Imposition of fines and penalties

Oceanic Steam Navigation v Stranahan (1909, White)

- Alien Immigration Act of March 3, 1903, Section 9:

o aliens with loathsome or with dangerous contagious disease excluded from admission
into the US as observed by vessel surgeon; if none, port surgeon
o To verify list, immigration officer may inspect vessel immigrants and order examination
o cost of maintenance pending investigation or treatment of alien found within prohibited
class, duty of returning immigrant to port of origin upon vessel and owner
o misdemeanor to violate any provision of Act; punishable by fine and imprisonment
o $100 penalty imposed by Sec of Commerce and Labor for each case brought to port and
no vessel granted clearance papers while such fine imposed remains unpaid
 Provided, in Sec’s judgment, disease might have been detected by means of
med exam at port of embarkation
- Oceanic Steam v Collector of Customs of port of NY:
o recover money
 paid under protest, involuntarily
 if Oceanic did not pay, collector would refuse clearance to steamships
bet NY City and foreign ports (would entail serious pecuniary losses)
 exacted under order of Sec of Commerce and Labor
 empowered || Sec 9 of Alien Immigration Act
 immigrant on board Oceanic’s vessel afflicted with disease
- SC:
o Oceanic:
 Act defines criminal offense but authorizes purely administrative official to
determine whether the defined crime has been committed, and if so, punish
 Penalty imposed, therefore, enforcement must be governed by rules in
prosecution of criminal offenses, dependent on judicial power
 Distinction bet judicial and administrative functions cannot be
preserved with recognition of administrative power to enforce penalty
without resort to judicial penalty
 Violative of Fifth am: no taking without due process
o Sec 9 valid/Sec and collector can impose and collect exactions made
 Within power of Congress to enact
 Upon auth of Congress over foreign commerce and right to control
coming in of aliens into the US
 || Buttfield v Stranahan: from the beginning, congress has exercised a
plenary power in respect to the exclusion of merchandise brought from
foreign countries directly and indirectly as necessary result of provisions
in tariff legislation
o No individual has vested right to trade with foreign nations;
Congress can determine which articles enter
 || Turner v Williams: Congress has power to exclude aliens from US and
prescribe terms and conditions on which they may come in, be sent out
  || US v Ju Toy: Chinese Exclusion Act. Power of Congress to deal with
admission of aliens and confide enforcement to administrative officers
 || Bartlett v Kane: Congress has auth to confide to admin officers
enforcement of tariff legislation
o Reiterated and upheld in Passavant v US, Origet v Hedden
 Congress can give exec officers power to enforce penalties they
legislated without necessity of invoking judicial power
 + emergency in this situation: aliens with contagious diseases
o If aliens could be barred, what more aliens with disease
 Exaction in sec 9 clearly but a power
 given as a sanction to the duty which the statute places on the owners
of all vessels
o in line with purpose congress had in view in the enactment of
the provision: guarding against danger to arise from wrongful
taking on board of alien afflicted with contagious malady to US
 to subj all alien emigrants, prior to bringing them to US, to med exam at
point of embarkation
 so as to exclude those afflicted with prohibited disease
 Lodged in that officer only when it results from official med exam at the point of arrival and
emigrant suffering from disease at time of embarkation and fact would have been discovered had
med exam been made by vessel
 Exclusive to Sec of Commerce and Labor
 Not requiring resort to judicial power for enforcement
 NOT a criminal penalty
o Law defines which violations constitute crime and which do not
o || Senate report: purpose of Sec 9 was to impose penalty based
upon med exam and secure efficient performance of duty to
examine in foreign countries aliens possibly ill
 Not violative of Fifth amendment: taking of property without due process
o AFFIRMED
Civil Aeronautics Board, ee, v Ph Air Lines, ant (1975, Esguerra)
- PAL
o had excess of 20 passengers from Baguio to Manila
o requested Flight 213 (w/ 5 passengers, Tuguegarao to Mnl) to pass Baguio to pick up 20
o flagstop incurred expenses > revenue; not driven by profit but by public need
- CAB Chair filed formal complaint v PAL
o PAL should have first obtained permission of CAB before operating flagstop
o Failure = violation of RA 776
- CAB imposed 5,000 fine on PAL || Resolutions 109
o PAL MR: nothing in RA 776 empowering CAB to impose fine and order payment
- CAB Resolution 132
o Reduced 5,000 to 2,500
o Imposition of fine not so much as exacting penalty for violation as need to stress upon carriers
from wanton disregard of rules; warning to carriers from operating flagstops without prior auth
- SC:
o CAB has authority to impose penalty
 || RA 776:
 Sec 4. CAB, in the performance of its functions, to consider, among other things, as
being in the public interest and in accordance with public convenience and necessity,
declared policies including
o Promote safety of flight in air commerce in PH
o Regulation of air transportation in such manner as to recognize and preserve
the inherent advantage of, assure the highest degree of safety in, and foster
sound economic condition in, such transportation, and to improve the relation
bet, and coordinate transportation by, air carriers
 Sec 10. CAB to have general supervision and regulation and jurisidiction
and control over air carriers as well as their property, property rts,
equipment, facilities, franchise, in so far as may be necessary
o Power to issue, deny, amend, revise, atler, modify, cancel, suspend, revoke,
upon petition or upon own initiative, any temporary operating permit or cert
of public convenience and necessity
o Power to investigate violation of provision or rules of act necessary to prevent
further violation of provision, rules
oPower to review, revise, reverse, modify, affirm on appeal any
administrative decision or order of Civil Aeronoautic
Administrator on matters pertaining to imposition of civil
penalty or fine in connection with the violation of provision of
act or rules and regulations
 Fine imposed in resolution fine/penalty contemplated by 776; NOT CRIMINAL
PENALTY || RPC; ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY
 Fine imposed because of violation of CAB’s rules on flagstops
 Administrative penalty which administrative officers are empowered to
impose without criminal prosecution (similar power granted to others)
 Criminal if fine and/or imprisonment + “in discretion of court”
 To deprive CAB of power = absurd interpretation of law; would not serve purpose of supervision
and control
o Fine to be reduced. No malice and no deliberate intent to flout violation
 o MODIFIED. Fine reduced to 100

Scoty’s Dep’t Store, et al v Nena Micaller (1956, Bautista Angelo)

- Er: Scoty’s – dep’t store owned and oped by Yus and Yangs
- Ee: Micaller – salesgirl. 4.8/day; was best seller, bigger bonus, most coop, honest ee. Organized
union among store ees and affiliated with NLU. Sent petition with ten demands. Made to
withdraw membership after interrogations. Notice to strike. (New ees employed)
o Dismissed for insulting Yu and talking to girls during business hrs
- CIR: Micaller v Scoty’s: ULP. Dismissed due to membership with NLU
o Scoty’s: misconduct and serious disrespect; criminal charges even filed. Pending cases
o Scoty’s guilty of ULP. P100 fine on Mgr Yu and owners Yangs, Yu; reinstate Micaller
- SC:
o Scoty’s: did not dismiss due to union acts; no ULP; cannot be fined || Sec 25—penal in
character, therefore, clear and positive evidence and not mere presumptions, inferences
needed to be fined
o ULP and dismissal findings of fact. Will not be disturbed
o CIR CANNOT impose fine
 || RA 875, Sec 25: Penalties. Any person who violates provisions of sec 3 of act
punished by fine of not less than 100 nor more than 1000 or by imprisonment of
not less than on mo nor more than one year or by both such fine and
imprisonment, in the discretion of the Court. Any other violation declared
unlawful punished by fine of not less than 50 nor more than 500 for each
offense
 Provision general in nature; does not specify which court may act when
violation calls for imposition of penalties
o Court = CIR? Some other court?
 SC: “court” NOT CIR; regular courts
o Else violative of Const: no person shall be held to answer for
criminal offense without due process of law; in all crim
prosecutions, accused shall enjoy right to be heard by himself
and counsel and be informed of nature, cause of accusation…
 CIR can disregard technicalities in hearing complaints.
Rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law/equity not
controlling.
 Can be gleaned < deliberations on Court of Agrarian
Relations law—similar to CIR (same general provision)
 Amended to show court does not have criminal
jurisdiction; civil only. Criminal with regular
courts
o MODIFIED. Fine deleted. All other aspects affirmed.
US, piff-ee, v Aniceto Barrias, def-ant (1908, Tracey)

- Circular 397, Insular Collector of Customs, OG, approved by Sec of Fin, Justice
o No heavily loaded casco, lighter, similar craft permitted to move in Pasig without being
towed by steam or moved by other adequate power
o Violation of regulations = fine of not less than 5 pesos, not more than 500
- CFI: Barrias charged with and convicted of violation of Circular 397 for captaining Maude, heavily
laden by bamboo poles without steam, sail, external power
- SC:
o Barrias: prohibition in circular not in Act 355 (Ph Customs Act)—undue delegation
o Collector: Act 1136: Collector authorized to license craft engaged in harbor business and
all vessels engaged in lightering required to be licensed; Collector can make rules and
regulations; violations of act or rules deemed guilty of misdemeanor. Punished by
imprisonment for not more than 6 mos or by fine of not more than $100, or both at
discretion of court
o Collector can impose fine
 Harbor regulations necessary
 || Act 355 as amended
 By 1235: Collector can fix penalties for violations, not exceeding 500
o A delegated power that is a duty to be performed by delegate
 || Act 1136: valid. Lawful delegation. Collector can create regulations
 || Board of Harbor Comm of Port of Eureka v Excelsior Redwood Co:
legislature can delegate auth to make ruels and regulations; penalty for
violation of such rules and regulations matter purely in hands of
legislature
 Not repealed
o Conviction || 355, 1235 REVOKED.
o CONVICTED of misdemeanor || 1136 instead. $25 fine
Radio Comm of Ph, Inc (RCPI) v Board of Comm and Diego Morales
RCPI v Board of Comm, Pacifico Innnocencio (1977, Martin)

- Morales claims
o Was sent a telegram by daughter: wife dead. Had to be personally informed bc telegram
never reached him
- RCPI: radio signal intermittent; copy received in Mnl unreadable, untintelligible
- Board: Morales: damages
o RCPI liable for 200 fine || CA 146, as amended by PD 1, LOI 1. Services inadeq, unsatisf
- Pacifico claims
o Telegram was sent to him to inform him of death of father. Was not able to attend
internment bc not received and sender <Laguna not informed of non-delivery
- Board: Pacifico: damages
o RCPI liable for 200 fine || CA 146, as amended by PD 1, LOI 1. Services inadeq, unsatisf
- SC:
o RCPI: Board does not have jurisdiction over complaints of injury || breach of contract +
quasi-delict. Regular courts of justice, not Board
o Regular courts have jurisdiction. Board without jurisdiction
 Public Service Commission and successor Board
 Creatures of legislature; not court
 Can exercise only such juris and powers as are expressly or by necessary
implication, conferred upon it by statute
 Functions limited and administrative
 PSC’s power | Sec 129, PSA: issue cert of public convenience
 But power does not carry iwht it power of supervision and control over
matters not related to issuance of certificate of public convenience or in
performance therewith in manner suitable to promote public interest
 Assuming it has power, still cannot impose fine
 Because fine would then be imposed for violation of certificate terms
and conditions or order
 In this case, fine imposed not for violation of terms and conditions of
certificate or order
o BUT based on claims of inconvenienced complainants
 Such breach of contract not covered by compliance with
certificate terms and conditions
 not charged based on violation of t&c of cert
 || Langan, Santiago v RCPI: radio company cannot be prosecuted for
negeligence or misfeasance; no auth vested in Board/PSC
o REVERSED. SET ASIDE. NULL and VOID. Lack of jurisdiction. No costs
Dep’t of Energy Secretary Perez v LPG Refillers Assn of the Ph, Inc (2006, Quisumbing)

- BP 33: penalizes ill trading, hoarding, overpricing, adulteration, underdelivery, underfilling of

petroleum products; possession for trade of adulterated petroleum products; underfilled LPG
o Penalty: min omf 20,000, max of 50,000
- Circular 2000-06-010, DOE, implementing BP 33
o Violations and penalty schedule
- LPG: set aside circular; contrary to law
o Denied by DOE
- RTC: LPG: prohibition and annulment + TRO and/or write of PI
o Null circular/ introduced new offenses not in law
o Provided penalties on cylinder basis might exceed max penalty
- SC:
o DOE: acts and omissions in circular in RA 8479, BP 33. RA 7638 authorizes DOE to
impose penalties in circular
o Circular valid
 For administrative regulation to have force of penal law
 Violation of administrative regulation must be made a crime by the
delegating statute itself
o Complied with || BP 33: general description. Circular merely
lists various modes through which BP 33 acts can be committed
 Penalty for such violation must be provded by statute itself
o BP 33 provides penalty. 20,000 max for retail outlets; for
refillers, mkters, dealers, Circular silent as to max penalty
 BP 33 defines what constitute punishable acts and set min and max penalties
 Circular merely implements law though silent on max penalty for rmd
 Enabling laws specifically intended to provide DOE with increased admin and
penal measures to curtail adulteration and shortselling, inimical to public int
o GRANTED. REVERSED. Set aside
Public Hearing Committee of Laguna Lake Dev’t Auth, Gen Mgr Cataquiz v SM Prime Holdings, Inc,
operator, SM City Mnl (2010, Peralta)

- LLDA Pollution Control Division inspected wastewater collected from SM City Mnl branch
o Sample failed to conform with effluent standards
- LLDA: SM to abate or control pollution. Pay 1,000 penalty per day from inspection till full
cessation of pollutive wastewater, from 4 Feb
- SM pollution control officer: resampling by 23 Mar
- LLDA Order to pay: SM to pay 50,000 from 4 Feb to 25 Mar
o SM MR: waive fine. Immediately undertook corrective measures. Controlled effluent
even before request for re-sampling. Denied.
- LLDA order to pay again: pay fine within ten days from receipt
- CA: reversed. Set aside LLDA orders. MR denied
o Certiorari. Administrative agency’s power to impose fine should be expressly granted;
no implication
o RA 4850: LLDA not expressly granted power or auth to impose fines or violations
o Orders issued without jurisdiction
- SC:
o LLDA: premature certiorari. Estoppel. LLDA with power to impose fines and penalties ||
RA 4850, EO 927
o SM did not exhaust administrative remedies before petition for certiorari with CA.
should have first filed complaint with DENR (has supervision over LLDA)
o SM estopped from questioning LLDA. Actively participated during hearing of water
pollution case without impugning power. Even MRed
o LLDA has power to impose fines in exercise of function as regulatory and QJ body
 || Pacific Steam Laundry v LLDA (PAB on pollution cases, but no bar on LLDA)
 || Alexandra Condominium v LLDA: power to impose fines || RA 4850, Sec 4-a
 LLDA entitled to compensation for damages resulting from failure to
meet established water and effluent standards
 || EO 927, Sec 4(d) LLDA has power to make, alter, modify orders requiring
discontinuance of pollution specifying the conditions and time within which
such discontinuance must be accomplished
 Sec 4(i): issue orders or decsisions to compel compliance with provisions
of EO and implementing rules after notice, hearing
 || LLDA v CA: LLDA to carry out and make effective the declared national policy
of promoting, accelerating dev’t and growth of Laguna Lake and surrounding
provinces
 How could LLDA perform function if for every act or violation
committed, LLDA required to resort to some other authority for proper
remedy or penalty
 Intendment of law: clothe LLDA with express powers and those which are
implied or incidental but nonetheless necessary or essential for full and proper
implementation of purposes, functions
o GRANTED. Reversed, set aside. Orders reinstated, affirmed
Judicial determination of sufficiency of standards

Interest of law and order

Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro

Public Interest

People v Rosenthal, Osmena

Justice, equity, substantial merits of the case

International Hardwood v Pangil Federation