Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
14Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Admin Law case digests

Admin Law case digests

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,563 |Likes:
Published by anna bee

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: anna bee on Aug 16, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/05/2013

pdf

 
G.R. No. L-34674 | October 26, 1931 | MAURICIO CRUZ,
petitioner-appellant, vs.
STANTON YOUNGBERG, Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry,
respondent-appellee. |
OSTRAND, J.:FACTS
:Petitioner Mauricio Cruz brought a petition before the Court of First Instance of Manila for theissuance of a writ of mandatory injunction against the respondent Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry, Stanton Youngberg, requiring him to issue a permit for the landing of tenlarge cattle imported by the petitioner and for the slaughter thereof. Cruz attacked theconstitutionality of Act No. 3155, which at present prohibits the importation of cattle fromforeign countries into the Philippine Islands. He also asserted that the sole purpose of theenactment was to prevent the introduction of cattle diseases in the country. The respondent asserted that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a causeof action. The demurrer was based on two reasons: (1) that if Act No. 3155 was declaredunconstitutional and void, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief demandedbecause Act No. 3052 would automatically become effective and would prohibit therespondent from giving the permit prayed for; and (2) that Act No. 3155 was constitutionaland, therefore, valid. The CFI dismissed the complaint because of petitioner’s failure to fileanother complaint. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. Youngberg contended that even if Act No. 3155 be declared unconstitutional by the factalleged by the petitioner in his complaint, still the petitioner can not be allowed to importcattle from Australia for the reason that, while Act No. 3155 were declared unconstitutional,Act No. 3052 would automatically become effective.
ISSUES
:1.WON Act No. 3155 is unconstitutional2.WON the lower court erred in not holding that the power given by Act No. 3155 to theGovernor-General to suspend or not, at his discretion, the prohibition provided in theact constitutes an unlawful delegation of the legislative powers3.WON Act No. 3155 amended the Tariff Law
RULING
:
1.
No. An unconstitutional statute can have no effect to repeal former laws or parts of lawsby implication. The court will not pass upon the constitutionality of statutes unless it isnecessary to do so. Aside from the provisions of Act No. 3052, Act 3155 is entirely valid. The latter was passed by the Legislature to protect the cattle industry of the countryand to prevent the introduction of cattle diseases through importation of foreign cattle.It is now generally recognized that the promotion of industries affecting the publicwelfare and the development of the resources of the country are objects within thescope of the police power. The Government of the Philippine Islands has the right to theexercise of the sovereign police power in the promotion of the general welfare and thepublic interest. At the time the Act No. 3155 was promulgated there was reasonablenecessity therefore and it cannot be said that the Legislature exceeded its power inpassing the Act.
2.
No. The true distinction is between the delegation of power to make the law, whichnecessarily involves discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring an authority ordiscretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. Thefirst cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made. There is no unlawfuldelegation of legislative power in the case at bar.
 
3.
No. It is a complete statute in itself. It does not make any reference to the Tariff Law. Itdoes not permit the importation of articles, whose importation is prohibited by the Tariff Law. It is not an amendment but merely supplemental to Tariff Law.
G.R. No. 118712 | October 6, 1995 | LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
petitioner, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO L. YAP, HEIRS OF EMILIANO F. SANTIAGO,AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
respondents
.
 
| FRANCISCO,R.,
 J.:
FACTS
 The nature of the case is the consolidation of two separate petitions for review filed byDepartment of Agrarian Reform and Land Bank of the Philippines, assailing the Court of Appeal’s decision, which granted private respondents' petition for
Certiorari
and
Mandamus.
Pedro Yap, Heirs of Emiliano Santiago, Agricultural Management and DevelopmentCorporation or AMADCOR (private respondents)
 
are landowners whose landholdings wereacquired by the DAR and subjected to transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657). Aggrieved by the alleged lapses of the DARand the Landbank with respect to the valuation and payment of compensation for their land,private respondents filed with the Supreme Court a petition questioning the validity of DARAdministrative Order No. 6 (1992)
 
and No. 9 (1990),
 
and sought to compel the DAR toexpedite the pending summary administrative proceedings to finally determine the justcompensation of their properties, and the Landbank to deposit in cash and bonds theamounts respectively "earmarked", "reserved" and "deposited in trust accounts" for privaterespondents, and to allow them to withdraw the same. The Supreme Court referred thepetition to CA for proper determination and disposition. The CA found the following facts undisputed:Respondents argued that Admin. Order No. 9 (1990) was issued in grave abuse of discretionamounting excess in jurisdiction because it permits the opening of trust accounts by theLandbank, in lieu of depositing in cash or bonds in an accessible bank designated by the DAR,the compensation for the land before it is taken and the titles are cancelled as provided underSection 16(e) of RA 6657. DAR and the Landbank merely "earmarked", "deposited in trust" or"reserved" the compensation in their names as landowners despite the clear mandate thatbefore taking possession of the property, the compensation must be deposited in cash or inbonds.On the other hand, petitioner DAR contended that Admin Order No. 9 is a valid exercise of itsrule-making power pursuant to Section 49 of RA 6657.
 
 The issuance of the "Certificate of Deposit" by the Landbank was a substantial compliance with Section 16(e) of RA 6657.Landbank averred that the issuance of the Certificates of Deposits is in consonance withCircular Nos. 29, 29-A and 54 of the Land Registration Authority where the words"reserved/deposited" were also used.
ISSUES
1. WON CA erred in declaring as null and void DAR Admin Order No. 9 (1990) insofar as itprovides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposit in cash or in bonds2. WON CA erred in holding that private respondents are entitled as a matter of right to theimmediate and provisional release of the amounts deposited in trust pending the finalresolution of the cases it has filed for just compensation.
 
RULING:
NO. Section 16 (e) of RA 6657 provides:Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. (e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no response from thelandowner, upon
the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds
in accordance with this Act, the DARshall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Registerof Deeds to issue a TCT in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.It is explicit that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds". Nowhere does itappear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form. There is noambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of the term"deposit". The conclusive effect of administrative construction is not absolute. Action of anadministrative agency may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial department if there is anerror of law, a grave abuse of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearlyconflicting with either the letter or the spirit of a legislative enactment.
 
 The function of promulgating rules and regulations may be legitimately exercised only for the purpose of carrying the provisions of the law into effect. The power of administrative agencies is thusconfined to implementing the law or putting it into effect. Corollary to this is thatadministrative regulations cannot extend the law and amend a legislative enactment,
 
forsettled is the rule that administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law. And in case there is a discrepancy between the basic law and an implementing ruleor regulation, it is the former that prevails.2. YES. To withhold the right of the landowners to appropriate the amounts already depositedin their behalf as compensation for their properties simply because they rejected the DAR'svaluation, and notwithstanding that they have already been deprived of the possession anduse of such properties, is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain. It is unnecessary todistinguish between provisional compensation under Section 16(e) and final compensationunder Section 18 for purposes of exercising the landowners' right to appropriate the same. The immediate effect in both situations is the same; the landowner is deprived of the use andpossession of his property for which he should be fairly and immediately compensated.Wherefore, petition is denied for lack of merit. Appealed decision is affirmed.
G.R. No. 109023 | August 12, 1998 | RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, EDELWINA DEPARUNGAO, VENUS M. POZON AND other similarly situated personnel of the LOCALWATER UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION (LWUA),
petitioners, vs.
COMMISSION ON AUDITAND LEONARDO L. JAMORALIN in his capacity as COA-LWUA CorporateAuditor,
respondents. |
PURISIMA,
 J.:
FACTS
:Petitioners are employees of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). On July 1, 1989,Republic Act No. 6758 "An Act Prescribing A Revised Compensation and Position ClassificationSystem in the Government and For Other Purposes", took effect. Section 12 of said lawprovides for the consolidation of allowances and additional compensation into standardizedsalary rates. Certain additional compensations, however, were exempted from consolidation.Prior to this, they were receiving honoraria as designated members of the LWUA BoardSecretariat and the Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee. To implement RA 6758,the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Corporate Compensation Circular

Activity (14)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
amun din liked this
Azalephi Siv liked this
Martin Margie liked this
ennayvuj liked this
Bolival Ako liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->