CASE #115| BOC v. (DOJ Acting Sec.) Devanadera, UNIOIL Petroleum 1.

1. W/N the CA has certiorari jurisdiction over the resolution of the Acting
Phils., OILINK International, et al., G.R. No. 193253, September 8, Secretary of Justice
2. W/N the CA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the sole ground of
2015 lack of verification and certification against forum shopping
3. W/N there is a need to relax the strict compliance with procedural rules in
FACTS:
order that the ends of justice may be served thereby and whether "special
 In 2007, BOC issued an Audit Notification Letter informing OILINK that it will be circumstances or compelling reasons" are present to warrant a liberal
conducting a compliance audit on the latter’s import transactions for the prior interpretation of such rules
three years. Pursuant thereto, OILINK submitted certain documents but the 4. W/N the Acting Secretary of Justice gravely abused her discretion in affirming
Audit Team deemed the same to be lacking. OILINK expressed its willingness to the dismissal of the BOC's complaint-affidavit for lack of probable cause
comply with the request for the production of the said documents, but claimed
that it was hampered by the resignation of its employees from the Accounting RULING:
and Supply Department. The Audit Team informed OILINK of the adverse 1. NO. It is the CTA, not the CA, which has jurisdiction over the petition for
effects of its request for the postponement of the exit conference and its certiorari assailing the DOJ resolution of dismissal of the BOC's complaint-
continuous refusal to furnish it the required documents. affidavit against private respondents for violation of the Tariff and Customs
 Eventually, the BOC Commissioner Morales approved the filing of an Code.
administrative case against OILINK but the latter failed to answer within the  The elementary rule is that the CA has jurisdiction to review the resolution of
prescribed period. Later, BOC ruled that OILINK violated Customs the DOJ through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
Administrative Order 4-2004 when it refused to furnish the Audit Team copies on the ground that the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of his
of the required documents, despite repeated demands. Pursuant thereto, BOC discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. However, with the
Commissioner Morales directed OILINK to pay the BOC the administrative fine enactment RA 9282, amending RA 1125 by expanding the jurisdiction of the
of around P2.7 billion. OILINK failed to pay, prompting the issuance by the Port CTA, enlarging its membership and elevating its rank to the level of a
of Manila District Collector of a Hold Order against all shipments of OILINK. collegiate court with special jurisdiction, it is no longer clear which between
 In 2008, UNIOIL requested the District Collector to allow it to withdraw base the CA and the CTA has jurisdiction to review through a petition for certiorari
oils from OILINK's temporarily closed Terminal, citing its existing Terminalling the DOJ resolution in preliminary investigations involving tax and tariff
Agreement with OILINK for the Storage of UNIOIL's base oils. Commissioner offenses.
Morales conditionally granted the same under close monitoring of BOC.  If the Court were to rule that jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari
 Later, a complaint-affidavit was filed by a member of BOC's Anti-Oil Smuggling assailing such DOJ resolution lies with the CA, it would be confirming the
Coordinating Committee that investigated the illegal withdrawal by UNIOIL of exercise by two judicial bodies, the CA and the CTA, of jurisdiction over
oil products consigned to OILINK, accusing the private respondents of violation basically the same subject matter — precisely the split-jurisdiction situation
of the Tariff and Customs Code. After preliminary investigation, DOJ State which is anathema to the orderly administration of justice. The Court cannot
Prosecutor De Andres recommended the dismissal of the complaint-affidavit accept that such was the legislative intent, especially considering that RA
for lack of probable cause. This was affirmed by then DOJ Secretary Gonzales. 9282 expressly confers on the CTA, the tribunal with the specialized
BOC filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied by then Acting competence over tax and tariff matters, the role of judicial review over local
DOJ Secretary Devanadera. tax cases without mention of any other court that may exercise such power.
 BOC then filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, which dismissed the same  Concededly, there is no clear statement under RA 1125, the amendatory RA
outright on procedural grounds. Hence, the instant petition for review on 9282, let alone in the Constitution, that the CTA has original jurisdiction over
certiorari. petition for certiorari. By virtue of Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution, vesting judicial power in the Supreme Court and such lower
ISSUES: courts as may be established by law, to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality
 of the Government, in relation to Section 5 (5), Article VIII thereof, vesting consideration of revenue-related problems, and has necessarily developed
upon it the power to promulgate rules concerning practice and procedure in an expertise on the subject. For another, the referral of the petition to the
all courts, the Court thus declares that the CA's original jurisdiction over a CTA is in line with the policy of hierarchy of courts in order to prevent
petition for certiorari assailing the DOJ resolution in a preliminary inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better
investigation involving tax and tariff offenses was necessarily transferred to devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent
the CTA pursuant to Section 7 of RA 9282, and that such petition shall be further overcrowding of its docket.
governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended.  Be that as it may, the doctrine of hierarchy of courts is not an iron-clad rule,
as held in Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, and that the Court has full
2. YES. Despite the above discussion that such petition should have been filed with discretionary power to take cognizance and assume jurisdiction over special
the CTA, the Court reiterates its ruling in Traveño v. Bobongon Banana Growers civil actions for certiorari filed directly with it for exceptionally compelling
that: reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues clearly and specifically
a. As to verification, non-compliance therewith or a defect therein does not raised in the petition. Since the present case includes questions that are
necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order its dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy, or
submission or correction or act on the pleading if the attending demanded by the broader interest of justice, as well as to avoid multiplicity
circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule may be of suits and further delay in its disposition, the Court shall directly resolve
dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby; the petition for certiorari, instead of referring it to the CTA.
and
b. As to certification against forum shopping, non-compliance therewith or a 4. NO. Since, the allegations in the BOC's complaint-affidavit do not constitute the
defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its crime of unlawful importation under Section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs
subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to Code, the Acting Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion
relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or presence of when she affirmed the State Prosecutor's dismissal the BOC's complaint-affidavit
"special circumstances or compelling reasons." for lack of probable cause.

3. YES. Due to the presence of such special circumstances and in the interest of HELD: Petition partly granted; CA resolution reversed and set aside; Acting DOJ
justice, the CA should have at least passed upon the substantive issue raised in Secretary Devanadera’s resolution affirmed.
the petition, instead of dismissing it on such procedural ground.
 Despite the BOC's failed attempt to comply with the requirement of
verification and certification against forum shopping, the Court cannot
simply ignore the CA's perfunctory dismissal of the petition on such sole
procedural ground vis-á-vis the paramount public interest in the subject
matter and the substantial amount involved. Although it does not condone
the failure of BOC to comply with the said basic requirement, the Court is
constrained to exercise the inherent power to suspend its own rules in order
to do justice in this particular case.
 As the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari solely due to a procedural
defect without resolving the issue of whether or not the Acting Secretary of
Justice gravely abused her discretion in affirming the dismissal of the BOC's
complaint-affidavit for lack of probable cause, the Court ought to reinstate
the petition and refer it to the CTA for proper disposition. For one, as a highly
specialized court specifically created for the purpose of reviewing tax and
customs cases, the CTA is dedicated exclusively to the study and
CASE #124| SEC v. Judge Laigo, G.R. No.188639, September 2, 2015  The overarching consideration in the legislative mandate to establish trust
funds is the protection of the interest of the planholders in the investment
FACTS: plans. Thus, pursuant to its mandate and delegated authority under the
 Sec. 16 of RA 8799 (Securities Regulation Code) mandated SEC to prescribe Securities Regulation Code, the SEC came out with the New Rules, which the
rules and regulations governing the pre-need industry prior to the enactment Congress later on toughened through the enactment of the Pre-Need Code,
of RA 9829 (Pre-need Code of the Philippines). Pursuant thereto, SEC issued carrying similar protection but far more detailed in scope.
New Rules on the Registration and Sale of Pre-Need Plans which required the  Under the principle of legislative approval of administrative interpretation by
creation of trust funds as a requirement for registration of pre-need providers. reenactment, the re-enactment of a statute, substantially unchanged (as in
Legacy Consolidated Plans, Incorporated, being a pre-need provider, complied this case), is persuasive indication of the adoption by Congress of a prior
therewith and entered into a trust agreement with Land Bank. executive construction. Accordingly, where a statute is susceptible of the
 In mid-2000, the industry collapsed for a range of reasons. Legacy, like the meaning placed upon it by a ruling of the government agency charged with
others, was unable to pay its obligations to the planholders and became subject its enforcement and the legislature thereafter reenacts the provisions
of a petition for involuntary insolvency. Legacy did not object and was declared without substantial change, such action is to some extent confirmatory that
insolvent by the RTC in 2009. The Makati RTC also ordered SEC, as the pre-need the ruling carries out the legislative purpose. The Court cannot go against
industry’s regulator, to submit documents pertaining to Legacy's assets and that legislative intent for it is the duty of this institution to read what the law
liabilities. SEC opposed the inclusion of the trust fund in the inventory of intends.
corporate assets on the ground that the such inclusion in the insolvent's estate  In this case, Judge Lagio committed grave abuse of discretion when he
and its being opened to claims by non-planholders would contravene the improvidently ordered the inclusion of the trust fund in Legacy's insolvency
purpose for its establishment under the New Rules. Regardless, RTC Judge estate without regard to the avowed state policy of protecting the consumer
Laigo ordered the insolvency assignee to take possession of Legacy’s trust fund of pre-need plans, as laid down in the SRC, the New Rules, and the Pre-Need
(which was allowed to be used by the assignee for expenses in the discharge of Code. Judge Lagio should have known, and ought to know, the overarching
his functions and to be distributed among the creditors who had officially filed consideration the Congress intended in requiring the establishment of trust
their valid claims with the RTC). funds — to uphold first and foremost the interest of the planholders.
 Hence, SEC filed this petition for certiorari alleging that Judge Laigo gravely  Further, Judge Laigo also gravely abused his discretion in enjoining the SEC
abused his discretion in treating the trust fund as part of the insolvency estate from validating the claims against the trust fund since the insolvency court
of Legacy. has no authority to order the reversion of properties that do not form part of
Legacy's insolvent estate.
ISSUE:
1. W/N Judge Laigo gravely abused his discretion in including the trust properties 2. YES. While the Pre-Need Code conferred jurisdiction over claims involving pre-
in the insolvent's estate and prohibiting the SEC from validating the claims need plans to the Insurance Commission, the same also recognized the SEC’s
filed by the planholders against the trust fund. jurisdiction over claims already pending before the latter.
2. W/N SEC has jurisdiction over claims against the trust fund  From the effectivity of the Pre-Need Code, it is the Insurance Commission
3. W/N the provision of the Pre-need Code regarding liquidation is in the nature (IC) that "shall have the primary and exclusive power to adjudicate any and
of a procedural law that can be retroactively applied to this case all claims involving pre-need plans." However, the transitory provisions of
the Pre-Need Code recognize that the jurisdiction over pending claims
RULING: against the trust funds prior to its effectivity is vested with the SEC. Such
1. YES. Judge Laigo gravely abused his discretion in treating the trust fund as authority can be easily discerned even from the provisions of the Securities
assets that form part of Legacy's insolvency estate and in enjoining the SEC's Regulation Code. Section 4 thereof provides that despite the transfer of
validation of the planholders' claims against the trust properties. jurisdiction to the RTC of those matters enumerated under Section 5 of PD
902-A, the SEC remains authorized to "exercise such other powers as may be
provided by law as well as those which may be implied from, or which are
 necessary or incidental to the carrying out of, the express powers granted CASE #133| Oporto v. Members of the Board of Inquiry and
the Commission to achieve the objectives and purposes of these laws." Discipline of the NPC, G.R. No. 147423, October 15, 2008
 Therefore, even prior to the transfer to the IC of matters pertaining to pre-
need plans and trust funds, the SEC had authority to regulate, manage, and FACTS:
hear all claims involving trust fund assets, if in its discretion, public interest
 In 1996, Tirso Oporto (Principal Engineer for Mindanao at National Power
so required. Accordingly, all claims against the trust funds, which have been
Corporation), along with other employees, was administratively charged for
pending before it, are clearly within the SEC's authority to rule upon.
Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty for signing an NPC
Inspection and Receiving Report for woodpoles and crossarms which were not
3. YES. The primary protection accorded by the Pre-Need Code to the planholders
actually delivered on the date of report. In defense, Oporto claimed that such
is curative and remedial and, therefore, can be applied retroactively. The rule
error in the date was simply an oversight on his part, with no malice nor intent
is that where the provisions of a statute clarify an existing law and do not
of dishonesty. After an investigation/hearing, NPC's Board of Inquiry and
contemplate a change in that law, the statute may be given curative, remedial
Discipline found Oporto guilty of Dishonesty and recommended the penalty of
and retroactive effect. Hence, with the Pre-Need Code having the attribute of a
1-year suspension without pay, which the NPC President meted on Oporto.
remedial statute, Legacy and all pre-need providers or their creditors cannot
 In 1998, Oporto filed a Memorandum/Appeal Brief addressed to the DOE
argue that it cannot be retroactively applied.
Secretary and concurrently NPC Board Chairman, praying for the reversal of his
conviction. Before such appeal was acted upon, Oporto filed for Prohibition
HELD: Petition granted; the assailed RTC order is declared null and void.
with the RTC, praying, inter alia, that an order be issued commanding the
respondents to desist from enforcing any suspension order against him.
Respondents then, instead of filing an answer, moved for dismissal, based on
Oporto’s non-exhaustion of administrative remedies and the RTC’s lack of
jurisdiction. The RTC ruled in favor of Oporto and denied respondent’s
subsequent MR. The CA later reversed the RTC decision and also denied
Oporto’s MR. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE: W/N Oporto failed to exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to

court

RULING: YES. Oporto failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

 The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies mandates that whenever
there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse
can be made until all such remedies have been availed of and exhausted. This rule
is based on the practical principle that the administrative agency should be given a
chance to correct its error, and that relief first sought from a superior
administrative agency could render court action unnecessary.
 By going to court without awaiting the Secretary’s action — whom he recognized
as a superior administrative authority — Oporto violated the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies. Resort to the courts was premature and
precipitate, because the administrative proceedings were still on-going. Evidently,
even the appeal to the DOE Secretary was without legal basis because the
 decision of the NPC President, on recommendation of the NPC Board of Inquiry CASE #142| Castro v. Gloria, G.R. No. 132174, August 20, 2001
and Discipline, should have been brought on appeal to the CSC.
 Further, Oporto compounded his error with yet another blunder, namely, forum FACTS:
shopping. There is forum shopping when the following elements concur: (1)  A complaint for disgraceful and immoral conduct was filed before DECS against
identity of the parties or, at least, of the parties who represent the same interest Gualberto Castro, a teacher in Guibuangan Central School, Barili, Cebu. It was
in both actions; (2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, as the alleged that he has an illicit affair with his co-teacher (complainant Gutang’s
latter is founded on the same set of facts; and (3) identity of the two preceding wife). After hearing, DECS Regional Office VII found Castro guilty as charged and
particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res dismissed him from service. This was affirmed by DECS Central Office. Castro
judicata in the action under consideration or will constitute litis pendentia. In this then filed for reconsideration before the DECS Central Office, but the latter did
case, all three elements concur. Hence, Oporto’s recourse to the RTC while the not resolve the case for 10 years despite two letters from Castro asking the
appeal with the DOE Secretary was yet unresolved is unmistakably a case of forum DECS Secretary to resolve his motion.
shopping.  Later, Castro filed before DECS Central Office a Motion for Review Setting
 Finally, Oporto insists that he had been denied due process — an exception to Aside/Modifying the Decision of Regional Director of DECS Region VII. DECS Sec.
the doctrine of exhaustion. However, while violation of due process is an Ricardo Gloria denied the same. Castro then filed a petition for mandamus with
exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, Oporto was the RTC of Cebu asking inter alia that his penalty of dismissal be reduced to 1-
not denied due process of law. The essence of due process is the opportunity to year suspension and that he be reinstated with back wages. However, the RTC
be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain dismissed the same on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative
one's side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. remedies, ruling that Castro should have appealed to the Civil Service
 In this case, Oporto was not deprived of due process in this case as he had in fact Commission before coming to court. RTC also denied Castro’s MR. Hence, this
filed his Answer and a Joint Position Paper explaining his side to the Board. He was petition for review on certiorari.
also able to file an MR of the NPC President's decision, and was given an
opportunity during the Pre-Conference Hearing to manifest whether he would like ISSUE: W/N Castro correctly brought the case to court without appealing first
to avail the services of counsel but he opted to remain quiet. Despite the before the CSC
opportunity to do so, Oporto did not present any new substantial defense other
than to say that the alleged typographical error on the date of report was not his RULING: YES. Where the case involves only legal questions, the litigant need not
own doing and that his signing the same — error and all — was simply a case of exhaust all administrative remedies before such judicial relief can be sought. This
oversight. is because issues of law cannot be resolved with finality by the administrative
officer. Appeal to the administrative officer would only be an exercise in futility.
HELD: Petition denied; CA decision affirmed.  The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls for resort first to the
appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling
under their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice
for review. Non-observance of the doctrine results in lack of a cause of action,
which is one of the grounds allowed by the Rules of Court for the dismissal of the
complaint.
 However, the doctrine is not absolute. Some instances when it may be dispensed
with and judicial action may be validly resorted to immediately are the following:
1. When the question raised is purely legal;
2. when the administrative body is in estoppel;
3. when the act complained of is patently illegal;
4. when there is urgent need for judicial intervention;
 5. when the claim involved is small; CASE #151| Marquez-Azarcon v. Bunagan, G.R. No. 124611, March
6. when irreparable damage will be suffered; 20, 2003
7. when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
8. when strong public interest is involved; and
FACTS:
9. in quo warranto proceedings.
 SAGANA and JM Builders entered into a contract to sell a house and lot in Sagana
 In this case, Castro no longer disputes the administrative finding of his guilt for the
Homes, Quezon City to Wenonah Marquez-Azarcon. She partially paid in cash with
offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct, but only impugns is the correctness
the balance to be paid through an SSS housing loan, but said loan was
of the penalty of "dismissal from the service. Undoubtedly, the issue here is a
disapproved partly due to SAGANA’s failure to submit certain requirements.
pure question of law. We need only to look at the applicable law or rule and we
Azarcon offered to pay the balance in cash, but SAGANA refused unless she also
will be able to determine whether the penalty of dismissal is in order. (NOTE:
pays interest thereon.
There is a question of law when the doubt or differences arise as to what the law
 Azarcon then filed a complaint before the HLURB, and in the meantime, occupied
is on a certain state of facts. There is a question of fact when the doubt or
the property. After hearing, the HL arbiter ruled in favor of Azarcon. SAGANA
differences arise as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.)
appealed before the Board of Commissioners of HLURB on the arbiter’s refusal to
assess Azarcon rentals and interest. The Board granted the same, but on appeal
HELD: Petition granted; RTC ruling set aside. “The penalty of dismissal imposed
deleted the order for payment of interest. As none of the parties appealed the
upon petitioner is reduced to one (1) year suspension from office without pay. In
Board decision, it became final and executory.
view of the length of time petitioner has been out of the service, we consider the
 Thereafter, Azarcon paid the purchase price but SAGANA still refused to execute
penalty of suspension to have been fully served. He must, therefore, be
the Deed of Sale and deliver the title as Azarcon had yet to pay rentals in
REINSTATED to office immediately.”
accordance with the decision. Both parties then filed before the Board a Motion
for Execution of its decision – SAGANA with respect to the order for Azarcon to
pay rentals and Azarcon in light of SAGANA's refusal to issue a Deed of Sale in her
favor and to deliver the title to the property. The Board referred the motion to the
HL arbiter, which denied Azarcon’s motion and granted SAGANA’s. A Writ of
Execution was accordingly issued. Azarcon filed an MR and for quashal of the writ,
which the Board denied.
 Azarcon thus filed for certiorari before the CA, which it dismissed. With her MR
also denied, Azarcon now comes to the Court with the present petition. In its
comment, SAGANA again argues that Azarcon’s petition for Certiorari before the
CA should have been dismissed due to her failure to exhaust all administrative
remedies.

ISSUE: W/N the CA should have been dismissed Azarcon’s petition for Certiorari
due to her failure to exhaust all administrative remedies

RULING: NO. The questioned HLA Order merely involves an interpretation of the
dispositive portion of the Board decision which had become final and executory.
Hence, Azarcon properly filed a petition for Certiorari before the CA where she
ascribed grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the order.
HELD: Petition granted; CA decision reversed and set aside; Azarcon’s position that CASE #160| Carpio v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 96409. February
that said Writ of Execution varied the terms of the HLURB decision is upheld. 14, 1992

FACTS: In 1990, RA 6975 was passed establishing the PNP under a reorganized DILG.
As citizen, taxpayer, and member of the Philippine Bar, Justice Antonio Carpio filed
the instant petition assailing the constitutionality of RA 6975. (The arguments of
Carpio are restated as issues hereunder.)

ISSUES and RULING:

1. W/N RA 6975 violated the constitutional mandate that the national police
force shall be administered and controlled by a national police commission,
when it limited NAPOLCOM’s power "to administrative control" over the PNP
(thus, "control" remained with the Department Secretary under whom both
the NAPOLCOM and the PNP were placed).
 NO. The President's power of control is directly exercised by him over the
members of the Cabinet who, in turn, and by his authority, control the
bureaus and other offices under their respective jurisdictions in the
executive department. The circumstance that the NAPOLCOM and the PNP
are placed under the reorganized DILG is merely an administrative
realignment that would bolster a system of coordination and cooperation
among the citizenry, local executives and the integrated law enforcement
agencies and public safety agencies created under the RA 6975, the funding
of the PNP being in large part subsidized by the national government.
 The President has control of all executive departments, bureaus, and offices.
This presidential power of control over the executive branch of government
extends over all executive officers from Cabinet Secretary to the lowliest
clerk and has been held in Mondano v. Silvosa to mean "the power of [the
President] to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer
had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of
the former with that of the latter." It is said to be at the very "heart of the
meaning of Chief Executive."
 Corollary to the President’s control powers is the "Doctrine of Qualified
Political Agency" which recognizes the establishment of a single executive.
Under this doctrine, "all executive and administrative organizations are
adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive
departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in
cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act
in person on the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally,
the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief
Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the
 acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in Philippines. As a civilian agency of the government, it properly comes within,
the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the and is subject to, the exercise by the President of the power of executive
Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive." (The rationale control.
for this doctrine is that the President cannot be expected to exercise his  Consequently, Section 12 does not constitute abdication of commander-in-
control powers all at the same time and in person, so he will have to chief powers. It simply provides for the transition period or process during
delegate some of them to his Cabinet members.) which the national police would gradually assume the civilian function of
safeguarding the internal security of the State.
2. W/N RA 6975 derogated NAPOLCOM’s power of control over the PNP when it
vested 4. W/N the creation of a "Special Oversight Committee" under Section 84 of RA
a. the power to choose the PNP Provincial Director and the Chiefs of Police in 6975, especially the inclusion therein of some legislators as members is an
the Governors and Mayors, respectively; "unconstitutional encroachment upon and a diminution of, the President's
 NO. Under Sec. 51 thereof, full control remains with the NAPOLCOM. It power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices."
is clear that the local executives are only acting as representatives of  NO. The Special Oversight Committee is simply an ad hoc or transitory body,
the NAPOLCOM and, as such deputies, are answerable thereto for their established and tasked solely with planning and overseeing the immediate
actions in the exercise of their functions under said section. Thus, "transfer, merger and/or absorption" into the DILG of the "involved agencies.
unless countermanded by the NAPOLCOM, their acts are valid and As an ad hoc body, its creation and the functions it exercises, decidedly do
binding as acts of the NAPOLCOM. not constitute an encroachment and in diminution of the power of control
b. the power of "operational supervision and control" over police units in which properly belongs to the President. What is more, no executive
city and municipal mayors; department, bureau or oDce is placed under the control or authority of the
 NO. These officials would simply be acting as representatives of the committee.
Commission, as discussed above.
c. in the Civil Service Commission, participation in appointments to the HELD: Petition dismissed for lack of merit.
positions of Senior Superintendent to Deputy Director-General as well as
the administration of qualifying entrance examinations; FINAL NOTE FROM THE COURT:
 NO. Sec. 31 thereof precisely underscore the civilian character of the  The three Constitutional Commissions (i.e, CSC, COA, COMELEC) and the
national police force, and will undoubtedly professionalize the same. additional commission created by the Constitution (i.e., CHR) are all
d. disciplinary powers over PNP members in the "People's Law Enforcement independent of the Executive; but the NAPOLCOM is not. In fact, it was stressed
Boards" (PLEBs) and in city and municipal mayors. during the CONCOM deliberations that NAPOLCOM would be under the
 NO. Under Sec. 20(c), NAPOLCOM exercises appellate jurisdiction, thru President, and hence may be controlled by the President, thru his or her alter
the regional appellate boards, over decisions of both the PLEB and the ego, the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government.
said mayors. As a disciplinary board primarily created to hear and
decide citizen's complaints against erring officers and members of the
PNP, the establishment of PLEBs in every city and municipality would all
the more help professionalize the police force.

3. W/N Sec. 12 of RA 6975 constitutes an "encroachment upon, interference

with, and an abdication by the President of, executive control and
commander-in-chief powers."
 NO. The national police force does not fall under the Commander-in-Chief
powers of the President. This is necessarily so since the police force, not
being integrated with the military, is not a part of the Armed Forces of the
CASE #169| Ortiz v. San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No. 151983-84, fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the
July 31, 2008 same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue
raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a
question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact
FACTS:
 In this case, the core issue presented by Ortiz is with respect to the amount
 Jose Max Ortiz is a member of the Philippine Bar who represented the
of attorney's fees to which he should be entitled, which evidently involves a
complainants in two NLRC cases instituted against San Miguel Corporation
question of law. In determining whether Ortiz should be entitled to the
sometime in 1992 and 1993: the Aguirre cases and the Toquero cases, both
attorney's fees stated in the NLRC Decisions, this Court does not need to go
complaints for illegal dismissal. In both cases, the labor arbiter found the
over the pieces of evidence submitted by the parties in the proceedings
complainants to have been illegally dismissed and ordered San Miguel to, inter
below to determine their probative value. What it needs to do is ascertain
alia, pay attorney’s fees. Both were affirmed by the NLRC.
and apply the relevant law and jurisprudence on the award of attorney's
 Hence, San Miguel elevated the cases to the CA. Pending the same, all except
fees to the prevailing parties in labor cases.
one of the remaining complainants in both cases signed separate Deeds of
Release, Waiver and Quitclaim in favor of San Miguel which, in turn, withheld
2. The 10% attorney’s fees of Ortiz shall be based on, and deducted from, the
10% of the total amount of settlement as attorney’s fees and handed the same
amount of the gross settlement as provided by the Deeds of Release, Waiver
to Ortiz. The CA then dismissed the complaints, except as to the only
and Quitclaim.
remaining complaint (from Alfredo Gadian, Jr.) wherein the CA affirmed the
 As held in PCL Shipping v. NLRC, there are two commonly accepted
NLRC ruling. Both parties moved for partial reconsideration, with San Miguel
concepts of attorney's fees: (1) in its ordinary concept, an attorney's fee is
asking for reversal while Gadian/Ortiz prayed that the award of 10% attorney’s
the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal
fees be based on the monetary awards as adjudged by the NLRC. Both were
services the former has rendered to the latter, while (2) in its extraordinary
also denied.
concept, attorney's fees are deemed indemnity for damages ordered by
 Having obtained a favorable from the CA, Gadian was no longer interested in
the court to be paid by the losing party in a litigation. The former is based
pursuing an appeal. Hence this present petition for review filed by Ortiz
the fact of the attorney's employment by and his agreement with the client
himself as the forced petitioner for the purpose of recovering the aforesaid
while the latter may be awarded as enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil
attorney's fees.
Code, specifically paragraph 7 thereof, which pertains to actions for
recovery of wages, and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client,
ISSUE:
unless otherwise agreed between the lawyer and the client.
1. Whether the present petition raises a question of fact or a question of law.
 Article 111 of the Labor Code, as amended, contemplates the
2. Whether the award of 10% attorney’s fees should be based on the original
extraordinary concept of attorney's fees. Hence, the attorney's fees
monetary award made by the NLRC or the amount agreed upon by the parties
awarded by the NLRC in its Decisions in the Aguirre and Toquero Cases
in the Deeds of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim.
pertain to the complainants, Ortiz's clients, as indemnity for damages; and
3. W/N Ortiz is a real party in interest to file the present petition.
not to Ortiz as compensation for his legal services.
RULING:
3. NO. Ortiz is not the real party in interest; hence, he cannot file this Petition to
1. This petition raises a question of law.
recover the attorney's fees as adjudged by the NLRC. To reiterate, the award of
 A question of law exists when there is a doubt or controversy as to what the
attorney's fees pertains to the prevailing parties in the NLRC cases. Not being
law is on a certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of
the party to whom the NLRC awarded the attorney's fees, neither is Ortiz the
fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the alleged truth or falsehood
proper party to question the non-awarding of the same by the appellate court.
of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, it must involve no
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the
HELD: Petition denied; costs against petitioner.
litigants or any of them. The test of whether a question is one of law or of
CASE #178| Phil. Ports Authority (PPA) v. Pier 8 Arrastre &
Stevedoring Services (PASSI), G.R. No. 147861, November 18, 2005 RULING:
1. NO. The CA has no basis for the issuance of a preliminary injunction in PASSI’s
favor.
FACTS:
 As a rule, an application for preliminary injunction entails a determination of
 In the late 1990s, then President Estrada issued a directive for the
whether the requisites provided in Rule 58 of the Revised Rules on Civil
modernization of the North Harbor. It fell upon the PPA to implement the
Procedure for the issuance of the provisional remedy are extant. In this case,
presidential edict. However, the plan for modernization, which required the
however, the impact of PD 1818 must also be taken into account.
North Harbor to be run by a single entity, encountered strong opposition
 The requisites to justify an injunctive relief are: (a) the existence of a right in
including resistance from North Harbor port workers. Having received
information that an association comprising 95% of the North Harbor work force esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and (b) the act against which
injunction is to be directed as a violation of such right. In this case, PASSI's
would stage a strike which would sufficiently paralyze the whole of the North
Harbor, PPA forcibly occupied and took over the operations of several ports on rights over Pier 8 arise not from contractual relations with the PPA, or a
statutory grant of authority, but merely by the tolerance of the PPA whose
the eve of said planned strike.
right to take over port facilities from operators whose contracts have expired
 PASSI then applied for a TRO, which the RTC granted but later set aside
is indubitable. Hence, there is no basis for the issuance of a preliminary
pursuant to Sec. 1 of PD 1818, which provides that “[n]o court shall have
injunction in PASSI’s favor.
jurisdiction to issue any restraining order, preliminary injunction, or preliminary
mandatory injunction in any case, dispute, or controversy involving… any public  More importantly, even if PASSI had been able to establish a basis upon
which a preliminary injunction could be issued under Rule 58, the application
utility operated by the government, including among others public utilities for
the transport of the goods or commodities, stevedoring and arrastre of PD 1818 would override the right to an injunctive remedy. There are only
two exceptional circumstances which warrant the non-observance of PD
contracts.” PASSI’s MR was also denied by the RTC.
1818, namely: (1) where there is clear grave abuse of discretion on the part
 PASSI then elevated the case to the CA on certiorari, asking for a TRO which the
of the government authority or private person being enjoined, and (2) where
CA issued. PASSI also asked that certain PPA officials be cited in contempt for
the effect of the non-issuance of an injunction or a restraining order would
interfering with its operations at Pier 8 despite the TRO. Later, the CA rendered
be to "stave off implementation of a government project." In this case, the
a decision setting aside the RTC ruling and making permanent its own writ of
CA had no factual basis for any pronouncement of grave abuse of discretion
preliminary injunction. CA also denied PPA’s MR.
by the PPA. Factual and legal determinations are essential for the
 Hence, this Rule 45 petition for review filed by PPA (docketed as G.R. No.
adjudication of the matter. As such, it must be dealt with in the main case, if
147861) assailing the CA’s decision with an urgent plea for the issuance of a
not in a separate action.
TRO and/or preliminary mandatory injunction to restrain the CA from
implementing the questioned decision.
2. NO. CA had no jurisdiction over the person of PPA as the latter was never
 Meanwhile, the CA resolved the contempt case in favor of PASSI, prompting
impleaded as a party to the case. As a contempt court, the CA had jurisdiction
PPA to file with the Court a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Urgent
only over the parties to the contempt case, i.e., the petitioner — PASSI, and the
Plea for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction
respondents — several PPA officials charged with having received the CA's TRO
(docketed as G.R. No. 155252).
and yet continued to commit acts to molest, disturb, and interfere with PASSI's
 The Court then consolidated both petitions in the instant case.
operation of Pier 8.
ISSUE:
3. YES. The present petition falls under several exceptions to the rule requiring
1. W/N the CA’s grant of preliminary injunction in favor of PASSI is proper.
the prior filing of a motion for the reconsideration of the assailed ruling.
2. W/N the CA’s resolution in the contempt proceedings is valid.
Where the Resolution complained of was issued in excess of or without
3. W/N the PPA’s resort to a petition for certiorari without the prior submission
jurisdiction on a matter of public interest and in an apparent case of urgency, a
of an MR of the CA Resolution is proper.
previous motion for reconsideration is unnecessary. (From footnote no. 46: A
 motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with if the issue raised is a
question of law such as one raising lack of jurisdiction.)

HELD: Both petitions granted; the respective CA decisions are annulled and set
aside.