13)
rates shall have been published in a newspaper offices in the Commission: e.g., the Office of
of general circulation at least two (2) weeks Legal Affairs; the Office of Planning and
before the first hearing thereon. On another Management; the Central Administrative
hand, interpretative rules are designed to Office, and so forth. The MSPB was, in other
provide guidelines to the law which the words, a part of the internal structure and
administrative agency is in charge of enforcing. organization of the Commission and thus a
Its applicability needs nothing further than its proper subject of organizational change which
bare issuance for it gives no real consequence the Commission is authorized to undertake
more than what the law itself has already under Section 17 of the then present Civil
prescribed. Service Law. Moreover, Resolution 93-2387
has been published in a newspaper of general
Evidently, RMC 37-93 subjected the said circulation and such publication
tobacco products to increased tax rate. The substantially complies with the
BIR not simply intrepreted the law; verily, it requirement of written notice as prescribed
legislated under its quasi-legislative authority. in the same Resolution.
The due observance of the requirements of
notice, of hearing, and of publication should
not have been then ignored. [G.R. No. 132593. June 25, 1999]
PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING
CORPORATION, petitioner,
RUBLE RUBENECIA, v. CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, G.R. No. 115942 May 31, vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent.
1995. En Banc (Feliciano) EN Banc. Penned by GONZAGA-REYES, J.
FACTS: The PITC is a GOCC created under PD

Ruble Rubenecia was a school principal of the
No. 252 for the purpose of promoting and
Catarman National High School in Northern
developing Philippine trade. The PITC Board of
31
Directors approved a Car Plan Program for al., G.R. No. 164171. August 22, 2006. En
qualified PITC officers which allows an eligible Banc.(Ynares-Santiago, J.)
officer to purchase a vehicle, 50% of which
shall be shouldered by the PITC over a period FACTS: Executive Order 156 was issued
of 5 years to facilitate greater mobility for entitled "Providing for a comprehensive
employees. industrial policy and directions for the motor
vehicle development program and its
On July 1, 1989, RA 6758, entitled An Act implementing guidelines." The said provision
Prescribing a Revised Compensation and prohibits the importation of all types of used
Position Classification System in the motor vehicles in the country including the
Government and For Other Purposes was Subic Bay Freeport, or the Freeport Zone,
enacted. It provided for the consolidation of subject to a few exceptions. Consequently,
allowances and additional compensation into three separate actions for declaratory relief
standardized salary rates, while the additional were filed praying that judgment be rendered
compensation i.e. representation and declaring Article 2, Section3.1 of the EO 156
transportation allowances were exempted from unconstitutional and illegal.
consolidation. Said section likewise provides
that other additional compensation being ISSUE: Whether or not Article2, Section 3.1 of
received by incumbents as of July 1, 1989 not EO 156 is a valid exercise of the President’s
integrated into the standardized salary rates quasi-legislative power.
shall continue to be authorized.
HELD:
On post audit, the
Requisites for Validity of Administrative
payment/reimbursement of the above-
Regulations
mentioned expenses was disallowed by COA on
the ground that the subject car plan benefits
(1) Its promulgation must be
were not one of the fringe benefits or form of
authorized by the legislature;
compensation allowed to be continued after
said date. PITC appealed the decision of the (2) It must be promulgated in
resident COA auditor to the COA. On July 27, accordance with the prescribed procedure;
1992, COA denied PITCs appeal and affirmed
the disallowance of the said car plan expenses. (3) It must be within the scope of
the authority given by the legislature; and
ISSUE: WON the petitioners may still receive
their benefits under the car loan agreement? (4) It must be reasonable.
RULING: Yes, petitioners may still receive their The first requisite was actually satisfied since
representation allowances under the car loan EO 156 has both constitutional and statutory
agreement. bases.
COA relied on DBM-CCC No. 10 as basis for the Anent the second requisite, that the order
disallowance. DBM-CCC No. 10 which was must be issued or promulgated in accordance
issued by the DBM has been declared by this with the prescribed procedure, the
Court in De Jesus, et al. vs. Commission on presumption is that the said executive issuance
Audit, et al. has of no force and effect due to duly complied with the procedures and
the absence of publication thereof in the limitations imposed by law since the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general respondents never questioned the procedure
circulation. “On the need for publication of that paved way for the issuance of EO 156 but
subject DBM-CCC No. 10, we rule in the instead, what they challenged was the absence
affirmative. Following the doctrine enunciated of substantive due process in the issuance of
in Tanada, publication in the Official Gazette or the EO.
in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines is required since DBM-CCC No. 10 is In the third requisite, the Court held that the
in the nature of an administrative circular the importation ban runs afoul with the third
purpose of which is to enforce or implement an requisite as administrative issuances must not
existing law. Stated differently, to be effective be ultra vires or beyond the limits of the
and enforceable, DBM-CCC No. 10 must go authority conferred. In the instant case, the
through the requisite publication in the Official subject matter of the laws authorizing the
Gazette or in a newspaper of general President to regulate or forbid importation of
circulation in the Philippines since it is not a used motor vehicles, is the domestic industry.
mere interpretative or internal regulation. EO 156, however, exceeded the scope of its
application by extending the prohibition on the
HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et al. v. importation of used cars to the Freeport, which
SOUTHWING HEAVY INDUSTRIES, INC., et RA 7227, considers to some extent, a foreign
32
territory. The domestic industry which the EO binding on petitioner. The Administrative Code
seeks to protect is actually the "customs of 1987, particularly Section 3 thereof,
territory" which is defined under the Rules and
expressly requires each agency to file with the
Regulations Implementing RA 7227 which
states: "the portion of the Philippines outside Office of the National Administrative Register
the Subic Bay Freeport where the Tariff and (ONAR) of the University of the Philippines Law
Customs Code of the Philippines and other
Center three certified copies of every rule
national tariff and customs laws are in force
and effect." adopted by it. Administrative issuances
which are not published or filed with the
Regarding the fourth requisite, the Court finds
ONAR are ineffective and may not be
that the issuance of EO is unreasonable. Since
the nature of EO 156 is to protect the domestic enforced. Memorandum Circular No. 98-17,
industry from the deterioration of the local which provides for the penalties for the first,
motor manufacturing firms, the Court however,
second and third offenses for exhibiting
finds no logic in all the encompassing
application of the assailed provision to the programs without valid permit to exhibit, has
Freeport Zone which is outside the customs not been registered with the ONAR as of
territory of the Philippines. As long as the used
January 27, 2000. Hence, the same is yet to
motor vehicles do not enter the customs
territory, the injury or harm sought to be be effective. It is thus unenforceable since it
prevented or remedied will not arise. has not been filed in the ONAR. Consequently,
petitioner was not bound by said circular and
GMA NETWORK, INC. vs. MOVIE AND
TELEVISION REVIEW AND should not have been meted the sanction
CLASSIFICATION BOARD G.R. No. 148579 provided thereunder.
February 5, 2007, FIRST DIVISION,
CORONA, J.: GMA NETWORK, INC., petitioner, vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SENATOR
GMA Network, Inc. operates and manages the
ALAN PETER "COMPAÑERO" S. CAYETANO,
UHF television station, EMC Channel 27. On petitioner-intervenor, G.R. No. 205357.
January 7, 2000, MTRCB issued an order of September 2, 2014, En Banc (Peralta, J.).
suspension against the network for airing
Facts: For the 2013 elections, COMELEC
"Muro Ami: The Making" without first securing promulgated Resolution No. 9615, Section 9(a)
a permit from it as provided in Section 7 of PD of which limited broadcast and radio ads of
candidates and political parties for national
1986. The penalty of suspension was based on
positions to an aggregate total of 120 minutes
Memorandum Circular 98-17 dated December and 180 minutes, respectively. COMELEC
15, 1998 which provided for the penalties for conducted a public hearing after promulgation
explaining the Resolution. The petitioners in
exhibiting a program without a valid permit
this case question the constitutionality of Sec.
from the MTRCB. GMA moved for 9(a) particularly because it was issued without
reconsideration of the suspension order and, at public consultation as required in Sec. 9,
Chapter II, Book VII, Administrative Code.
the same time, informed MTRCB that Channel
Petitioners also argue that the aggregate
27 had complied with the suspension order by limitation is unfair and unreasonable and not in
going off the air since midnight of January 11, accordance with legislative intent. COMELEC
2000. It also filed a letter-protest which was says that Chapter 1, Book VII of the
Administrative Code excepts constitutional
merely "noted" by the MTRCB thereby, in
commissions from application of the public
effect, denying both the motion for consultation requirement.
reconsideration and letter-protest. GMA then
Ruling: While COMELEC is an independent
filed with the CA a petition for certiorari which office and not a mereadministrative agency
was dismissed. The January 7, 2000 under the Executive Department, rules, which
suspension order issued by MTRCB was apply to the latter must also, be deemed to
similarly apply to the former, not as a matter
affirmed in toto.
ofadministrative convenience but as a dictate
of due processwhen it substantially adds to
While MTRCB had jurisdiction over the subject or increases the burden of those
program, Memorandum Circular 98-17, which governed. The agency must accord at least to
was the basis of the suspension order, was not those directlyaffected a chance to be heard,
33
and thereafter to be duly informed, and make the said penalties binding on the
beforethat new issuance is given the force and persons affected thereby. (People vs. Que Po
effect of law. The aggregate airtime rule Lay, 94 Phil. 640; Lim Hoa Ting vs. Central
contained in the questioned Resolution is Bank of the Phils., 104 Phil. 573; Balbuna vs.
defective and ineffectual for non-compliance Secretary of Education, 110 Phil. 150.)
with the public consultation rule. Confiscation and forfeiture provision or
sanction makes a penal statute. Justice and
There is no question that the COMELEC is the
fairness dictate that the public must be
office constitutionally andstatutorily authorized
informed of that provision by means of
to enforce election laws but it cannot exercise
publication in the Gazette before violators of
its powerswithout limitations — or reasonable
basis. But it is not free to change the rules the executive order can be bound thereby.
without sufficient basis, especially if it had Commonwealth Act No. 638 requires that all
previously ruled in 2 earlier elections that the Presidential executive orders having general
limit is per station and not per candidate. applicability should be published in the Official
COMELEC’s exercise of discretion is limited by Gazette. It provides that "every order or
the bounds and intents of the law (Fair Election document which shall prescribe a penalty shall
Act). be deemed to have general applicability and
legal effect.” Indeed, the practice has always
ANSELMO L. PESIGAN and MARCELINO L. been to publish executive orders in the
PESIGAN vs. JUDGE DOMINGO MEDINA Gazette. Section 551 of the Revised
ANGELES, RTC, Caloocan City Branch 129, Administrative Code provides that even bureau
acting for REGIONAL TRIAL COURT of "regulations and orders shall become effective
Camarines Norte, ET AL., G.R. No. L-64279 only when approved by the Department Head
(April 30, 1984). SECOND DIVISION and published in the Official Gazette or
(AQUINO, J.) otherwise publicly promulgated".
Petitioners were carabao dealers who

transported in an Isuzu ten-wheeler truck NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., v. COURT OF
twenty-six carabaos and a calf. In spite of the APPEALS and SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
permit to transport and the certificates, the COMMISSION, G.R. No. 86738 November
carabaos were confiscated by Lieutenant 13, 1991, FIRST DIVISION,
FELICIANO, J.:
Arnulfo V. Zenarosa, the town's police station
commander, and by Doctor Bella S. Miranda, Nestle Philippines Inc. ("Nestle") has
provincial veterinarian. The confiscation was an authorized capital stock of P600 million
basis on the aforementioned Executive Order divided into 6 million shares with a par value of
No. 626-A which provides "that henceforth, no P100.00 per share. On 16 December 1983, the
Board of Directors and stockholders of Nestle
carabao, regardless of age, sex, physical
approved resolutions authorizing the issuance
condition or purpose and no carabeef shall be of 344,500 shares out of the previously
transported from one province to another. The authorized but unissued capital stock of Nestle,
carabaos or carabeef transported in violation of exclusively to San Miguel Corporation and to
this Executive Order as amended shall be Nestle S.A. On 28 March 1985, petitioner
Nestle filed a letter with the SEC seeking
subject to confiscation and forfeiture by the
exemption of its proposed issuance of
government to be distributed ... to deserving additional shares to its existing principal
farmers through dispersal as the Director of shareholders, from the registration
Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of requirement of Section 4 of the Revised
carabaos.” Whether the said EO was valid. Securities Act and from payment of the fee
referred to in Section 6(c) of the same Act.
The said executive order should not be The SEC responded adversely to
enforced against the Pesigans on April 2, 1982 petitioner's requests and ruled that the
because, as already noted, it is a penal proposed issuance of shares did not fall under
regulation published more than two months Section 6 (a) (4) of the Revised Securities Act,
since Section 6 (a) (4) is applicable only where
later in the Official Gazette dated June 14,
there is an increase in the authorized capital
1982. It became effective only fifteen days stock of a corporation. Chairman Sulit held,
thereafter as provided in article 2 of the Civil however, that the proposed transaction could
Code and section 11 of the Revised be considered by the Commission under the
Administrative Code. The word "laws" in article provisions of Section 6 (b) of the Revised
Securities Act. The Commission then advised
2 (article 1 of the old Civil Code) includes
petitioner to file the appropriate request for
circulars and regulations which prescribe exemption and to pay the fee required under
penalties. Publication is necessary to apprise Section 6 (c) of the statute.
the public of the contents of the regulations
34
WON the construction thus given by informed judgment and the fact that they
the SEC and the Court of Appeals to Section 6 frequently are the drafters of the law they
(a) (4) of the Revised Securities Act should be interpret; that the agency is the one on which
upheld?
the legislature must rely to advise it as to the
practical working out of the statute, and
In the first place, it is a principle too
well established to require extensive practical application of the statute presents the
documentation that the construction given to a agency with unique opportunity and
statute by an administrative agency charged experiences for discovering deficiencies,
with the interpretation and application of that inaccuracies, or improvements in the statute.
statute is entitled to great respect and should
be accorded great weight by the courts, unless
such construction is clearly shown to be in PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE
sharp conflict with the governing statute or the CORPORATION, vs. CHINESE GENERAL
Constitution and other laws.
HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, G.R.
The rationale for this rule relates not No. 163123. April 15, 2005, THIRD
only to the emergence of the multifarious DIVISION, CORONA, J.
needs of a modern or modernizing society and
the establishment of diverse administrative
agencies for addressing and satisfying those Facts: Chinese General Hospital (CGH) was an
needs; it also relates to accumulation of
experience and growth of specialized accredited health care provider under the
capabilities by the administrative agency Philippine Medical Care Commission (PMCC).
charged with implementing a particular
statute. In Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. v. As such, CGH filed its Medicare claims
Commissioner of Customs the Court stressed amounting to more than P8 million with the
that executive officials are presumed to have
familiarized themselves with all the SSS, which, together with the GSIS,
considerations pertinent to the meaning and administered the Health Insurance Fund of the
purpose of the law, and to have formed an
independent, conscientious and competent PMMC. While the application was being
expert opinion thereon. processed, RA 7875 was passed merging the
ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC., PMCC with PhilHealth. PhilHealth then

petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF promulgated the rules and regulations
CUSTOMS and COURT OF TAX APPEALS, implementing said act, requiring that all claims
respondents, G.R. No. L-19337,
for payment of services rendered shall be filed
September 30, 1969, En Banc, J. Castro.
within 60 calendar days from the date of
FACTS: Petitioner, who is engaged in the
discharge of the patient; otherwise, the claim
production and milling of centrifugal sugar,
requested the Commissioner of Customs for a shall be barred from payment.
week's extension of Re-exportation and Special
Import Tax Bond which was to expire the For being filed beyond the 60-day period,
following day, citing reasons for its failure to
CGH’s claims were denied by the PhilHealth.
export the remaining jute bags within the
period of one year. However, this request was Should CGH’s claim be allowed by the
denied by the Commissioner, due to the Philhealth?
petitioner's failure to show proof of the
exportation of the balance within one year
HELD: Yes. This Court will not hesitate,
from their importation.
whenever necessary, to allow a liberal
HELD: Considering that the statutory implementation of the rules and
provisions have not been the subject of
regulations of an administrative agency in
previous judicial interpretation, then the
application of the doctrine of "judicial respect cases where their unjustifiably rigid
for administrative construction” is in order. enforcement will result in a deprivation of
Only where the court of last resort has not
legal rights. In this case, respondent had
previously interpreted the statute is the rule
applicable that courts will give consideration to already rendered the services for which it was
construction by administrative or executive filing its claims. Technicalities should not be
departments of the state. The several factors
allowed to defeat respondent’s right to be
which may be regarded as bases of the
principle are the respect due the governmental reimbursed.
agencies charged with administration, their
competence, expertness, experience, and
35
The state policy in creating a national tasked to take judicial notice of under
Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court.
health insurance program is to grant
Judicial notice must be taken of the
discounted medical coverage to all citizens, organization of the Executive Department, its
principal officers, elected or appointed, such as
with priority to the needs of the
the President, his powers and duties
underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women (Francisco, Evidence [Rules 128-134], 1996
ed., p. 24, citing Canal Zone vs. Mena, 2 Canal
and children, and free medical care to paupers.
Zone 170). The rendition of the subject July
31, 1989 Malacañang decision is premised on
CALIXTO SANADO, v. THE COURT OF the essential function of the executive
department - which is to enforce the law. The
APPEALS and SIMEON G. NEPOMUCENO,
only exception is when there is a clear showing
G.R. No. 108338, April 17, 2001, Third
of capricious and whimsical exercise of
Division, MELO, J. judgment or grave abuse of discretion, which
we find absent in the case at bar. It is thus
FACTS: The Philippine Fisheries Commission plain in the case at bar that the July 31, 1989
issued in favor of petitioner Sanado an decision of the Office of the President is a
Ordinary Fishpond permit. Petitioner and substantial supervening event which drastically
private respondent Nepomuceno executed a changed the circumstances of the parties to
contract of Fishpond Development and the subject fishpond lease agreement.
Financing. Based on the modified agreement,
private respondent proceeded with the PART V. QUASI-JUDICIAL
development of the fishpond area, excluding POWER
the area of 10 hectares already developed by
petitioner. The Director of Fisheries and Presidential Commission on Good
Aquatic resources recommended to then Government v. Emmanuel Peña, RTC
Ministry of Natural Resources the conversion of Presiding Judge, and et al represented by
Ordinary Fishpond permit into a 25-year loan Yim Kam Shing GR No. 77663, 12 April
agreement. Pursuant to said recommendation, 1988, En Banc, Teehankee.
Fishpond Lease Agreement was issued to
petitioner. Later, private respondent waived his Facts: Between 1986 and 1987, PCGG,
rights, interest, and participation over the created through Executive Order No. 1,
fishpond area in favor of one Edgar Chu. While ordered the freezing of the bank accounts of
this case was pending, the minister of two garment manufacturing corporations.
Agriculture issued an order cancelling the PCGG assigned Saludo as OIC of the
Fishpond Lease Agreement and forfeiting corporations to withdraw necessary funds to
improvements thereon and private respondent pay the debts of the corporation. A certain Yim
was given priority to apply for the area and Kam Shing was designated as co-signatory to
that his improvements were not considered transact with the bank in the absence of the
forfeited in favor of the government. Petitioner originally assigned to manage the corporations.
elevated the matter to the Office of the The authority of Yim Kam Shing was however
president but his appeal was dismissed. The revoked by OIC Saludo upon finding that Yim
trial court ordered private respondents to Kam Shing was in the country only with a mere
restore possession and control and ordered tourist visa. Upon petition with the RTC, a TRO
them to pay to Sanado the rentals of the was issued on the memorandum revoking
fishpond. authority granted to Shing.
Held: The action of an administrative Held: As can be readily seen from the
agency in granting or denying, or in foregoing discussion of the duties and
suspending or revoking, a license, permit, functions and the power and authority of the
franchise, or certificate of public Commission, it exercises quasi-judicial
convenience and necessity is
functions. In the exercise of quasi-judicial
administrative or quasi-judicial. The act is
not purely administrative but quasi-judicial or functions, the Commission is a co-equal body
adjudicatory since it is dependent upon the with regional trial courts and "co-equal bodies
ascertainment of facts by the administrative have no power to control the other." Further,
agency, upon which a decision is to be made EO 14 which lays down jurisdiction over ill-
and rights and liabilities determined (De Leon, gotten wealth cases lodged appellate
Administrative Law: Text and Cases, 1993 ed., jurisdiction over Sandiganbayan of PCGG
pp. 143-144). As such, the July 31, 1989
orders, decisions, etc. The memorandum
decision of the Office of the President is
explicitly an official act of and an exercise of revoking the authority of the co-signatory
quasi-judicial power by the Executive should have been contested before
Department headed by the highest officer of Sandiganbayan, not before the RTC as a co-
the land. It thus squarely falls under equal body of PCGG.
matters relative to the executive
department which courts are mandatorily
36
RTC and the CA for that matter have justice, or even a quasi-judicial agency or
no jurisdiction over the PCGG in the exercise of official.
its powers under the applicable Executive
Orders and Art. XVIII, sec. 26 of the The function of receiving evidence and
Constitution and therefore may not interfere ascertaining therefrom the facts of a
with and restrain or set aside the orders and controversy is not a judicial function, properly
actions of the Commission. Under section 2 of speaking. To be considered such, the faculty of
the President's Executive Order No. 14 issued receiving evidence and making factual
on May 7, 1986, all cases of the Commission conclusions in a controversy must be
regarding "the Funds, Moneys, Assets, and
accompanied by the authority of applying the
Properties Illegally Acquired or Misappropriated
law to those factual conclusions to the end that
by Former President Ferdinand Marcos, Mrs.
the controversy may be decided or determined
Imelda Romualdez Marcos, their Close
authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject
Relatives, Subordinates, Business Associates,
to such appeals or modes of review as may be
Dummies, Agents, or Nominees" 1 whether
provided by law.
civil or criminal, are lodged within the
"exclusive and original jurisdiction of the MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, v. VICENTE
ATILANO, et. al., G.R. No. 166758, June
Sandiganbayan" 2 and all incidents arising
2012, SECOND DIVISION, Brion, J.
from, incidental to, or related to, such cases
necessarily fall likewise under the FACTS. An investment relationship between
Sandiganbayan's exclusive and original MERALCO and Corporate Investments Phil, Inc.
jurisdiction, subject to review on certiorari (CIPI) turned sour, in that the latter failed to
exclusively by the Supreme Court. return the expected profits of the former under
a financing agreement. As a result, an estafa
case was filed against the officers of CIPI. The
Hon. Isidro Cariño, in his capacity as Sec.
Prosecutor, finding that the essential elements
of DepEd, Dr. Erlinda Lolarga, in her of estafa were not present and that the case
capacity as Superintendent of City Schools was for a non-payment of debt, not estafa,
of Manila, v. The Commission on Human dismissed it. The Resolution failed to state the
Rights, et. al. facts and the law upon which it was base, as
mandated by the Constitution.
2 December 1991, GR No. 96681, En Banc,
Narvasa. HELD. The Resolution is valid. “[It was]
pointed out that a preliminary investigation is
Teachers held mass concerted actions not a quasi-judicial proceeding, and the DOJ is
at DECS premises and demanded action on not a quasi-judicial agency exercising a quasi-
judicial function when it reviews the findings of
their grievances. Subsequently, they
a public prosecutor regarding the presence of
complained to the CHR that while they were probable cause. A quasi-judicial agency
participating in peaceful mass actions, the performs adjudicatory functions when its
learned of their replacements as teachers by awards determine the rights of parties,
DECS without notice and for reasons unknown and its decisions have the same effect as
a judgment of a court.[This] is not the case
to them. Where the relief sought from the
when a public prosecutor conducts a
Commission on Human Rights by a party in a preliminary investigation to determine
case consists of the review and reversal or probable cause to file an information against a
modification of a decision or order issued by a person charged with a criminal offense, or
court of justice or government agency or when the Secretary of Justice [reviews] the
former's order[s] or resolutions on
official exercising quasi-judicial functions, may
determination of probable cause. Quasi-judicial
the Commission take cognizance of the case bodies are mandated, not by the Constitution
and grant that relief? directly, but by Admin Code of 1987, to state
the facts and law. Not being in exercise of
The Court declares the Commission on quasi-judicial functions, however, the
requirements under the Admin Code are
Human Rights to have no such power; and that
inapplicable to the Office of the Prosecutor.
it was not meant by the fundamental law to be
another court or quasi-judicial agency in this CARLITO C. ENCINAS, v. PO1
country, or duplicate much less take over the ALFREDO P. AGUSTIN, JR., and PO1 JOEL
functions of the latter. The most that may be S. CAUBANG, G.R. No. 187317. April 11,
conceded to the Commission in the way of 2013, SERENO, CJ., EN BANC.
adjudicative power is that it may investigate,
Respondents were then both Fire
i.e., receive evidence and make findings of fact
Officer I. They claim that petitioner, who was
as regards claimed human rights violations
then Provincial Fire Marshall, informed them
involving civil and political rights. But fact
that unless they gave him five thousand pesos,
finding is not adjudication, and cannot be
they would be transferred to far-flung areas.
likened to the judicial function of a court of
For failing to pay the exact amount, they were
37
transferred. Respondents filed with the Bureau absence of a statute stating otherwise, this
of Fire Protection (BFP) a letter-complaint for power includes the power to prescribe school
illegal transfer of personnel under RA 6975. fees. No other government agency has been
Respondents likewise filed with the CSC vested with the authority to fix school fees and
Regional Office (CSCRO), as well as with the as such, the power should be considered
CSC Field Office, their Joint Affidavit/Complaint lodged with the DECS if it is to properly and
accusing petitioner of violation of Section 4 of effectively discharge its functions and duties
R.A. No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and under the law.
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees. Petitioner contends forum- fGLOBE WIRELESS LTD. v. PUBLIC
shopping for filing two identical complaints. SERVICE COMMISSION and ANTONIO B.
ARNAIZ, G.R. No. L-27520 January 21,
In this case, there is no "judgment on 1987, SECOND DIVISION.
the merits." The dismissal of the BFP
Complaint was the result of a fact-finding A message addressed to Maria Diaz in
investigation for purposes of determining Madrid, Spain, filed by private respondent
whether a formal charge for an administrative Antonio B. Arnaiz with the telegraph office of
offense should be filed. Hence, no rights and the Bureau of Telecommunications in
liabilities of parties were determined therein Dumaguete City was transmitted to the Bureau
with finality. The doctrine of res judicata of Telecommunications in Manila. It was
applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial forwarded to petitioner Globe Wireless Ltd. for
proceedings, and not to the exercise of transmission to Madrid. Petitioner sent the
administrative powers. Administrative message to the American Cable and Radio
powers refer to those purely Corporation in New York, which, in turn,
administrative in nature, as opposed to transmitted the same to the Empresa Nacional
administrative proceedings that take on a de Telecommunicaciones in Madrid. The
quasi-judicial character. If the only purpose latter, however, mislaid said message,
of an investigation is to evaluate the evidence resulting in its non-delivery to the
submitted to an agency based on the facts and addressee. After being informed of said fact,
circumstances presented to it, and if the private respondent Arnaiz, sent to then Public
agency is not authorized to make a final Service Commissioner Enrique Medina an
pronouncement affecting the parties, then unverified letter-complaint relating the
there is an absence of judicial discretion and incident. WON PSC has jurisdiction over the
judgment. instant petition
PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS FOUNDATION, HELD: NO. The act complained of consisted in

INC., petitioner, vs. THE SECRETARY OF petitioner having allegedly failed to deliver the
EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, telegraphic message of private respondent to
respondent, G.R. No. 78385. August 31, the addressee in Madrid, Spain. Obviously,
1987, EN BANC GANCAYCO, J. such imputed negligence had nothing to do
whatsoever with the subject matter of the very
Facts: The DECS Secretary issued an Order limited jurisdiction of the Commission over
authorizing, inter alia, the 15% to 20% petitioner.
increase in school fees as recommended by the
Task Force on Private Higher Education. It was MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. THE
decreased to a lower ceiling of 10% to 15% in COURT OF APPEALS, CCM GAS
D.O. No. 37. Does the power to regulate school CORPORATION, and TRAVELLERS
fees in educational institutions always include INSURANCE & SURETY
the power to increase school fees? Does the CORPORATION, G.R. No. 103595,
D.O. constitute a denial of substantive and April 18, 1997, Second Division, J.
procedural due process of law, as students and Mendoza.
parents should’ve been afforded an opportunity
FACTS: CCM is a customer of
for a hearing before school fees were
petitioner. It was billed for electric
increased?
consumption but withheld payment until its
Held: Both in the negative. Section 57 (3) of questions about the purchased power
B.P.Blg. 232, otherwise known as The adjustment were answered. MERALCO gave a
Education Act of 1982, vests the DECS with the notice disconnection to CCM. Respondent filed
power to regulate the educational system in under protest and filed this immediate case for
the country. Section 70 of the same Act grants a restraining order against MERALCO. The trial
the DECS the power to issue rules which court dismissed the case due to lack of
are likewise necessary to discharge its jurisdiction stating that the matter was
functions and duties under the law. In the cognizable by the Board of Energy.
38
HELD: Clearly, CCM Gas is not amended by Presidential Decree No. 458
invoking the jurisdiction of the Board of Energy issued on May 16, 1974, jurisdiction,
to regulate and fix the power rates to be
supervision and control over public
charged by electric companies, but the regular
courts power to adjudicate cases involving service related to electric light, power and
violations of rights which are legally waterworks utilities formerly vested in
demandable. Thus, the State may regulate, as
the Public Service Act were transferred to
it has done through Section 97 of the Revised
Order No. 1 of the Public Service Commission, respondent board. Respondent board as a
the conditions under which and the manner by regulatory board manifestly exceeded its
which a public utility such as MERALCO may
jurisdiction in taking cognizance of and
effect a disconnection of service to a
delinquent customer. adjudicating the complaints filed by
respondents against petitioner. Respondent
CARIDAD CRUZ DE board acquired no jurisdiction over petitioner's
SYQUIA, petitioner, vs. BOARD OF contractual relations with respondents-
POWER AND WATER WORKS (formerly complainants as her tenants, since petitioner is
Public Service Commission), RAFAEL J. not engaged in a public service nor in the
RUIZ, PETER ENRIQUEZ and CYRIL D. sale of electricity without permit or franchise.
MOSES, respondents.(FIRST DIVISION,
G.R. No. L-42783-85, November 29, 1976, MARIÑO vs. GAMILLA, G.R. No. 132400,
31 January 2005.
TEEHANKEE, J.)
This case involves a rift between two groups
Facts: In December, 1974, private respondents with respect to the right to represent the UST
Faculty Union. The group of Mariño initially
filed three separate complaints with
acted as officers of the union and was granted
respondent Board of Power and Waterworks with a free office space at Room 302 of the
charging petitioner as administrator of the Health Center Building of UST. Subsequently,
the group of Gamilla was elected as officers of
South Syquia Apartments at Malate, Manila
the union. The Mariño group filed before the
with the offense of selling electricity without Med Arbitration Unit of the DOLE-NCR a
permit or franchise issued by respondent petition for prohibition, injunction with a prayer
board, in that petitioner billed respondents- for preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order against the Gamilla group for
complainants various specified amounts for
the latter’s assumption of office as elected
their electricity consumption at their respective USTFU officers. The Gamilla group then ousted
apartments for the months of May to the Mariño group from the office space given to
them by UST and padlocked the same.This
September, 1974 in excess of the Meralco
prompted the Mariño group to file another
rates authorized by respondent board. complaint against the Gamilla group, this time
Petitioner's motion to dismiss the complaints with the RTC Manila. The second complaint was
for injunction and damages with a prayer for
asserting that they involved contractual
preliminary injunction and temporary
obligations of respondents as apartment restraining order over the use of the USTFU
tenants and were beyond respondent board's office. Does the RTC has jurisdiction to
entertain the complain filed by the Mariño
jurisdiction was denied by the latter. Petitioner
group considering that a similar petition has
questioned the complaints as beyond the already been filed with the Med Arbitration Unit
jurisdiction of respondent as a regulatory of the DOLE-NCR?
board, since she is not engaged in the sale of
Yes. Unlike the NLRC which is explicitly vested
electric power but merely passes to the with the jurisdiction over claims for actual,
apartment tenants as the end-users their moral, exemplary and other forms of damages,
the BLR is not specifically empowered to
legitimate electric current bills in accordance
adjudicate claims of such nature arising from
with their lease contracts, and their intra-union or inter-union disputes.
relationship is contractual in nature.
Administrative agencies are tribunals of
Ruling: Under the reorganization plan limited jurisdiction and as such, can
exercise only those powers that are
effected by Presidential Decree No. 1 as
specifically granted to them by their
39
enabling statutes. Consequently, matters contested returns. The proclamation thus made
over which they are not granted authority is void ab initio.
are beyond their competence. While the
trend is towards vesting administrative Sebastian Garcia, petitioner vs. Juanito
bodies with the power to adjudicate Pajaro and the City of Dagupan, G.R. No.
matters coming under their particular 141149.
specialization, to ensure a more
Sebastian Garcia was an employee at the City
knowledgeable solution of the problems
Treasurers Office and was ordered suspended
submitted to them, this should not
by the City Treasurer, JuanitoPajaro and his
deprive the courts of justice their power
salary was then withheld due to a formal
to decide ordinary cases in accordance
charge against him. Garcia refused to honor
with the general laws that do not require
the suspension order as the City Treasurer
any particular expertise or training to
acted as the complainant, investigator and
interpret and apply.
judge and there was no complaint against him
Utto v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 150111, 31 from the Office of the City Mayor. For his part,
January 2002. En Banc, Pardo. Pajaro contended that he had authority to
discipline his subordinates including Garcia who
Due Process in Quasi-Judicial Power. has been rating unsatisfactory in his
performance. In fact, there was an order for
Facts: investigation but Garcia failed to submit
himself to this. The City of Dagupan, the RTC
Utto was proclaimed as Mayor of Sultan
and the CA held for Pajaro and that he vested
Barongis, Maguindanao despite the exclusion
with legal power and authority to institute
of elections returns by the Board of Canvassers
disciplinary action against subordinate officers
which would have materially affected the
and employees.
results of the election. The COMELEC en banc
voided the proclamation and likewise included Garcia is mistaken.
the election returns. Utto argued his right to
due process was denied because the The city treasurer of Dagupan has the
requirement of prior notice and hearing was authority to institute disciplinary actions
not observed and neither was he impleaded as against subordinate officers or employees. The
a party to the petition. essence of due process in an administrative
proceeding is the opportunity to explain one’s
Held: side, whether written or verbal. The
constitutional mandate is satisfied when a
In administrative proceedings, the essence of petitioner complaining about an action or a
due process is simply an opportunity to be ruling is granted an opportunity to seek
heard, or an opportunity to explain ones side reconsideration.
or opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of.At the hearing The power to discipline is specifically granted
before the Comelec en banc of petitioner’s by Section 47 of the Administrative Code of
motion for reconsideration, petitioner was 1987 to heads of departments, agencies and
given full opportunity to present his case. He instrumentalities, provinces and cities. On the
did not present controverting evidence to other hand, the power to commence
justify the exclusion of the five (5) election administrative proceedings against a
returns. subordinate officer or employee is granted by
Section 34 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
Assuming arguendo that petitioner was not Book V of the said Administrative Codeto the
given notice or an opportunity to be heard, the secretary of a department, the head of office of
petition would still be denied. The twin- equivalent rank, the head of a local
requirement of notice and hearing in government unit, the chief of an agency, the
annulment of proclamation is not applicable regional director or a person with a sworn
because of the illegality of petitioner’s written complaint.
proclamation. Pursuant to Section 20 (i),
Further, the city treasurer may institute, motu
Republic Act No. 7166, the municipal board of
propio, disciplinary proceedings against a
canvassers may not proclaim any candidate
subordinate officer or employee. Local
without waiting for the authorization of the
Administrative Regulations (LAR) No. 2-
Comelec. Considering that petitioner had a
85,which was issued by the Ministry of Finance
very small margin of 149 votes over
on March 27, 1985, authorized the minister
respondent, and there were 944 registered
(now secretary) of finance, the regional
voters from the five excluded election returns,
director, and head of a local treasury or an
the results of the municipal election would be
assessment office to start administrative
undoubtedly adversely affected by the
40
disciplinary action against officers or

employees subordinate to them. Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo, then Stenographic
Reporter III at the National Labor Relations
ANG TIBAY, ET. AL. v. THE COURT OF Commission (NLRC), filed a Complaint for
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL sexual harassment against NLRC Chairman
LABOR UNION, INC. LAUREL, J.: EN BANC, Rogelio Rayala before Secretary Bienvenido
G.R. No. L-46496, February 27, 1940. Laguesma of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). Because Rayala was a
presidential appointee, the DOLE Secretary
ANG TIBAY temporarily laid off the members of referred the Complaint to the Office of the
the National Labor Union due to shortage of President. The OP, through then Executive
leather soles. The Union prayed for a new trial Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, ordered Secretary
alleging, among others, that the exhibits Laguesma to investigate the allegations in the
attached by ANG TIBAY are so inaccessible to Complaint and create a committee for such
them that they could not be expected to have purpose. Eventually, the Committee submitted
obtained them. its report and recommendation to Secretary
Laguesma finding Rayala guilty of the offense
Issue: Due process in quasi-judicial agencies charged and recommending the suspension for
such as the Court of Industrial Relations. six (6) months. Secretary Laguesma submitted
a copy of the Committee Report and
The petition by the Union is granted. Although Recommendation to the OP, but with the
the Court of Industrial Relations may be said to recommendation that the penalty should be
be free from the rigidity of certain procedural suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day,
requirements, it does not mean that it can in accordance with AO 250. Afterwards, the
entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental OP, through Executive Secretary Zamora,
and essential requirements of due process in issued AO 119, dismissing Rayala from
trials and investigations of an administrative Service. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
character. modified the penalty to suspension for a
maximum of one year.
The requisites of administrative due
process are: Among other errors, Rayala decries that his
right to due process was violated by the
(1) The right to a hearing, which includes the Committee alleging that the Committee
right of the party interested or affected to railroaded his trial for violation of RA 7877 and
present his own case and submit evidence in erred when it found him guilty of “disgraceful
support thereof. and immoral conduct” under the Revised
Administrative Code and not for violation of RA
7877.
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented.
Citing that the description of the offense
(3) There must be some evidence to support a charged and not the designation is controlling,
finding or conclusion. the Supreme Court held that Rayala was
accorded due process: [i]n administrative
proceedings, due process has been
(4) The evidence must be substantial.
recognized to include the following: (1)
the right to actual or constructive notice
(5) The decision must be rendered on the of the institution of proceedings which
evidence presented at the hearing, or at least may affect a respondent’s legal rights; (2)
contained in the record and disclosed to the a real opportunity to be heard personally
parties affected. or with the assistance of counsel, to
present witnesses and evidence in one’s
(6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of favor, and to defend one’s rights; (3) a
its judges, therefore, must act on its or his tribunal vested with competent
own independent consideration of the law and jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford
facts of the controversy, and not simply accept a person charged administratively a
the views of a subordinate in arriving at a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well
decision. as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said
tribunal which is supported by substantial
(7) The decision should be rendered in evidence submitted for consideration
such a manner that the parties to the during the hearing or contained in the
proceeding can know the various issues records or made known to the parties
involved, and the reasons for the decision affected.
rendered. The performance of this duty is
inseparable from the authority conferred upon The records of the case indicate that Rayala
it. was afforded all these procedural due process
safeguards. Although in the beginning he
questioned the authority of the Committee to
MA. LOURDES T. DOMINGO, v. ROGELIO I. try him, he appeared, personally and with
RAYALA, G.R. No. 155831, February 18, counsel, and participated in the proceedings.
2008. Third Division (Nachura)
41
[G.R. No. 115147. January 4, 1995.] real review of the case. The decision of the
GEORGE I. RIVERA, Petitioner, v. CIVIL reviewing officer would be a biased view;
SERVICE COMMISSION and LAND BANK inevitably, it would be the same view since
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. being human, he would not admit that he was
EN BANC. Penned by Vitug, J. mistaken in his first view of the case."
FACTS: Rivera was the Manager of Corporate HON. ARTURO C. CORONA v. COURT OF
Banking Unit I of the Land Bank of the APPEALS, LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG and
Philippines ("LBP"). He was charged with CRISTETO E. DINOPOL, Respondents,
having committed dishonesty, grave Third Division (Romeo, J.)
misconduct, acts punishable under anti-grafts
law among others. Rivera allegedly told Perez FACTS: On May 15, 1987, President Corazon C.
that he could facilitate the loan application Aquino issued Administrative Order No. 25
process provided he would be given a creating a Presidential Committee on Public
commission. Moreover, he has been serving as Ethics and Accountability. Pursuant to the
the personal consultant of Lao without prior mandate of A.O. No. 25, former DOTC
authority required under the law. He was then Secretary Rainerio Reyes issued Office Order
placed under preventive suspension. LBP held No. 88-318 creating the Administrative Action
Rivera as guilty of grave misconduct and Board (AAB) “to act, decide and recommend to
metted the penalty of forced resignation, the Secretary appropriate measures on cases
without separation benefits and gratuities. of administrative malfeasance, irregularities,
grafts and acts of corruption in the
On appeal, the decision was modified by the Department.” In line with the said order series
Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB") to a of complaints where then filed in the AAB.
mere 1 year suspension. In a subsequent Bungubung as one of the respondents filed his
appeal to CSC, the CSC resolved Rivera guilty answer and questioned the jurisdictional
of grave misconduct. He filed a motion for competence of the AAB on the ground that it
reconsideration which the CSC denied. On 26 was the General Manager of the PPA who had
May 1994, this Court resolved to dismiss the jurisdiction over the case.
petition for petitioner's failure to sufficiently
show that CSC acted with grave abuse of ISSUE:1. Whether or not the Secretary of the
discretion in issuing its questioned resolution. DOTC and/or the AAB has jurisdiction over
Rivera filed a motion for reconsideration of the administrative cases involving personnel below
Court's dismissal of the petition, now strongly the rank of Assistant General Manager of the
asserting that he was denied due process when PPA?
Hon. Thelma P. Gaminde, who earlier
2. Whether or not Doctrine of Exhaustion of
participated in her capacity as the Board
Administrative Remedy apllicable?
Chairman of the MSPB when the latter had
taken action on LBP's motion for
HELD:1. That the DOTC Secretary, acting as
reconsideration, also took part, this time as a
alter ego of the President, has jurisdiction over
CSC Commissioner, in the resolution of
PPA personnel like the private respondents
petitioner's motion for reconsideration with the
herein, is correct only to a certain extent. The
CSC.
DOTC Secretary’s jurisdiction is circumscribed
by the aforequoted provisions of the PPA
ISSUE: WON it was proper for Hon. Gaminde
Charter and the Civil Service Law which give
to participate as CSC Commission in the
him only appellate jurisdiction over disciplinary
resolution of the motio for reconsideration
matters involving personnel below that of
considering she had earlier participated in her
Assistant General Manager. He does not have
capacity as Board Chairman?
the power to initiate proceedings against a
RULING: subordinate official of the PPA; otherwise, we
shall witness the absurd spectacle of the DOTC
NO. In Zambales Chromite Mining Company Secretary acing as complainant-initiator of an
vs. Court of Appeals, the decision of the administrative case which later falls upon him
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to review.
was set aside by this Court after it had been
established that the case concerned an appeal 2. Neither is the doctrine of exhaustion of
from the Secretary's own previous decision, administrative remedies applicable in this case.
the Court said: "In order that the review of the Besides the fact that the AAB was patently
decision of a subordinate officer might not turn without jurisdiction to act on the administrative
out to be a farce, then reviewing officer must complaints filed against respondents Dinopol
perforce be other than the officer whose and Bungubung, the instant petition raises only
decision is under review; otherwise, there questions of law, one of the exceptions to the
could be no different view or there would be no
42
general rule on exhaustion of administrative of substantial evidence, the basic rule that
remedies. mere allegation is not evidence cannot be
Ombudsman v. Bungubung G . R . N o. disregarded. Additionally, the affidavit of
1 7 5 2 0 1 , April 23, 2008, desistance filed by the complainant that the
THIRD DIVISION, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: allegations against Bungubung were all

fabricated belies the Ombudsman’s claim that
The Ombudsman found respondent Leopoldo F. there was substantial evidence against him.
Bungubung (Bungubung) administratively

liable for grave misconduct, dismissing him ZENON R. PEREZ, petitioner, vs .PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES and
from the service and imposing the accessory
SANDIGANBAYAN, respondents, G.R. No.
penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture 164763. February 12, 2008, Third
of retirement benefits, and his perpetual Division. (Reyes, R.T., J.)
disqualification from reemployment in
Facts: Perez was acting municipal treasurer of
government service. Tubigon, Bohol. During an audit there was a
shortage and he was not able to produce
P72,784.57. He returned the money to the
Bungubung then sought recourse to the Court
Provincial Treasurer but an administrative case
of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule was filed against him. In his Answer in the
43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, administrative case, he admitted that the
missing money had been used to pay off his
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 89689. He
brother’s loan, Perez’s own medical and family
asserted therein that the Ombudsman erred in expenses. He was also charged before the
(a) holding that there was substantial evidence Sandiganbayan with malversation of public
to make him liable for grave misconduct, funds. During trial, Perez withdrew his first
Answer, saying that money was actually in the
resulting in his dismissal from service and custody of his staff. Sandiganbayan found him
imposition upon him of the accessory guilty of malversation (Note: It took the
penalties. Sandiganbayan 12 years to render the
decision). Perez argues before the SC that the
Answer should not be taken against him
Bungubung was not denied of due process by because it was given without aid of counsel
the Ombudsman. The fact that no formal and that he was not granted his Constitutional
right of a speedy disposition of the case.
hearing took place is not sufficient ground to
say that due process was not afforded Ruling: There is no law, jurisprudence or rule,
Bungubung. It is well-settled that in which mandates that an employee should be
assistedby counsel in an administrative case.
administrative proceedings, including those
On the contrary, jurisprudence is in unison in
before the Ombudsman, cases may be sayingthat assistance of counsel is not
submitted for resolution on the basis of indispensable in administrative
proceedings. Waiver of the right to counsel
affidavits and pleadings. The standard of due
(in writing and in the presence of counsel) is
process that must be met in not an absolute right and may be invoked or
administrative tribunals allows a certain rejected in a criminal proceeding and, with
more reason, in an administrative inquiry.
degree of latitude as long as fairness is
While investigations conducted by an
not ignored. administrative body may at times be akin to a
criminal proceeding, a party in an
The evidences against Bungubung were not administrativeinquiry may or may not be
assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature
substantial to support his dismissal from
of the charges and of respondent's capacity to
service. First, the evidences of corruption represent himself, and no duty rests on such
against him were not supported by other body to furnish the person being investigated
with counsel. Thus, the right to counsel is not
evidence. Within the field of administrative
imperative in administrative investigations
law, while strict rules of evidence are not because suchinquiries are conducted merely to
applicable to quasi-judicial proceedings, determine whether there are facts that merit
disciplinarymeasures against erring public
nevertheless, in adducing evidence constitutive
officers and employees, with the purpose of
43
maintainingthe dignity of government service. G.R. No. 175991, 31 August 2011), First
Division, Del Castillo, J.
JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., et. al. v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,MANUEL A. Petitioner was charged before the RTC
ROXAS II,FRANKLIN M. DRILON and with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 as
J.R.NEREUS O. ACOSTA, G.R. No. 188920, amended because of his refusal to implement
February 16, 2010, EN BANC, ABAD, J. promotion/appointments of two employees
notwithstanding the issuance of the valid
Drilon, as erstwhile president of the appointments by the appointing authority.
Liberal Party (LP), announced his party’s Petitioner questioned the decision of RTC
withdrawal of support for the administration of finding him guilty as charged because it is
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. But flawed and grossly violative of his right to be
petitioner Jose L. Atienza, Jr. (Atienza), LP heard and to present evidence because he was
Chairman, and a number of party members not able to present the CA Decision denying
denounced Drilon’s move, claiming that he the administrative case against him.
made the announcement without consulting his
The findings in administrative cases
party. On March 2, 2006 petitioner Atienza
are not binding upon the court trying a criminal
hosted a party conference to supposedly
case, even if the criminal proceedings are
discuss local autonomy and party matters but,
based on the same facts and incidents which
when convened, the assembly proceeded to
gave rise to the administrative matter. Thus,
declare all positions in the LPs ruling body
the lower courts correctly disallowed the
vacant and elected new officers, with Atienza
introduction in evidence of the CA Decision.
as LP president. Respondent Drilon Due process of law is not denied by the
immediately filed a petition with the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to nullify incompetent evidence, or testimony of an
the elections. He claimed that it was illegal incompetent witness.
considering that the party’s electing bodies,
the National Executive Council (NECO) and the
National Political Council (NAPOLCO), were not DR. FERNANDO A. MELENDRES, M.D.,
properly convened. Drilon also claimed that Executive Director of the Lung Center of
under the amended LP Constitution, party the Philippines (LCP), v. PRESIDENTIAL
officers were elected to a fixed three-year term ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION, acting
through its duly authorized
that was yet to end on November 30, 2007. representative, COMMISSIONER CESAR D.
COMELEC annulled such election and a BUENAFLOR, ALBERTO G. ROMULO,
subsequent election was held where Roxas was Executive Secretary, et. al. , all of the
the elected president. WON there was a Lung Center of the Philippines (LCP), G.R.
violation of the constitutional right to due No. 163859, August 15, 2012, FIRST
DIVISION, VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
process by the expulsion.
On a complaint lodged by 15
The requirements of administrative due physicians of the LCP, the Secretary of Health
process do not apply to the internal affairs of issued a Department Order creating a Fact-
political parties. The due process standards set Finding Committee to look into their charges
against Dr. Melendres. Said Committee found
in Ang Tibay cover only administrative bodies
prima facie case against Dr. Melendres for
created by the state and through which certain several offenses. On September 11, 2002,
governmental acts or functions are performed. Executive Secretary Alberto G. Romulo issued
An administrative agency or instrumentality Administrative Order (AO) No. 39 directing the
contemplates an authority to which the state PAGC to conduct a formal investigation against
Dr. Melendres, ordering his preventive
delegates governmental power for the
suspension for 90 days, and authorizing the
performance of a state function. The Secretary of Health to appoint an interim
constitutional limitations that generally apply officer-in-charge of the LCP. Finding sufficient
to the exercise of the states powers thus, basis to commence an administrative
apply too, to administrative bodies. Although investigation (PAGC-ADM-0112-02), PAGC
Hearing Commissioner Cesar D. Buenaflor
political parties play an important role in our
issued an Order on November 8, 2002
democratic set-up as an intermediary between directing the petitioner to submit within 10
the state and its citizens, it is still a private days his Counter-Affidavit/Verified Answer. On
organization, not a state instrument. November 18, 2002, petitioner submitted his
Counter-Affidavit. At the preliminary
conference, petitioner appeared with his
counsel. The designated hearing officer,
JOSE R. CATACUTAN, petitioner, vs.
Commissioner Buenaflor, likewise declared that
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, based on the records/pleadings and the
respondent.
44
position papers submitted, the case shall be denial of due process where a party was
deemed submitted for resolution. afforded an opportunity to present his case. In
the present case, the petitioner was given
On November 29, 2002, petitioner
ample opportunity to air her side on the
through counsel filed a Motion for Formal
allegations against her after being sufficiently
Hearing and/or Investigation, invoking Section
22 of the Revised Uniform Rules on apprised of the allegations against her; she
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service was afforded the chance to submit her written
(URACC). The motion for formal hearing was explanation.
however, denied.
PROVIDENT TREE FARMS, INC., v. HON.
WON PAGC violated his right to due
DEMETRIO M. BATARIO, JR., Presiding
process when it denied his motion for a formal
Judge Branch 48, Regional Trial Court of
investigation?
Manila, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS and
A. J. INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
Due process, as a constitutional G.R. No. 92285 March 28, 1994, FIRST
precept, does not always and in all situations DIVISION, BELLOSILLO, J.
require a trial-type proceeding. It is satisfied
when a person is notified of the charge against
Facts: PROVIDENT TREE FARMS, INC. (PTFI),
him and given an opportunity to explain or
defend himself. In administrative proceedings, is engaged in industrial tree planting. It grows
the filing of charges and giving reasonable
gubas trees which it supplies to a local match
opportunity for the person so charged to
answer the accusations against him constitute manufacturer for production of matches. In
the minimum requirements of due process.
consonance with the state policy to encourage
More often, this opportunity is conferred
through written pleadings that the parties qualified persons to engage in industrial tree
submit to present their charges and defenses.
plantation, the Revised Forestry Code confers
But as long as a party is given the opportunity
to defend his or her interests in due course, on entities like PTFI a set of incentives among
said party is not denied due process.
which is a qualified ban against importation of
CECILIA RACHEL V. QUISUMBING, v. wood and wood-derivated products.
LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MA. VICTORIA
V. CARDONA and NORBERTO DELA CRUZ,
AJ International Corporation (AJIC)
in their CAPACITIES as CHAIRPERSON and
MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE imported containers of matches from
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, G.R. Indonesia. Thus, PTFI filed with the Regional
No. 209283, March 11, 2015, Second Court of Manila a complaint for injunction and
Division, J. Brion.
damages with prayer for a temporary
FACTS: The Commissioners of CHR issued a restraining order against Commissioner of
Resolution and a Show Cause order
Customs and AJIC to enjoin the latter from
requesting Petitioner to submit within 5 days a
written explanation why she should not be held importing matches and wood-derivated
administratively liable for any administrative products, and the Collector of Customs from
liability, and to transmit her explanation to the allowing and releasing the importations. Does
Office of the Ombudsman. The Show Cause
order contained allegations of civil service the Regional Court have jurisdiction over the
violations such as dishonesty, oppression, complaint filed by PTFI?
grave abuse of authority and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
HELD: No, it does not. However cleverly the
Without waiting for the resolution of her
motion to dismiss for lack of due process, complaint may be worded, the ultimate relief
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and sought by PTFI is to compel the Bureau of
prohibition before the Supreme Court. Customs to seize and forfeit the match
RULING: Jurisprudence tells us that the importations of AJIC.

essence of due process in administrative
proceedings is the chance to explain one’s The enforcement of the importation
side, or seek a reconsideration of the action or
ban under the Revised Forestry Code is within
ruling complained of. As long as the parties
are given the opportunity to be heard before the exclusive realm of the Bureau of Customs.
any definitive action is taken, the demands of To allow the regular court to direct the
due process are sufficiently met. The petition
Commissioner to impound the imported
also fails with respect to the petitioner’s claim
of denial of due process. There can be no matches, is clearly an interference with the
45
exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs HELD: “[I]n deciding administrative questions,
over seizure and forfeiture cases. An order of a technical rules of procedure are not strictly
enforced and due process of law in the strict
judge to impound, seize or forfeit must
judicial sense is not indispensable", little, if
inevitably be based on his determination and any, useful purpose could be gained in further
declaration of the invalidity of the importation, discussing these issues because Letter of
Instruction No. 172, which ordered the
hence, an usurpation of the prerogative and an
cancellation of the timber license issued to
encroachment on the jurisdiction of the Bureau AGUSMIN, in effect, reversed and set aside the
of Customs. said decisions of the Executive Secretary
before the same became final and enforceable.
In the words of the Court of Appeals, the said
The claim of petitioner that no
decisions "did not acquire any finality".
procedure is outlined for the enforcement of
the import ban under the Tariff and Customs
Code does not at all diminish the jurisdiction of Administrative rules of procedure should be
the Bureau of Customs over the subject construed liberally – Rationale: 1. To promote
their object, 2. To assist the parties in
matter. The enforcement of statutory
obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive
rights is not foreclosed by the absence of determination of their respective claims and
a statutory procedure. The Commissioner defenses.
of Customs has the power to "promulgate
all rules and regulations necessary to
enforce the provisions of the Tariff and
Customs Code subject to the approval of the In re: Contempt Proceedings against
Secretary of Finance. Armando Ramos, Carmelo v. Armando
Ramos, GR No. L-17778, 30 November
1962, En Banc, Regala.
AGUSMIN PROMOTIONAL ENTERPRISES,
INC., v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, P.B. DE Facts: The Mayor of Manila issued an
JESUS & CO., INC., BENJAMIN V. GUIANG, executive order creating a committee to
and CRISOSTOMO LICERALDE, G.R. No. L- investigate anomalies in the City Treasurer’s
48478, September 30, 1982, SECOND office. A subpoena was issued by the
DIVISION CONCEPCION, JR., J. committee requiring Ramos to appear before it
in connection with an administrative case
FACTS: Guiang and Liceralde and 6 other
against a government employee. Due to
timber concessionaires in the locality asked the
Ramos’ refusal, the committee requested the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
CFI (RTC) to issue a contempt order against
if they could consolidate their timber
Ramos. CFI (RTC) refused claiming that the
concessions in the name of a corporation which
committee cannot request such order.
they will form. The matter was referred to the
Director of Forestry. The Secretary reversed Held: One who invokes this provision
the decision of the Director of Forestry and [contempt with aid of court] of the law must
authorizing Guiang and Liceralde to withdraw first show that he has "authority to take
their forest areas from the timber license for testimony or evidence" before he can apply to
the corporation they previously forme the courts for the punishment of hostile
(AGUSMIN). AGUSMIN interposed an appeal in witnesses. Further, "where the liberty and
DENR to which Guiang and Liceralde filed an property of persons are sought to be brought
urgent motion to dismiss appeal contending within the operation of a power claimed to be
that appellant failed to comply with all the impliedly granted by an act because necessary
requirements of EO 19 to perfect an appeal to to its due execution, the case must be clearly
the OP by not paying an appeal fee of 20php seen to be within those intended to be
so that the OP did not acquire jurisdiction and reached."
the decision of the Secretary became final and
executory after lapse of 30 days from receipt Lastimosa vs. Vasquez 243 SCRA 497;
of a copy of the said decision. The OP issued a G.R. No. 116801, April 6, 1995.
decision in the appealed case, reversing and
declared of no force and effect the decision of Petitioner is First Asst. Provincial Prosecutor of
the Secretary. Cebu. She and the Provincial Prosecutor
refused or failed to file a criminal charge of
attempted rape against Municipal Mayor
46
Rogelio Ilustrisimo. Petitioner was filed with an before the administrative body, it is axiomatic
administrative complaint for grave misconduct, that such findings of fact should be supported
insubordination, gross neglect of duty and by substantial evidence. Under these
maliciously refraining from prosecuting crime circumstances, it is believed that, in equity,
and a charge for indirect contempt. They were and in proper compliance with the
also placed under 6 mos. Preventive requirements of due process, petitioner should
suspension. Prior to this, a complaint was be given a last full opportunity to prove his
assigned to a graft investigation officer who contention that the termination of his services
found no prima facie evidence and was illegal.
recommended dismissal. However, the
Ombudsman disapproved the recommendation Rubberworld v. NLRC, et. al., G.R. No.
and directed that the Mayor be charged in the 126773. April 14, 1999, Third Division,
RTC. The Deputy OMB for Visayas then Panganiban, J.
referred the matter to the Prov. Prosecutor and
FACTS. Even before the effectivity of a
later to Petitioner. Petitioner found that only
temporary shutdown petition, Rubberworld was
acts of lasciviousness have been committed
forced to prematurely shut down its operation.
and filed a case under such.
It workers filed with the NLRC a petition for
ISSUES: WON the Ombudsman has authority illegal dismissal and non- payment of
to file an administrative case against the separation pay. Consequently, Rubberworld
petitioners and preventively suspend them. filed the SEC a petition for declaration of
suspension of payments with a proposed
HELD: YES. The Ombudsman’s power to rehabilitation plan. SEC then ordered an order,
investigate and prosecute include the suspending the payment. Despite the Order,
investigation and prosecution of any crime the Labor arbiter ignored the Motion and
committed by a public official regardless if such thereafter rendered a decision finding
were related to, or connected with or arise Rubberworld of illegal shutdown ordering it to
from, the performance of his official duty. The pay separation pay; and moral and exemplary
Ombudsman is authorized to call on damages, as affirmed by NLRC.
prosecutors for assistance under Sec 31 of RA
6770. WHen a prosecutor is deputized, he is HELD. The NLRC was not correct. It is plain
subject to supervision and control of the from the foregoing provisions of law that "upon
Ombudsman. Such supervision and control the appointment [by, the SEC] of a
would mean that they can alter, repeal or management committee or a rehabilitation
modify their subordinates’ findings. The office receiver," all actions for claims against the
also has the power to punish for contempt corporation pending before any court, tribunal
under Rule 71, Sec 3 of the Rules of Court. or board shall ipso jure be suspended. The
justification for the automatic stay of all
Pedro Lameyra v. Mayor George pending actions for claims "is to enable the
Pangilinan, January 18, 2000, GR No. management committee or the rehabilitation
131675, receiver to effectively exercise its/his powers
Third Division, Gonzaga-Reyes. free from any judicial or extra-judicial
Lameyra was a janitor/messenger in interference that might unduly hinder or
the Municipal Hall of Famy, Laguna, and was prevent the 'rescue' of the debtor company. To
given a permanent appointment. He was then allow such other actions to continue would only
sent a letter by the Mayor that he was being add to the burden of the management
committee or rehabilitation receiver, whose
dropped from the roll of employees of the local
time, effort and resources would be wasted in
government for insubordination and AWOL. He
defending claims against the corporation
appealed the decision of the Mayor to the CHR,
instead of being directed toward its
which affirmed the Latter’s decision. In his
restructuring and rehabilitation.
motion for reconsideration, Lameyra tried to
submit new evidence, but this was still denied Allowing labor cases to proceed clearly defeats
by CHR. His submission was that he was the purpose of the automatic stay and severely
prevented by a personnel officer from signing encumbers the management committee's time
their log book, that he was replaced by and resources.
someone else, and that he was asked to
submit his resignation, which he refused to do. ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD,
v. COURT OF APPEALS and PETROLEUM
While it is settled doctrine that findings DISTRIBUTORS AND SERVICES
of fact of an administrative agency must be CORPORATION, G.R. No. 113079. April 20,
respected and this Court should not be tasked 2001 G.R. No. 114923. April 20, 2001,
to weigh once more the evidence submitted YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., First Division.
47
Shell filed an application to the Bureau Held: It is true that administrative and quasi-
of Energy Utilization (BEU) for authority to judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by
relocate its Shell Service Station. The BEU the technical rules of procedure in the
rendered a decision denying Shell’s application adjudication of cases. While the rules of
on a finding that there was “no necessity for an evidence prevailing in the courts of law or
additional petroleum products retail outlet in equity are not controlling in proceedings before
the area requested.” Dissatisfied, Shell the NLRC, the evidence presented before it
appealed to the Office of Energy Affairs (OEA). must at least have a modicum of admissibility
EO 172 was issued creating the Energy for it to be given some probative value. The
Regulatory Board (ERB) and transferring to it decisions of this Court, while adhering to a
the regulatory and adjudicatory functions of liberal view in the conduct of proceedings
the BEU. Thus, OEA remanded the case to the before administrative agencies, have
ERB. The latter board granted the application nonetheless consistently required some proof
of Shell which was opposed by PDSC and of authenticity or reliability as a condition for
appealed to CA. The CA reversed the decision the admission of documents.
of ERB.
Although admissible in evidence,
Court has ruled that in reviewing affidavits being self-serving must be
administrative decisions, the findings of fact received with caution. This is because the
made therein must be respected as long as adverse party is not afforded any opportunity
they are supported by substantial evidence. It to test their veracity. By themselves,
is not for the reviewing court to weigh the generalized and pro forma affidavits cannot
conflicting evidence, determine the credibility constitute relevant evidence which a
of the witnesses or otherwise substitute its reasonable mind may accept as adequate.
own judgment for that of the administrative There must be some other relevant evidence to
agency on the sufficiency of evidence. The corroborate such affidavits.
administrative decision in matters within
the executive jurisdiction can only be set DELOSO v. SPS.MARAPAO (2005)
aside on proof of grave abuse of
FACTS: Deloso filed a complaint against
discretion, fraud or error of law. Petitioner
Respondents praying that the latter be
ERB is in a better position to resolve petitioner enjoined from interfering with her tenurial
Shell’s application, being primarily the agency rights. However, Respondents maintained that
possessing the necessary expertise on the Deloso’s late first husband, from whom
matter. The power to determine whether the Petitioner derived her alleged tenurial right,
building of a gasoline retail outlet in a trading was not a tenant of theland holding but merely
an overseer paid for the work he rendered. The
area would benefit public interest and the oil
Provincial Agrarian ReformAdjudicator (PARAD)
industry lies with the ERB not the appellate
declared Petitioner to be a tenant of the
courts. landholding and such decision was affirmed by
DARAB. DARAB ruled that the requisites
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE ofagricultural tenancy are present. Specifically,
COMPANY, INC vs. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON, the DARAB held that the pesadas and vales
G.R. Nos. 164684-85.November 11, 2005, presented by Petitioner indicate that petitioner
SECOND DIVISION, CALLEJO, SR., J. shared in the produce of the landholding and
personallycultivated the same even after she
Facts: Tiamson was employed by PLDT as a remarried. On appeal, CA reversed DARAB’s
decision and brushed aside as self-serving the
Radio Technician II assigned at Clark. A
pesadas and vales presented by Petitioner.
complaint was filed suspecting PLDT’s
employees to be in cohorts with the local HELD: DARAB’s decision is UNSUPPORTED by
subscribers in effecting illegal overseas calls. substantial evidence. Petitioner Deloso is not a
Among the three employees who issued sworn tenant. Substantial evidence is such
statements, namely, Busa, Cayanan and relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
Cruzada, it was only Busa who directly might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. They do not show with
implicated Tiamson. A printout revealed that a
reasonable certainty that petitioner
total of 469 fraudulent overseas and local calls shared in the harvest of the landholding
were connected and completed at the PLDT or even whether theshares mentioned
Clark-TMC Radio Room for July 29 to Aug 2, therein pertain to harvest shares.
1994. Three overseas calls to Saudi Arabia
made on August 1, 1994 were imputed to Petitioner’s evidence fails to establish the
Tiamson. Tiamson was terminated for serious existence of all the requisites of a tenancy
relationship. 3 requisites were absent, namely:
misconduct. Tiamson filed a complaint against
(1) consent on the part of respondents for
PLDT for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, petitioner to become a tenant of the land
damages and other monetary claims. holding; (2) personal cultivation; and (3)
sharing in the produce of the farm.
48
GOVERNOR MANUEL M. LAPID,

v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
SOLID HOMES, INC. vs.EVELINA LASERNA OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, NATIONAL
and GLORIA CAJIPE, represented by BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, FACT-
PROCESO F. CRUZ, G.R. No. 166051, April FINDING INTELLIGENCE BUREAU (FFIB)
8, 2008, of the Office of the Ombudsman,
THIRD DIVISION, CHICO-NAZARIO, J. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, G.R. No. 142261, June 29,
2000, Third Division (J. Gonzaga-Reyes)
Facts: Petitioners were charged with alleged

dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct
On 1 April 1977, respondents Evelina
prejudicial to the best interest of the service
Laserna and Gloria Cajipeas buyers, entered
for allegedly having conspired among
into a Contract to Sell with petitioner Solid
themselves in demanding & collecting from
Homes, Inc. (SHI), a corporation engaged in
various quarrying operators in Pampanga a
the development and sale of subdivision lots,
control fee, control slip, or monitoring fee of
as seller. When the respondents had allegedly
P120 per truckload of sand, gravel or other
paid 90% of the purchase price, they
quarry material, without a duly enacted
demanded the execution and delivery of the
provincial ordinance authorizing the collection
Deed of Sale and the Transfer Certificate of
thereof and without issuing receipts for such
Title (TCT) of the subject property upon the
collection.
final payment of the balance. But the petitioner
did not comply with the demands of the
The Ombudsman rendered a decision
respondents.The respondents whereupon filed
finding petitioner guilty for misconduct, which
against the petitioner a Complaint for Delivery
meted out the penalty of 1yr suspension
of Title and Execution of Deed of Sale with
without pay pursuant to Sec.25(2) of RA 6770
Damage before the Housing and Land Use
(Ombudsman Act of 1989). DILG implemented
Regulatory Board (HLURB). The case was
the said decision, but petitioners opposed the
appealed several times until it reached before
execution of the same.
the Office of the President. In rendering its
Decision, the Office of the President merely Ruling: Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act
adopted by reference the findings of fact and provides that any order, directive or decision of
conclusions of law contained in the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman imposing a
the HLURB Board of Commissioners. penalty of public censure or reprimand, or
suspension of not more than one month’s
HELD: It must be stated that Section 14,
salary shall be final and unappealable. It is
Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution need not
clear from the above provision that the
apply to decisions rendered in administrative
punishment imposed upon petitioner is not
proceedings, as in the case a bar. Said
among those listed as final and unappealable,
section applies only to decisions rendered
hence, not immediately executory. A judgment
in judicial proceedings. In fact, Article VIII is
becomes “final and executory” by operation of
titled "Judiciary," and all of its provisions have
law. The fact that the Ombudsman Act gives
particular concern only with respect to the
parties the right to appeal from its decisions
judicial branch of government. Certainly, it
should generally carry with it the stay of these
would be error to hold or even imply that
decisions pending appeal. Otherwise, the
decisions of executive departments or
essential nature of these judgments as being
administrative agencies are oblige to meet the
appealable would be rendered nugatory.
requirements under Section 14, Article VIII.
This constitutional mandate does not Therefore, there is no general legal
preclude the validity of "memorandum principle that mandates that all decisions of
decisions," which adopt by reference the quasi-judicial agencies are immediately
findings of fact and conclusions of law executory.
contained in the decisions of inferior
tribunals. EDMUNDO JOSE T. BUENCAMINO, v. -
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, OFFICE OF THE
The constitutional mandate that, "no OMBUDSMAN, and CONSTANTINO
decision shall be rendered by any court without PASCUAL, G. R. No. 175895, April 12,
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the 2007,
facts and the law on which it is based," does First Division., J. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ.
not preclude the validity of "memorandum
decisions," which adopt by reference the FACTS:
findings of fact and conclusions of law
contained in the decisions of inferior tribunals.
49
Constantino Pascual, the president of the appellate court's ruling that mandamus lies
Rosemoor Mining and Development to compel the reinstatement of a quarry
Corporation filed an administrative case
superintendent in the provincial government of
against Buencamino, the Mayor of Bulacan.
The respondent allege that the mayor Laguna who was initially detailed or transferred
demanded a regulatory fee of P1,000.00 for to another office, then suspended, and finally
every delivery truck that passes the territorial
dismissed following his expose of certain
jurisdiction of San Miguel, Bulacan is illegal.
Buencamino denied the allegations of the anomalies and irregularities committed by
complaint, explaining that he imposed the government employees in the province. The
payment of regulatory fees pursuant
Civil Service Commission and Office of the
to Kapasiyahan Blg. 89A-055, an ordinance
enacted by the Sangguniang Bayan of San President ruled that respondent Berroya was
Miguel, Bulacan. Office of the Ombudsman illegally transferred and dismissed from work.
declared petitioner administratively liable for The decisions of both bodies attained finality.
abuse of authority and suspended him from
office.
Ruling: Since the decisions of both the Civil
RULING: Service Commission and the Office of the
This Court held in Laja, citing Lopez, that President had long become final and executory,
only orders, directives or decisions of the the same can no longer be reviewed by the
Office of the Ombudsman in
courts. It is well-established in our
administrative cases imposing the
penalties of public censure, reprimand or jurisprudence that the decisions and
suspension of not more than one month or orders of administrative agencies,
a fine not equivalent to one month salary rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial
shall be final and unappealable hence,
authority, have upon their finality, the
immediately executory. In all other
disciplinary cases where the penalty imposed is force and binding effect of a final
other than public censure, reprimand, or judgment within the purview of the
suspension of not more than one month, or a
doctrine of res judicata. The rule of res
fine not equivalent to one month salary, the
law gives the respondent the right to judicata which forbids the reopening of a
appeal. In these cases, the order, directive or matter once judicially determined by
decision becomes final and executory only
competent authority applies as well to the
after the lapse of the period to appeal if no
appeal is perfected, or after the denial of the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public,
appeal from the said order, directive or executive or administrative officers and boards
decision. It is only then that execution shall acting within their jurisdiction as to the
perforce issue as a matter of right. The fact
that the Ombudsman Act gives parties the judgments of courts having general judicial.
right to appeal from its decisions should
generally carry with it the stay of these OCHO vs. CALOS, G.R. No. 137908, 22
decisions pending appeal. Otherwise, the November 2000.
essential nature of these judgments as being
appealable would be rendered nugatory. The Caloses filed a complaint before the
Agrarian Reform Provincial Adjudicator seeking
GOVERNOR FELICISIMO T. SAN LUIS, THE a nullification of the Emancipation Patents and
Transfer Certificates of Title issued petitioner
SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN,
Ocho. Petitioner claimed, however, that this
PROVINCIAL ENGINEER JUANITO C. second action instituted by respondents is
RODIL AND PROVINCIAL TREASURER barred by the Final Resolution rendered in a
prior action also involving the same parties and
AMADEO C. ROMEY, ALL OF
subject lands. Petitioner contended that the
LAGUNA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF resolution of the Hearing Officer in that prior
APPEALS AND MARIANO L. BERROYA, case vesting title and ownership of the lands to
petitioner already became final and executory
JR., respondents.(Third Division, G.R.
and the issue of his ownership of other
No.L-80160, June 26, 1989, CORTES, J.) agricultural lands may no longer be relitigated.
Facts: The instant petition for certiorari and Contrary to the insistence of the Caloses, the
doctrine of res judicata applies to both
mandamus and/or appeal by certiorari assails
50
judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. Monico Ligtas, petitioner vs. People of the
The doctrine actually embraces two (2) Philippines, respondents
concepts: the first is “bar by prior judgment”
under paragraph (b) of Rule 39, Section 47, G.R. No. 20075
and the second is “conclusiveness of
Monico Ligtas was charged of stealing 1000
judgment” under paragraph (c) thereof.In the
kilos of abaca fibers in a plantation owned by
present case, the second concept —
Anecita Pacate. Ligtas presented the
conclusiveness of judgment — applies.
unconstested DARAB decision recognizing
Encinas v. Agustin, JR. G.R. No. 187317, Ligtas as a bonafide tenant of the land and is
11 April 2013. En Banc, Sereno. therefore allowed to harvest and cannot be
said to have stolen from his own. But the RTC
Res Judicata applies only to Judicial and Quasi- and the CA both ruled against Ligtas,
Judicial Proceedings. contending that the burden of proof of tenancy
is upon Ligtas and that the uncontested DARAB
Facts: decision is not proof enough as jurisprudence
is replete with cases declaring that "findings of
Encinas, as Provincial Fire Marshall, relieved
or certifications issued by the Secretary of
and transferred Agustin and Caubang to
Agrarian Reform, or his authorized
different fire stations when they failed to give
representative, in a given locality concerning
him P5,000. He was thus charged with
the presence or absence of a tenancy
dishonesty and grave misconduct. Encinas
relationship between the contending parties,
claims that the filing of a complaint in the
are merely are preliminary or provisional and
Bureau of Fire Protection(BFP) for violation of
are not binding upon the courts.
RA 3019 and Civil Service Commission (CSC)
for violation of RA 6713,respectively, Findings of fact of administrative agencies in
constituted res judicata. the exercise of their quasi-judicial powers are
entitled to respect if supported by substantial
Held:
evidence.This court is not tasked to weigh
again "the evidence submitted before the
The dismissal of the BFP Complaint does not
administrative body and to substitute its own
constitute res judicata in relation to the CSCRO
judgment [as to] the sufficiency of
Complaint.
evidence."The DARAB is the quasi-judicial
First, there was no “judgment on the merits” tribunal that has the primary jurisdiction to
as the dismissal of the complaint was a result determine whether there is a tenancy
of a fact-finding investigation for purposes of relationship between adverse parties.This court
determining whether a formal charge for an has held that "judicial determinations [of the a
administrative offense should be filed. Hence, DARAB] have the same binding effect as
no rights and liabilities of parties were judgments and orders of a regular judicial
determined therein with finality. Further, the body."Disputes under the jurisdiction of the
doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial DARAB include controversies relating
or quasi-judicial proceedings, and not to the to:tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold,
exercise of administrative powers. Hence, if tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands
the only purpose of an investigation is to devoted to agriculture, including disputes
evaluate the evidence submitted to an agency concerning farmworkers associations or
based on the facts and circumstances representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
presented to it, and if the agency is not maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange
authorized to make a final pronouncement terms or conditions of such tenurial
affecting the parties, then there is an absence arrangements.
of judicial discretion and judgment.In contrast,
HOLY SPIRIT HOMEOWNERS
judicial adjudication signifies the exercise of
ASSOCIATION, INC. vs SECRETARY
power and authority to adjudicate upon the
MICHAEL DEFENSOR, ET. AL.
rights and obligations of concerned parties TINGA, J.: EN BANC, G.R. No. 163980,
August 3, 2006.
In this case, an analysis of the proceedings
before the BFP yields the conclusion that they Former President Ferdinand Marcos issued
were purely administrative in nature and Proclamation No. 1826, reserving a parcel of
constituted a fact-finding investigation for land as a national government site to be
purposes of determining whether a formal known as the NGC. President Corazon Aquino
excluded 150 of the 440 hectares. President
charge for an administrative offense should be
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law R.A.
filed against petitioner. No. 9207 that allowed the disposition of certain
portions of
the National Government Center Site to bona
51
fide residents. In accordance with R.A. No. behind Article 262-A of the Labor Code. These
9207, the Committee formulated the rules deny the VA the chance to correct himself
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). and compel the courts of justice to
Petitioner Holy Spirit Homeowners Association,
prematurely intervene with the action of an
Inc. (Association), a homeowners association
administrative agency entrusted with the
from the West Side of the NGC, filed a petition
for prohibition directly to the Supreme Court adjudication of controversies coming under its
(by-passing the administrative agency special knowledge, training and specific field of
involved) to prevent the implementation of the expertise.
IRR.
[G.R. No. L-29171 April 15, 1988]
Issue: Judicial review and doctrine of hierarchy INDUSTRIAL POWER SALES,
of courts in administrative agencies INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. DUMA
Administrative agencies possess quasi-
SINSUAT etc., et al., respondents-
legislative or rule-making powers and quasi-
appellees.First Division. Penned by
judicial or administrative adjudicatory powers.
NARVASA, J.:
In questioning the validity or constitutionality
of a rule or regulation issued by an FACTS: In April of 1965 the Bureau of Supply
administrative agency, a party need not Coordination of the Department of General
exhaust administrative remedies before going Services issued 2 Invitations to Bid. The first
to court. This principle of exhaustion of called for 8 units trucks complete and special
administrative remedies applies only where the factory built for the use of Bureau of
act of the administrative agency concerned Telecommunications; the second amended the
was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial first notice by including not only foreign made
function, and not when the assailed act products but also of local manufacture. Bidding
pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative then took place, among the bidders were IPSI
power. The assailed IRR was issued pursuant and Delta. The project was awarded to IPSI,
to the quasi-legislative power of the which was duly protested by DELTA claiming
Committee, hence, the regular courts have that the trucks offered by IPSI were not
jurisdiction to pass upon the same. factory built, as stipulated in the specifications.
The Director ruled the bidding as proper but
ALBERT TENG, v. ALFREDO S. PAHAGAC,
however reversed himself later on.
G.R. No. 169704, November 17, 2010.
Third Division (Brion)
IPSI then appealed to the Office of the
President. The appeal notwithstanding, the
Respondents are workers of Albert Teng Fish Letter-Order in favor of DELTA was released to
Trading who filed a complaint for illegal
it on September 17,1965. IPSI then filed with
dismissal against Albert Teng Fish Trading,
Teng, and Chua before the National the Quezon City Court of First Instance on
Conciliation and Mediation Board, Region September 21, 1965, a petition for certiorari,
Branch No. IX, Zamboanga City. The Voluntary prohibition and mandamus, with application for
Arbitrator rendered a decision in Teng’s favor. preliminary prohibitory and mandatory
injunction.
Teng argues that because the workers filed a
motion for reconsideration even when it was RULING: The plea made in behalf of
not allowed, the VA’s decision had already respondent Secretary that IPSI had gone to
become final and executory by the time they Court without first exhausting all
assailed it before the CA and therefore it administrative remedies cannot be sustained in
should have already been considered
view of the doctrines set out.
unappealable.
Before an action may be entertained in the
Supreme Court ruled that the Labor Code courts of justice, it must be shown that all the
does not prohibit a motion for administrative remedies prescribed by law or
reconsideration with the Voluntary ordinance have been exhausted; and second,
Arbitrator. It noted that in the amendment in that the administrative decision may properly
the Labor Code, Article 262-A deleted the word be annulled or set aside only upon a clear
"unappealable" from Article 263.The deliberate showing that the administrative official or
selection of the language in the amendatory tribunal has acted without or in excess of
act differing from that of the original act jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
indicates that the legislature intended a change discretion. There are however exceptions to
in the law, and the court should endeavor to the principle known as exhaustion of
give effect to such intent. Furthermore, it said administrative remedies, these being: (1)
that by disallowing reconsideration of the VA’s where the issue is purely a legal one, (2)
decision, Section 7, Rule XIX of DO 40-03 and where the controverted act is patently illegal or
Section 7 of the 2005 Procedural Guidelines was done without jurisdiction or in excess of
went directly against the legislative intent jurisdiction; (3) where the respondent is a
52
department secretary whose acts as an alter Ombusman v. Bungubung, Supra.

ego of the President bear the latter's implied or
assumed approval, unless actually LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
disapproved; or (4) where there are represented by its Administrator
circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial MELQUIADES A. ROBLES, v. AURORA A.
intervention. SALVAÑA, G.R. No. 192074. June 10, 2014.
En Banc. (Leonen, J.)
There is merit in IPSI's appeal, therefore. The
respondent Secretary had indeed acted with Facts: Respondent Atty. Salvaña falsified a
grave abuse of discretion amount to lack or medical certificate to support her application
excess of jurisdiction. His acts must be for sick leave. Her employer, the LRTA
nullified, and the Trial Court's judgment discovered the falsity and she was investigated
upholding those acts must be set aside. and formally charged and then found guilty of
Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Document,
CHUNG FU INDUSTRIES (PHILIPPINES) Grave Misconduct, Gross Insubordination, and
INC., v. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ConductPrejudicial to the Best Interest of the
FRANCISCO X. VELEZ (Presiding Judge, Service. Salvaña appealed the LRTA’s decision
Regional Trail Court of Makati [Branch to the Civil Service Commission. The CSC
57]) and ROBLECOR PHILIPPINES, INC., modified the LRTA, finding Salvaña guilty only
respondents, G.R. No. 96283 February 25, of simple dishonesty. The CSC filed a petition
1992. Third Division (Romeo, J.) for review of the CSC’s decision with the Court
of Appeals which was dismissed due to CSC’s
FACTS: Chung Fu Industries and private lack of legal standing to file the appeal.
respondents Roblecor Philippines forged a
construction agreement. It was stipulated also Ruling: An administrative agency has
that in the event of disputes, the parties will be standing to appeal the Civil Service
subjected to an arbitration resolution, wherein Commission's repeal or modification of its
the arbitrator will be chosen by both parties. original decision. In such instances, it is
Roblecor failed to complete the work despite included in the concept of a "party
the extension allowed by Chung Fu. Roblecor adversely affected" by a decision of the
filed a petition for Compulsory Arbitration with Civil Service Commission granted the
prayer for TRO. Subsequent negotiations statutory right to appeal.TheLRTA has the
between the parties eventually led to the standing to appealand/or to file its motion for
formulation of an arbitration agreement which reconsideration to the CSC’s decision as The
includes that the “decision of the arbitrator employer has theright "to select honest and
shall be final and unappealable, therefore, trustworthy employees.”
there shall be no further judicial recourse if
either party disagrees with the whole or any Prior to Civil Service Commission v.
part of the arbitrator’s award”. Arbitrator ruled Dacoycoy(1999), government parties were
in favor of the contractor Roblecor. Chung Fu barred from appealing decisions exonerating
moved to remand the case for further hearing the government employee administratively
and asked for a reconsideration of the charged. But with Dacoycoy and the
judgment award. subsequent cases, the rule was that a
government party is a "party adversely
ISSUES:WON the subject arbitration award is affected" forpurposes of appeal provided that
beyond the ambit of the court’s power of the government party that has a right to
judicial review. appealmust be the office or agency prosecuting
the case, not the disciplining authority or
HELD:No.It’s stated explicitly under Art. 2044 tribunal or body which heard the case.
of the Civil Code that the finality of the
arbitrator’s award is not absolute and without But in 2011, the RevisedRules on
exceptions. Where the conditions described in Administrative Cases in the Civil Service or
Arts. 2038, 2039 and 2040 applicable to both RACCS was promulgated.
compromises and arbitrations are obtaining,
the arbitrators’ award may be annulled or The Civil Service Commission modified the
rescinded. definition of a "party adverselyaffected" to
include the disciplining authority in an appeal
Additionally, Sections 24 and 25 of the from a decision reversing or modifying the
Arbitration Law provide grounds for vacating, original decision. This procedural rule is
Modifying or rescinding an arbitrator’s award. retroactive as it creates new rights.
Even decisions of administrative agencies
which are declared “final” by law are not The present rule now provides that the parties
exempt from judicial review when so adversely affected by a decision in
warranted. anadministrative case who may appeal shall
53
include (1) the respondent in the course subject to certain guide posts laid down
administrative case, (2) the office or agency in many decided cases. The prevailing principle
prosecuting the case and (3) the disciplining is that: ”in reviewing administrative decisions,
authoritywhose decision dismissing the the reviewing Court cannot re-examine the
employee was either overturned or modified sufficiency of the evidence as if originally
bythe Civil Service Commission. instituted therein, and receive additional
evidence, that was not submitted to the
administrative agency concerned," the findings
of fact in this case must be respected. As ruled
PART VI. JUDICIAL REVIEW
by the Court, they will not be disturbed so long
as they are supported by substantial evidence,
ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND even if not overwhelming or preponderant.
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, vs. Hon.
FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his
capacity as Deputy Executive Secretary,
and ASTERIO BUQUERON, AMIGO MANUFACTURING, INC., vs.
CLUETT PEABODY CO., INC., G.R. No.
G.R. No. 75501, September 15, 1987,
139300, 14 March 2001, Third Division,
FIRST DIVISION, PARAS, J.
Panganiban, J.
On February 9, 1972, Atlas

Respondent sought the cancellation of
Consolidated Mining and Development
petitioner’s “Gold Toe” trademark since it
Corporation registered the location of its
resembles its “Gold Top” mark. Petitioner
"Master VII Fr." mining claim with the Mining
argues, among others, that its trademark was
Recorder of Toledo City. On September 10, used earlier than respondent’s actual use of its
1973, private respondent Asterio Buqueron trademarks.
registered the declarations of location of his
"St. Mary Fr." and "St. Joseph Fr." mining Based on the evidence presented, the
claims with the same Mining Recorder. On court concurs in the findings of the Bureau of
October 15, 1973, Atlas registered the Patents that respondent had used the
declarations of location of its "Carmen I Fr." to trademark and devices in question prior to
"Carmen V. Fr. " with the same Mining petitioner’s use of its own.
Recorder. Buqueron's "St. Mary Fr." and "St.
Joseph Fr." were surveyed and the survey In any case, absent any clear showing
plans thereof were duly approved by the to the contrary, this Court accepts the finding
Director of Mines and Geo Sciences. Notice of of the Bureau of Patents that it was respondent
Buqueron's lease application was published in which had prior use of its trademark.
the February 22 and 28, 1977 issues of the Administrative agencies’ findings of fact in
Evening Post. During the said period of matters falling under their jurisdiction are
publication, petitioner filed an adverse claim generally accorded great respect, if not finality.
By reason of the special knowledge and
against private respondent's mining claims on
expertise of said administrative agencies over
the ground that they allegedly overlapped its
matters falling under their jurisdiction, they
own mining claims. WON here was a valid
are in a better position to pass judgment
location and discovery of the disputed mining
thereon. The findings of fact of administrative
claims.
agencies must be respected as long as they
are supported by substantial evidence, even if
Such issue was a question of fact best
such evidence might not be overwhelming or
left to the determination of the administrative even preponderant. It is not the task of an
bodies charged with the implementation of the appellate court to weigh once more the
law they are entrusted to enforce. As uniformly evidence submitted before the administrative
held by the Court, it is sufficient that body and to substitute its own judgment for
administrative findings of fact are supported by that of the administrative agency in respect of
evidence, or negatively stated, it is sufficient sufficiency of evidence.
that findings of fact are not shown to be
unsupported by evidence. Substantial evidence
is all that is needed to support an ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, vs. COUR
T OF APPEALS and
administrative finding of fact, and substantial
PETROLEUM DISTRIBUTORS AND SERVI
evidence is "such relevant evidence as a CES CORPORATION,
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to G.R. No. 113079. April 20, 2001,
support a conclusion.” Judicial review of the FIRST DIVISION, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
decision of an administrative official is of
54
Shell initially filed an application with application form that he graduated from the
the Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU) for Course BSED in March 1991, whereas he
authority to relocate its Shell Service Station at actually graduated in 1992. CA affirmed the
Tambo, Paranaque, Metro Manila, to Imelda
ruling of CSC. Then, Petitioner’s motion for
Marcos Avenue of the same municipality. The
reconsideration was denied. Hence, the
application was denied so Shell appealed to the
Office of Energy Affairs (OEA). [note:on May present petition.
8, 1987, Executive Order No. 172 was issued
creating the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) HELD: In petitions for review on certiorari,
and transferring to it the regulatory and only questions of law may be raised by the
adjudicatory functions of the BEU]The OEA parties and passed upon by this Court. As a
then remanded the application of Shell to ERB general rule, factual findings of administrative
upon presentation of Shell of a new feasibility agencies, such as the CSC, that are affirmed
study. The ERB rendered a Decision allowing
by the CA, are conclusive upon and generally
Shell to establish the service station in Benigno
Aquino, Jr. Avenue. Petroleum Distributors and not reviewable by this Court. However, this
Service Corporation (PDSC), the oppositor, Court has recognized several exceptions to this
filed a motion for reconsideration with ERB for rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are
the above-mentioned decision. The ERB denied grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or
the motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the conjectures; (2) when the inference made is
Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the
manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;(3)
decision of the ERB.
when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4)
WON the court of appeals gravely when the judgment is based on a
erred in making findings of facts contrary to misapprehension of facts; (5) when the
those of the energy regulatory board whose findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in
findings were based on substantial evidence? making its findings, the CA went beyond the
issues of the case, or its findings are contrary
The interpretation of an administrative
to the admissions of both the appellant and the
government agency like the ERB, which is
tasked to implement a statute, is accorded appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to
great respect and ordinarily controls the the trial court; (8) when the findings are
construction of the courts. A long line of cases conclusions without citation of specific
establish the basic rule that the courts will not evidence on which they are based; (9) when
interfere in matters which are addressed to the the facts set forth in the petition as well as in
sound discretion of government agencies the petitioners main and reply briefs are not
entrusted with the regulation of activities
disputed by the respondent; (10) when the
coming under the special technical knowledge
and training of such agencies findings of fact are premised on the supposed
absence of evidence and contradicted by the
Stated differently, when an administrative evidence on record; and (11) when the CA
agency renders an opinion or issues a
manifestly overlooked certain relevant
statement of policy, it merely interprets a pre-
existing law and the administrative facts not disputed by the parties, which, if
interpretation is at best advisory for it is the properly considered, would justify a
courts that finally determine what the law different conclusion.Exceptions (4) and (11)
means. Thus, an action by an administrative find application here.
agency may be set aside by the judicial
department if there is an error of law, abuse of Thus, dishonesty, like bad faith, is not simply
power, lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of bad judgment or negligence. Dishonesty is a
discretion clearly conflicting with the letter and
question of intention. The intent to falsify or
spirit of the law.
misrepresent is inexistent at the time
petitioner applied for the PBET when he
DERICK D. WOODEN, v. CIVIL SERVICE indicated March 1991 under Date Graduated
COMMISSION, CORAZON ALMA G. DE since he in fact attended the graduation rites
LEON, THELMA P. GAMINDE AND JOSE F. on March 24, 1991. Petitioner should not be
ERESTAIN, JR., G.R. No. 152884, faulted for his mistake or confusion in the
September 30, 2005, interpretation of the term graduated.
En Banc, J. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ.
PHILEMPLOY SERVICES AND RESOURCES,
FACTS: Petitioner applied for graduation,
subject to completion of a six-unit deficiency. INC., v. ANITA RODRIGUEZ, G.R. No.
He then joined the graduation rites, and after, 152616, March 31, 2006, THIRD
he enrolled and completed his deficiency
DIVISION, CARPIO, J.
courses that following summer. CSC filed
against petitioner a Formal Charge for
Dishonesty and Falsification. They found him to FACTS: Anita Rodriguez applied with
be guilty since he applied for the PBET Philemploy Services and Resources, Inc. for
Examination by misrepresenting in his
deployment abroad as a factory worker.
55
Subsequently, she executed through for and in behalf of its principal, Lucky Ocean
Philemploy, a contract of employment as a Marine Corporation, after he underwent a pre-
employment medical examination at
domestic helper of one Chao Hung Ching of
Physician’s Diagnostic Center and was given a
Taipei, Taiwan. Anita then filed a case for clean bill of health. He signed a 12-month
illegal dismissal in the Philippine labor contract. After 3 months, he complained of
dizziness and nausea and requested for his
tribunals. When the case reached the NLRC, it
repatriation. The LA ordered petitioner to pay
was held that Anita preferred to go back home the amount of $50,000 as disability benefit.
earlier than expected as she was not able to The NLRC reversed the decision and reduced
the amount to $11,000. However, on motion
adjust to the demands of being a domestic
for reconsideration, the NLRC reinstated the
helper, the job that she wanted being that of a award. The NLRC ruled that the illness of the
factory worker. Thus, the NLRC dismissed the complainant was discovered on May 20, 1994,
complaint. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, a date within the twelve-month period of the
employment contract and already covered by
the fact of Anita’s dismissal was raised as an the effectivity of the new rate of disability
issue. Should the SC take cognizance of the benefits under the Revised Employment
issue of whether or not Anita was illegally Contract for seafarers.
dismissed? HELD: Findings of fact of administrative

agencies such as the NLRC are binding
HELD: Yes. This Court generally accords when supported by substantial evidence;
moreover, they become conclusive when
respect to the factual findings of the
such findings are affirmed by an appellate
NLRC. However, the rule is equally settled court. Therefore, the findings of the NLRC,
that this Court will not uphold erroneous sustained by the Court of Appeals, that the
illness of the complainant was discovered only
conclusions of the NLRC if the NLRC’s
on 20 May 1994, is conclusive to this Court.
findings of fact on which its conclusions
are based are not supported by Office of the Ombudsman v. Jose
Capulong, GR No. 201643, 12 March 2014,
substantial evidence. Substantial evidence,
First Division, Reyes.
which is the quantum of evidence required to
establish a fact in cases before administrative Facts: For alleged failure to properly file his
SALN covering the years between 1987 –
or quasi-judicial bodies, is that level of relevant 1998, and failure to declare his wife’s
evidence which a reasonable mind might corporate interests, Capulong, a Customs
accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.22 Officer, was preventively suspended by the
Ombudsman. Capulong filed a petition for
Factual findings of administrative agencies will
certiorari before the CA. A TRO was issued by
be set aside if found arbitrary. the CA, and notwithstanding the lifting of the
preventive suspension by the Ombudsman, the
Note: The SC, like the NLRC, dismissed CA nevertheless ruled on the propriety of the
preventive suspension earlier issued.
the case for illegal dismissal. However, the
factual findings which served as basis for the Held: The power of the courts to look into
administrative acts is not rendered moot and
rulings are different. While the NLRC based its
academic simply because of the lifting of such
ruling on the finding that Anita preferred to go acts upon finding of grave abuse of discretion
back home earlier than expected, SC based it amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. It
on the agreed probationary period in the must be noted that the Petition likewise prays
for "other reliefs just and equitable under the
employment contract.
premises." This is sanctioned by Section 1,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court which states that
PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, the aggrieved person, that is Petitioner herein,
INC., v. JOHN MELCHOR A. LAURENTE, may, among others, pray for "such incidental
substituted by JUAN A. LAURENTE, JR. and reliefs as law and justice may require."
NATIVIDAD A. AQUINO, G. R. No. 158883,
April 19, 2006, FIRST DIVISION, CHICO- Abejo vs. Dela Cruz 149 SCRA 654; G.R.
NAZARIO. No. L-63558, May 19, 1987.
FACTS: John Melchor Laurente was employed Case involves dispute between principal
by petitioner Philippine Transmarine carriers stockholders of the corporation Pocket Bell
56
Philippines, Inc., a “tone and voice paging Since the complaint is one questioning
corporation.” Telectronic Systems, Inc. the increase in the power rates, the proper
purchased Abejo’s 133, 000 minority body to investigate the case is the National
shareholdings and of 63,000 shares registered Electrification Administration (NEA). The
in the name of Virginia Braga and covered by 5 regulation and fixing of power rates to be
stock certificated endorsed in blank by her (for charged by electric cooperatives remain within
P1,674,450) and the Spouses Braga, majority the jurisdiction of the NEA, despite the
stockholders. With said purchases, Telectronics enactment of EO 172, creating the Energy
becomes majority stockholder. Telectronics Regulatory Board. The body with the technical
requested the secretary, Norberto Braga, to
expertise to determine whether or not the
register and transfer to its name. Norberto,
charges are legal is the NEA. A party
son of Sps. Braga, refused to register the
questioning the rates imposed by an electric
transfer in the corporate books. This triggered
cooperative may file a complaint with the NEA
off the series of intertwined actions between
as it is empowered to conduct hearings and
the parties, all centered on the question of
investigations and issue such orders on the
jurisdiction over the dispute. Telectronics filed
before SEC while the Bragas assert that the rates that may be charged.
regular civil court has exclusive jurisdiction
over the dispute as against SEC. True, the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies has certain exceptions
ISSUE: Who between the RTC and the SEC has as embodied in various cases. This doctrine is
original and exclusive jurisdiction over the a relative one and is flexible depending on the
dispute between the principal stockholders of peculiarity and uniqueness of the factual and
the corporation circumstantial settings of a case. It is
disregarded: (1) when there is a violation of
HELD: The Court ruled that the SEC has
due process; (2) when the issue involved is
exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute between
purely a legal question; (3) when the
the principal stockholders of the corporation.
administrative action is patently illegal and
The SEC, through its en banc Resolution of
amounts to lack or excess of jurisdiction; (4)
May 15, 1984 correctly ruled in dismissing the
when there is estoppel on the part of the
Bragas’ question of jurisdiction since the
primary issue is on the nonperformance of the administrative agency concerned; (5) when
Corporate Secretary. The SEC upheld its there is irreparable injury; (6) when the
primary and exclusive jurisdiction over the respondent is a department secretary whose
dispute premised on the applicable provisions acts, as an alter ego of the President, bears
of PD 901-A which reorganized the SEC with the implied and assumed approval of the
additional powers. The dispute at bar, as held latter; (7) when to require exhaustion of
by the SEC, is an intra-corporate dispute administrative remedies would be
that has arisen between and among the unreasonable; (8) when it would amount to a
principal stockholders of Pocket Bell due to the nullification of a claim; (9) when the subject
refusal of the corporate secretary. Mandamus matter is a private land in land case
in the SEC to compel the corporate secretary proceedings; (10) when the rule does not
to register the transfer and issue new provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
certifications in favor of Telectronics and its (11) when there are circumstances indicating
nominees was properly resorted to therefore. the urgency of judicial intervention; and
unreasonable delay would greatly prejudice the
complainant; (12) when no administrative
Province of Zamboanga Del Norte, review is provided by law; (13) where the rule
represented by Gov. Isagani Amatong v. of qualified political agency applies; and (14)
Court of Appeals and Zamboanga Del when the issue of non-exhaustion of
Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. administrative remedies has been rendered
(ZANECO), October 11, 2000, moot.
GR No. 109853, First Division, Pardo.
ANTIPOLO REALTY CORPORATION, v. THE

Zamboanga del Norte filed with the NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, HON.
RTC a complaint against ZANECO for illegal G.V. TOBIAS, in his capacity as General
collection of power bills and preliminary Manager of the National Housing
injunction with TRO. Which government agency Authority, THE HON. JACOBO C. CLAVE, in
has jurisdiction over a complaint for illegal his capacity as Presidential Executive
Assistant and VIRGILIO A. YUSON, G.R.
collection of power bills by an electric No. L-50444, August 31, 1987, EN BANC,
cooperative? Feliciano, J.
57
FACTS. Antipolo Realty entered into a Contract favorable judgment. Villaflor questions the
to Sell with its customers over subdivision lots, reliance by the trial and the appellate courts on
with a promise to comply with certain the factual findings of the Director of Lands
amenities in the subdivision for the latter.
and the Minister of Natural Resources.
Failing on this promise, Antipolo rescinded the
contract. The customers filed a case before the
Courts cannot and will not resolve a
National Housing Authority, which reinstated
the contracts. Antipolo Realty cried grave controversy involving a question which is
abuse of discretion. within the jurisdiction of an administrative
tribunal, especially where the question
HELD. There was no grave abuse of discretion. demands the exercise of sound administrative
“In general the quantum of judicial or quasi- discretion requiring the special knowledge,
judicial powers which an administrative agency
experience and services of the administrative
may exercise is defined in the enabling act of
such agency. In other words, the extent to tribunal to determine technical and intricate
which an administrative entity may matters of fact. In cases where the doctrine
exercise such powers depends largely, if of primary jurisdiction is clearly
not wholly, on the provisions of the applicable, the court cannot arrogate unto
statute creating or empowering such itself the authority to resolve a
agency.” Under the law, the developer does controversy, the jurisdiction over which is
not have the right to rescind the contract in
initially lodged with an administrative
case it fails to deliver. In other words, “[s]uch
reinstatement is no more than a logical body of special competence. By reason of
consequence of the NHA's correct ruling, the special knowledge and expertise of said
just noted, that the petitioner was not entitled administrative agencies over matters falling
to rescind the Contract to Sell. There is, in any under their jurisdiction, they are in a better
case, no question that under Presidential position to pass judgment thereon; thus, their
Decree No. 957, the NHA was legally
findings of fact in that regard are generally
empowered to determine and protect the rights
accorded great respect, if not finality, by the
of contracting parties under the law
administered by it and under the respective courts. The rationale underlying the doctrine of
agreements, as well as to ensure that their primary jurisdiction finds application in this
obligations thereunder are faithfully case, since the questions on the identity of the
performed.” land in dispute and the factual qualification of
private respondent as an awardee of a sales
VICENTE VILLLAFLOR, substituted
application require a technical determination
by his heirs v. COURT OF APPEALS and
by the Bureau of Lands as the administrative
NASIPIT LUMBER CO., INC., G.R. No.
agency with the expertise to determine such
95694. October 9, 1997, PANGANIBAN ,J.,
matters. Because these issues preclude prior
Third Division.
judicial determination, it behooves the courts
Two parcels of land are about to be to stand aside even when they apparently have
sold to Nasipit Lumber by Villaflor. Villaflor statutory power to proceed, in recognition of
executed a document, denominated as a “Deed the primary jurisdiction of the administrative
of Relinquishment of Rights,” in favor on agency.
Nasipit Lumber in consideration of the amount
NILO PALOMA v. DANILO MORA, HILARIO
of P5,000 that was to be reimbursed to the
FESTEJO, MAXIMA SALVINO, BRYN
former representing part of the purchase price BONGBONG and VALENTINO SEVILLA G.R. No.
of the land, the value of the improvements 157783.
Villaflor introduced thereon, and the expenses September 23, 2005, SECOND DIVISION
incurred in the publication of the Notice of CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Sale. Nasipit Lumber filed for Sales Application
Facts: Petitioner Paloma was appointed
of the issued lands while Villaflor was in
General Manager of the Palompon, Leyte Water
Manila. The same were awarded to Nasipit by District. His services were subsequently
the Director of Lands. Villaflor insists that the terminated by virtue of Resolution passed by
P5,000 as per verbal agreement was NOT paid the Board of PLWD. Paloma filed a petition for
by Nasipit. The Director of Lands found that mandamus with prayer for preliminary
the payment of the amount of P5,000.00 in the injunction with damages before the RTC to
contest his dismissal with the prayer to be
Deed and the consideration in the Agreement
restored to the position of General Manager.
to Sell were duly proven, and ordered the Dismissed. Paloma filed with CSC a complaint
dismissal of Villaflor’s protest. Villaflor then for illegal dismissal. Dismissed.
went to the trial court for “Declaration of
Nullity of Contract (Deed of Relinquishment of Held: The appointment of petitioner and his
Rights), Recovery of Possession (of two parcels consequent termination are clearly within the
wide arena of discretion which the legislature
of land subject of the contract), and Damages”
has bestowed the appointing power, which in
at about the same time that he appealed the
this case is the Board of Directors of the PLWD.
decision of the Minister of Natural Resources to
the Office of the President. Villaflor did not get
58
Petitioner heaves censure on the Court of claim requires theresolution of issues which,
Appeals for subscribing to the trial court’s view under a regulatory scheme, have been placed
that the petition for mandamus was within the specialcompetence of an
prematurely filed. Water districts are administrative agency.
government instrumentalities and their
employees belong to the civil service. Thus,
the hiring and firing of employees of GOCCs HEIRS OF LORENZO and CARMEN VIDAD
are governed by the Civil Service Law and Civil and AGVID CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v.
Service Rules and Regulations. In a surfeit of LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP),
cases, this Court has held that quasi-judicial
G.R. No. 166461, April 30, 2010, SECOND
bodies like the CSC are better-equipped in
handling cases involving the employment DIVISION, CARPIO, J.
status of employees as those in the Civil
Service since it is within the field of their Petitioners are the owners of a land
expertise. This is consistent with the powers located in Isabela with an area of 589.8661
and functions of the CSC, being the central hectares. On 26 September 1989, the land was
personnel agency of the Government, to carry voluntarily offered for sale to the government
into effect the provisions of the Civil Service under Republic Act No. (RA) 6657 or the
Law and other pertinent laws, including, in this
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
case, P.D. No. 198.
Unable to agree on the revalued proposal,
In cases where the doctrine of primary petitioners instituted before the Regional
jurisdiction is clearly applicable, the court Agrarian Reform Adjudicator of Tuguegarao
cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to (RARAD) for the purpose of determining the
resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over just compensation for their land. In a decision
which is initially lodged with an administrative
dated 29 March 2000, the RARAD fixed the just
body of special competence.
compensation for the land
EURO-MED LABORATORIES,PHIL., INC. v. at P32,965,408.46.On 12 May 2000, LBP filed
PROVINCE OF BATANGAS (2006) a petition for determination of just
compensation with the RTC, sitting as a Special
FACTS: Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of Agrarian Court (SAC).
money against Respondent for the unpaid
balance of some products delivered to it its Contrary to petitioners argument, the
government hospitals. Respondent Province
PARAD/RARAD/DARAB do not exercise
moved to dismiss the case on the ground that
the primary jurisdiction over petitioners concurrent jurisdiction with the SAC in just
moneyclaim was lodged with the Commission compensation cases. The determination of
on Audit (COA). Respondent pointed out that just compensation is judicial in nature.
the claim, arising as it did from a series of
procurement transactions with the province, LBP thus correctly filed a petition for
was governed by the Local Government Code determination of just compensation with the
provisions and COA rules and regulations on SAC, which has the original and exclusive
supply and property management in local
jurisdiction in just compensation cases
governments. Respondent argued that the
case called for a determination of whether under RA 6657. DARs valuation, being
these provisions and rules were complied with, preliminary in nature, could not have attained
and that was within the exclusive domainof finality, as it is only the courts that can resolve
COA to make. the issue on just compensation. Consequently,
the SAC properly took cognizance of LBPs
HELD: The claim is well within the COAs petition for determination of just
jurisdiction under the Government Auditing
compensation.
Code of the Philippines.
It is well-settled that the DARs land
This case is one over which the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction clearly held valuation is only preliminary and is not, by any
sway for although petitioners collection suit means, final and conclusive upon the
was within the jurisdiction of the RTC, the landowner or any other interested party. The
circumstances surrounding petitioners claim courts will still have the right to review with
brought it clearly within the ambitof the COA’s finality the determination in the exercise of
jurisdiction. The doctrine of primary
what is admittedly a judicial function.
jurisdiction holds that if a case is such
that its determinationrequires the
GERALDINE GAW GUY and GRACE GUY
expertise, specialized training and
knowledge of an administrative body, CHEU, vs. ALVIN AGUSTIN T. IGNACIO,
relief mustfirst be obtained in an G.R. Nos. 167824 and 168622, 2 July
administrative proceeding before resort to 2010, Second Division, J. Peralta.
the courts is had even if thematter may
well be within their proper jurisdiction. It Facts: Respondent filed blacklisting and
applies where a claim is originallycognizable in deportation case against petitioners with the
the courts [CONCURRENT JURISDICTION] and Bureau of Immigration, alleging that the latter
comes into play whenever enforcement of the
were Canadian citizens illegally working in the
59
country. Then, the commissioner adjudged As members of the Board of Directors (BOD) of
them to be guilty of the same. So, petitioners the petitioner Samar II Electric Cooperative,
sought the intervention of the RTC through a Inc. (SAMELCO II), passed Resolution No. 5
petition for certiorari with TRO and PI. The [Series] of 2005 on January 22, 2005. The said
Respondent assailed such action contending resolution disallowed the private respondent to
that it violates the doctrine of primary attend succeeding meetings of the BOD and
jurisdiction. disqualified him for one term to run as a
candidate for director. Respondent prayed for
Ruling: When the claim of citizenship is so the nullification of the resolution contending
substantial as to reasonably believe it to be that it was issued without any legal and factual
true, a respondent in a deportation proceeding bases. He likewise prayed for a temporary
can seek judicial relief to enjoin respondent restraining order (TRO).
BOC from proceeding with the deportation
case. True, it is beyond cavil that the Bureau of RULING:
Immigration has the exclusive authority and
jurisdiction to try and hear cases against an The issue is who between the RTC and the
alleged alien, and in the process, determine National Electrification Administration has
also their citizenship. And a mere claim of primary jurisdiction over the question of the
citizenship cannot operate to divest the Board validity of the Board Resolution issued by
of Commissioners of its jurisdiction SAMELCO II. A careful reading of the above-
in deportation proceedings. However, quoted provisions of P.D. No. 1645 clearly
the rule enunciated in the above-cases show that, pursuant to its power of supervision
admits of an exception, at least insofar as and control, the NEA is granted the authority
deportation proceedings are to conduct investigations and other similar
concerned. When the evidence submitted actions as well as to issue orders, rules and
by a respondent is conclusive of his regulations with respect to all matters affecting
citizenship, the right to immediate review electric cooperatives. Based on the
should also be recognized and the courts foregoing discussions, the necessary
should promptly enjoin the deportation conclusion that can be arrived at is that,
proceedings. A citizen is entitled to live in while the RTC has jurisdiction over the
peace, without molestation from any official or petition for prohibition filed by
authority, and if he is disturbed by a respondent, the NEA, in the exercise of its
deportation proceeding, he has the power of supervision and control, has
unquestionable right to resort to the courts for primary jurisdiction to determine the
his protection, either by a writ of habeas issue of the validity of the subject
corpus or of prohibition, on the legal ground resolution.
that the Board lacks jurisdiction.
LEANDRO P. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. THE
In the present case, there is a HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
substantial or conclusive evidence that
THE PHILIPPINE COCONUT
petitioners are Filipino citizens. Without
necessarily judging the case on its merits, as AUTHORITY GOVERNING BOARD,
to whether petitioners had lost their Filipino and JOSEFEL P.
citizenship by having a Canadian passport, the GRAJEDA, respondents. (THIRD
fact still remains, through the evidence
DIVISION, G.R. No. 100579, June
adduced and undisputed by the respondents,
that they are naturalized Filipinos, unless 6, 2001, VITUG, J.)
proven otherwise.
Facts: On 01 March 1989, the PCA, through its
SAMAR II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
(SAMELCO II) AND ITS BOARD OF then Acting Board Chairman, Apolonio B.
DIRECTORS, composed of DEBORAH T. Bautista, filed an administrative complaint,
MARCO (Immediate Past President),
docketed Special PCA Administrative Case No.
ATTY. MEDINO L. ACUBA, ENGR. MANUEL
C. OREJOLA, ALFONSO F. QUILAPIO, RAUL 01-89, against herein petitioner Leandro P.
DE GUZMAN and PONCIANO R. ROSALES Garcia for dishonesty, falsification of official
(General Manager and Ex
documents, grave misconduct and violation of
Officio Director), v. ANANIAS D. SELUDO,
JR., Republic Act No. 3019 in connection with his
G.R. No. 173840, April 25, 2012, Third grant of export quota for "fresh young
Division. (J. Peralta) coconuts" or "buko." Petitioner was then
FACTS: subjected to preventive suspension and
60
pending administrative investigation, petitioner its executive adjudicator in the region, the
filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus and Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(RARAD). From there, the petitioner has yet
prohibition with the trial court. Petitioner also
another forum available — the Special Agrarian
claims that he was denied due process. Courts, which are the final determinants of
cases involving land valuation or determination
Ruling: Petitioner's immediate recourse to the of just compensation.
trial court was premature and precipitate. From The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of
the decision of the PCA Board, once rendered, administrative remedies is that the courts
must allow the administrative agencies to
an administrative remedy of appeal to the Civil
carry out their functions and discharge
Service Commission would still be available to their responsibilities within the
him. specialized areas of their respective
competence.It is presumed that an
administrative agency, if afforded an
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of
opportunity to pass upon a matter, will
administrative remedies, recourse decide the same correctly, or correct any
through court action, cannot prosper until previous error committed in its forum.
Furthermore, reasons of law, comity and
after all such administrative remedies
convenience prevent the courts from
would have first been exhausted. The entertaining cases proper for
doctrine does not warrant a court to arrogate determination by administrative agencies.
unto itself the authority to resolve, or interfere Hence, premature resort to the courts
necessarily becomes fatal to the cause of
in, a controversy the jurisdiction over which is
action of the petitioner.
lodged initially with an administrative body,
Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of Science
like the PCA Board and its Investigation
and Technology (PCST), G.R. No. 156109,
Committee, of special competence. The rule is 18 November 2004. Third Division,
an element of petitioner's right of action, and it Panganiban.
is too significant a mandate to be just waylaid
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative
by the courts. Remedies.
GONZALES vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. Facts:

No. 106028, 9 May 2001.
Regino, a 1st yr. computer science student of
Gonzales received two Orders from the PCST was denied the opportunity to take the
Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian final examinations by two of her teachers for
Reform (DAR), directing her to surrender the failing to purchase tickets for a fund raising
titles to her land and to submit the other campaign dubbed as a Rave Party and Dance
requirements of the respondent Land Bank of Revolution. Thus, she filed a complaint for
the Philippines. As a result, petitioner filed a damages. PCST filed a Motion to Dismiss on
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the ground that there was failure to exhaust
Temporary Restraining Order with the Court of administrative remedies claiming that Regino’s
Appeals to restrain the enforcement and to proper recourse should have been to initiate
annul the said two Orders of the DAR Regional the complaint before the proper administrative
Director on the ground of lack or excess of body (CHED) as the question involved the
jurisdiction, alleging that the petitioner never determination of the wisdom of an
filed a land transfer claim and was not notified administrative policy of PCST. Regino argues,
of nor heard in the execution of the final however, that such principle was not applicable
survey plans and the valuation of her land.The as her action was not administrative in nature
Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for but one purely for damages arising from
failure of the petitioners to exhaust PCST’s breach of the laws of human relations.
administrative remedies. It also held that
Certiorari cannot be used by the petitioner as a Held:
substitute for appeal of the assailed issuances.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies is
There was a failure to exhaust administrative applicable when there is competence on the
remedies. The proper procedure, which the part of the administrative body to act upon the
petitioner should have taken, is to move for a matter complained of. Administrative agencies
reconsideration of the orders of the Regional are not courts; they are neither part of the
Director, or to go directly to the DARAB, or to judicial system, nor are they deemed judicial
61
tribunals. Specifically, the CHED does not have The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
the power to award damages. Hence, remedies calls for resort first to the appropriate
petitioner could not have commenced her case administrative authorities to accord them the
before the Commission. However, the prior opportunity to decide controversies within
exhaustion doctrine admits of exceptions, one their competence before the same may be
of which arises when the issue is purely legal elevated to the courts of justice for review. It
and well within the jurisdiction of the trial is presumed that an administrative agency, if
court. Petitioner’s action for damages afforded an opportunity to pass upon a matter,
inevitably calls for the application and the will decide the same correctly, or correct any
interpretation of the Civil Code, a function that previous error committed in its forum.
falls within the jurisdiction of the courts. Thus, Furthermore, reasons of law, comity and
there is no need to exhaust administrative convenience prevent the courts from
remedies. entertaining cases proper for determination by
administrative agencies. Hence, premature
Batelec II Electric Cooperative Inc, v.
resort to the courts necessarily becomes fatal
Energy Industry Administration Bureau
to the cause of action of the petitioner.
(EIAB), Puyat Steel Corporation and
National Power Corporation, G.R. No. In the present case, there is nothing in the
135925. records to show that petitioner availed of
administrative relief before filing a petition
BATELEC II is an electric cooperative
for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. It did
authorized to distribute electric power in
not appeal the Bureaus Resolution to the
Rosario, Province of Batangas. PSC is a
Secretary of Energy, which under Section 8 in
galvanizing steel sheet company in the
relation to Section 12 of Rep. Act No. 7638 has
Philippines and having been granted a pioneer
the power over the bureaus under the
status by the Board of Investments, it
Department.
embarked to build in Rosario, Batangas
Province, its new plant, envisioned as a Moreover, in light of the doctrine of exhaustion
modern galvanizing plant utilizing a state-of- of administrative remedies, a motion for
the-art non-oxidizing furnace-type process, the reconsideration must first be filed before the
first of its kind in the country. special civil action for certiorari may be availed
of. This BATELEC II failed to observe.
BATELEC II vouched to complete the
installation of the neededyet it failed to do so. Holy Spirit Homeowners v. Defensor,
Hence, PSC filed with the Bureau an Supra.
application for direct connection with the
NPC.The Bureau, under the umbrella of the DIMSON (MANILA), INC. v. LOCAL WATER
Department of Energy, derives its mandate UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION, G.R. No.
from Section 12(c) of Republic Act No. 7638. 168656, September 22, 2010. Second
Division (Peralta).
Its functions include assisting in the
formulation of regulatory policies regarding
electricity distribution. Dimson Manila, Inc. and PHESCO, Inc. filed an
original action for certiorari, prohibition and
As a standard operating procedure, the mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
seeking to prevent Local Water Utilities
Bureau, in its evaluation of an application for
Administration (LWUA) from executing and
direct power connection, whether new or for
consequently performing any act under any
renewal, takes into account the technical or contract relevant to the Urdaneta Water
financial capability of the electric franchise District’s Water Supply System Improvement
holder in the applicants site, in this case Program on the ground of grave abuse of
BATELEC II, to serve the energy needs of the discretion amounting to lack or excess of
applicant. The Bureau made the determination jurisdiction when respondent post-disqualified
petitioners despite their having placed the
that BATELEC II was neither technically nor
lowest calculated bid on the project.
financially capable of supplying the 69 kv of
power supply to PSC.
The LWUA, through the Office of the
BATELEC tried to appeal before the courts. The Government Corporate Counsel, maintained
that their decision was factually and legally
RTC and CA both ruled in favour of PSC. CA
justified and also noted that petitioners failed
dismissed the Petition for Certiorari of to exhaust the available remedies prior to the
BATELEC II on the ground of non-exhaustion of filing of the instant petition, citing the
administrative remedies before filing of a Implementing Rules and Regulations of
special civil action for certiorari. BATELEC II Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9184 on protest
contends that the instant case falls under the mechanism and stating that there was no
recognized exceptions. motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners.
62
The doctrine of exhaustion of ISSUE: Whether or not the instant case falls
administrative remedies requires that within the exception of the doctrine.
when an administrative remedy is
provided by law, relief must be sought by HELD: The Court held in the negative. The
exhausting this remedy before judicial Court has consistently held that before a party
intervention may be availed of. No recourse
is allowed to seek the intervention of the court,
can be had until all such remedies have been
exhausted, and the special civil actions it is a pre-condition that he should have
against administrative officers should not availed of all the means of administrative
be entertained if there are superior processed afforded him. Hence, if a remedy
administrative officers who could grant within the administrative machinery can still be
relief. resorted to by giving the administrative officer
concerned every opportunity to decide on a
Accordingly, the party with an matter that comes within his jurisdiction then
administrative remedy must not merely such remedy should be exhausted first before
initiate the prescribed administrative court’s judicial power can be sought. The
procedure to obtain relief, but also pursue
premature invocation of court’ intervention is
it to its appropriate conclusion before
seeking judicial intervention in order to fatal to one’s cause of action.
give the administrative agency an opportunity
to decide the matter by itself correctly and INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
prevent unnecessary and premature resort to
FOUNDATION OF THE PHILIPPINES,
the court.
v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No.
159139. January 13, 2004,
Samar II Electric Cooperative v. Seludo,
Supra. PANGANIBAN, J.:
LEONARDO A. PAAT, v. COURT OF For the automation of the counting and

APPEALS, HON. RICARDO A. BACULI in his
canvassing of the ballots in the 2004 elections,
capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 2,
Regional Trial Court at Tuguegarao, Comelec awarded the Contract to "Mega Pacific
Cagayan, and SPOUSES BIENVENIDO and Consortium" an entity that had not participated
VICTORIA DE GUZMAN, respondents., G.R.
in the bidding. Despite this grant, the poll body
No. 111107.
January 10, 1997. Second Division (Torres signed the actual automation Contract with
Jr. J) "Mega Pacific eSolutions, Inc.," a company that
joined the bidding but had not met the
FACTS: The truck of private respondent
Victoria de Guzman was seized by the DENR eligibility requirements.
personnel while on its way to Bulacan because
the driver could not produce the required Court holds that petitioners need not exhaust
documents for the forest product found
concealed in the truck. Petitioner Jovito administrative remedies in the light of Paat v.
Layugan, CENRO ordered the confiscation of Court of Appeals. Paat enumerates the
the truck and required the owner to explain. instances when the rule on exhaustion of
Private respondents failed to submit required
administrative remedies may be disregarded,
explanation. The DENR Regional Executive
Director Rogelio Baggayan sustained Layugan’s as follows:
action for confiscation and ordered the
forfeiture of the truck. Private respondents (7) when to require exhaustion of
brought the case to the DENR Secretary.
administrative remedies would be
Pending appeal, private respondents filed a
replevin case before the RTC against petitioner unreasonable,
Layugan and Baggayan. RTC granted the
same. Petitioners moved to dismiss the case (10) when the rule does not provide a
contending, inter alia, that private respondents
plain, speedy and adequate remedy,
had no cause of action for their failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. The trial and
court denied their motion. Hence, this petition
for review on certiorari. Petitioners aver that (11) when there are circumstances
the trial court could not legally entertain the
suit for replevin because the truck was under indicating the urgency of judicial
administrative seizure proceedings. intervention."
63
The present controversy precisely falls dismiss the case on the ground that plaintiffs
within the exceptions listed as Nos. 7, 10 and have not yet exhausted administrative
remedies. Petitioner wishes to invalidate the
11. As already stated, Comelec itself made the
decision and order of public respondent judge
exhaustion of administrative remedies legally in dismissing his motion to dismiss and the
impossible or, at the very least, decision and order of public respondent Court
of Appeals in affirming thereto. Respondents
"unreasonable."
argue that the case comes under the
exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of
PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE administrative remedies because (1) forestry
CORPORATION, petitioner, vs .CHINESE laws do not require observance of the doctrine
GENERAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL as a condition precedent to judicial action; (2)
CENTER, respondent, G.R. No. 163123. the question they are raising is purely legal;
April 15, 2005. Third Division (Corona, J.). (3) application of the doctrine will cause great
and irreparable damage; and(4) public interest
Facts: Respondent hospital (CGHMC) was an is involved.
accredited health care provider under
Medicare, PhilHealth’s predecessor. Philhealth, Issue: Whether or not the case comes under
the national health insurance program, was the exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of
created by Republic Act No. 7875 with the administrative remedies.
state policy of granting discounted medical
coverage to all citizens, especially the Ruling: No, the case does not come under the
underprivileged. Philhealth was merged with exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of
Medicare. CGHMC’s Medicare claims (P8 administrative remedies.
million) were disapproved by Philhealth
because of Philhealth’s rules and regulations Even if forestry laws do not expressly required
which required that claims filed more than 60 prior resort, the reasons for the doctrine would
days from discharging the patient are not to be still suffice to require its observance. Even if
paid. For this reason, only P1 million of the such reasons were disregarded, laws
hospital’s claim was approved. CGHMC filed a comprehensively conferring to the DENR and
Petition for Review (Rule 43) with the Court of its Forest Management Bureau the
Appeals of Philhealth’s denial praying for the responsibility for the enforcement of forestry
liberal application of the 60-day rule under laws and regulations implies that the DENR
R.A. 7875’s IRR because the delays are due to should be allowed to rule in the first instance.
late submission by the patients/Philhealth The question raised is not purely legal for it
calls for the presentation of supporting
members of the requirements.
evidence. As for the alleged urgent necessity,
Ruling: The rules and regulations of the record does not satisfactorily establish
administrative bodies interpreting the law they extraordinary circumstance. Moreover,
are entrusted to enforce have the force of law, petitioner’s TLA has already been suspended.
these rules may be relaxed for reasons of
public interest. To apply the IRR’s 60-day cut-
off for filing of claims would be to frustrate the
state policy of providing Philhealth members
with the medical care at the least possible
cost. Courts will allow liberal interpretation of
the rules especially if its rigid enforcement will
result to deprivation of rights. In this case,
CGHMC had already rendered medical care and
must be paid.
Philhealth too contends that CGHMC failed to

exhaust administrative remedies by filing with
the Petition with the CA. The SC however said
that this case falls under one of the exceptions
to the doctrine of prior exhaustion of remedies
because strong public interest is involved.
Sunville Timber vs Abad 206 SCRA 482
Facts: Petitioner was granted a timber license

agreement (TLA). Private respondents filed a
complaint for injunction with damages against
the petitioner in the RTC. Petitioner moved to
64

JD Batch 2017 Administrative Law Case Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JD Batch 2017 Administrative Law Case Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JD Batch 2017 Administrative Law Case Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USC Law JD Batch 2017. Administrative Law Review Digests.

PART I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS EMPLOYMENT ADMINISTRATION (POEA),

whether or not the Administrative Code of

Committee Created to Investigate The

"receiving bribe money" and such termination

REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondents, TRUTH COMMISSION [G.R. No. 192935.

SOUTHERN CROSS CEMENT CORPORATION

The Tariff Commission, as mandated by the

27811.November 17, 1967. En Banc

Leonardo Montes v. The Civil Service

HELD: The voluntary arbitrator no less

- to initiate expropriation of land through the SUGAR REGULATORY

HELD: YES. It is constitutional. ALFREDO L. AZARCON, v.

BATAUSA, G.R. No. powers which an administrative agency

PART IV. QUASI-LEGISLATIVE temporarily restraining the execution of the

Tatad v. Dept of Sec. Energy, G.R. No.

Petitioner questions the following policy Ruling: Generally, the interpretation of an

maps out its boundaries and specifies the

FACTS: This petition is about the validity of 2

112024. January 28, 1999, employers should have both

ATTY. REYNANTE B. ORCEO, v. exchange notwithstanding, the applicant's

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, v. HON. SENATOR ERNESTO MACEDA, Petitioner,

and correctible by Certiorari.

FACTS: The PITC is a GOCC created under PD

Petitioners were carabao dealers who

ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL, INC., PMCC with PhilHealth. PhilHealth then

PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS FOUNDATION, HELD: NO. The act complained of consisted in

disciplinary action against officers or

Ombudsman v. Bungubung G . R . N o. disregarded. Additionally, the affidavit of

1 7 5 2 0 1 , April 23, 2008, desistance filed by the complainant that the

THIRD DIVISION, CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: allegations against Bungubung were all

Bungubung (Bungubung) administratively

RULING: Jurisprudence tells us that the importations of AJIC.

GOVERNOR MANUEL M. LAPID,

Facts: Petitioners were charged with alleged

department secretary whose acts as an alter Ombusman v. Bungubung, Supra.

On February 9, 1972, Atlas

dismissed? HELD: Findings of fact of administrative

ANTIPOLO REALTY CORPORATION, v. THE

FACTS: subjected to preventive suspension and

GONZALES vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. Facts:

LEONARDO A. PAAT, v. COURT OF For the automation of the counting and

Philhealth too contends that CGHMC failed to

Sunville Timber vs Abad 206 SCRA 482

Facts: Petitioner was granted a timber license

You might also like