Jose Rizal Memorial State University - College of Law

Jose Rizal Memorial State University College of Law
Administrative Law Reviewer
INTRODUCTION I. Concept/definition of administrative law
-acts. Sugar /egulator Administration and /epublic 0lanters 1an+ #uestioned the decision of the CA which dismissed the petition of the former on the ground of lac+ of capacit to sue. Issue. 2&3 administrative agenc has onl such powers as expressl granted to it b law and those that are necessaril implied in the exercise thereof4 /56I37. The SC ruled in the negative. Administrative agenc has onl such powers as are expressl granted to it b law and those that are necessaril implied in the exercise thereof4 In this case, administrative agenc is $udiciall defined as 8government bod charged with the administering and implementing particular legislation9 examples are wor+ers compensation commissions and the li+e. The term 8agenc 9 includes an department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authorit or bureau. !. Test for determining administrative nat"re
The branch of public law that fixes the organization of the government and determines competence of authorities who execute the law and indicates to individual remedies for the violations of his rights. II. Scope of administrative law
Administrative law embraces all the law that controls, or is intended to control, the administrative operations of the government. III. Classification of administrative law A. That bod of statutes setting up or creating administrative agencies and endowing them with power and duties! B. That bod of agenc "made law, i.e., rules, regulations and orders promulgated in the exercise of #uasi"legislative and #uasi" $udicial functions! C. That bod of legal principles governing the acts of public agents which conflict with private rights! D. That bod of determinations, decisions and orders of administrative bodies made in the settlement of controversies arising in their particular fields. &rigin and development of administrative law Advantages of the administrative process NATURE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES I. Concept A. Definition of administrative agenc " An administrative agenc is defined as '(a) government bod charged with administering and implementing particular legislation. *xamples are wor+ers, compensation commissions, x x x and the li+e. x x x The term ,agenc , includes an department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authorit , board or bureau x x x .' Republic v. Court of Appeals 200 SCRA 226
:. ;andator < statutor re#uirement intended for the protection of the citizens and b a disregard of which their rights are in$uriousl affected! =. >irector < if no substantial right depend on it and no in$ur can result from ignoring it and purpose of legislature can be accomplished in a manner other than that prescribed and substantiall , the same results attained. C. Administrative f"nction# defined " Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carr out the 0olic of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agenc b the organic law of its existence In Re: Rodolfo Manzano 66 SCRA 2!6 -acts. It?s a petition file b $udge manzano allowing him to accept the appointment b executive order b the governor of ilocos sur /odolfo farinas as the member of ilocos norte provincial committee on $ustice created pursuant to presidential order. That his membership in committee will not in
I%. %.
1|Page

an wa amount to an abandonment to his present position as executive $udge of branch xix, /TC, first $udicial region and as a member of $udiciar . Issue. 2hat is an administrative agenc 4 D. /uling. Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carr out the 0olic of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agenc b the organic law of its existence The petition is denied. The Constitution prohibits the designation of members of the $udiciar to an agenc performing #uasi"$udicial or administrative functions. @Section :=, Article %III, Constitution.A Insofar as the term '#uasi"$udicial' is concerned, it has a fairl clear meaning and Budges can confidentl refrain from participating in the wor+ of an administrative agenc which ad$udicates disputes and controversies involving the rights of parties within its $urisdiction. The issue involved in this case is where to draw the line insofar as administrative functions are concerned. 'Administrative functions' as used in Section := refers to the executive machiner of government and the performance b that machiner of governmental acts. It refers to the management actions, determinations, and orders of executive officials as the administer the laws and tr to ma+e government effective. There is an element of positive action, of supervision or control. In the dissenting opinion of Bustice 7utierrez. Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carr out the polic of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrative agenc b the organic law of its existence 'we can readil see that membership in the 0rovincial or Cit Committee on Bustice would not involve an regulation or control over the conduct and affairs of individuals. 3either will the Committee on Bustice promulgate rules and regulations nor exercise an #uasi" legislative functions. Its wor+ is purel advisor . A member of the $udiciar $oining an stud group which concentrates on the administration of $ustice as long as the group merel deliberates on problems involving the speed disposition of cases particularl those involving the poor and need litigants" or detainees, pools the expertise and experiences of the members, and $"%&ic office# defined in re&ation to administrative &a' "ernandez vs Sto. #omas 2!$ SCRA %! -acts. In this 0etition for Certiorari, 0rohibition and ;andamus with 0ra er for a Temporar /estraining &rder, petitioners Salvador C. -ernandez and Anicia ;. de 6ima assail the validit of /esolution 3o. CD"EF:G of the Civil Service Commission and the authorit of the Commission to issue the same. 0etitioner -ernandez was serving as >irector of the &ffice of 0ersonnel Inspection and Audit while petitioner de 6ima was serving as >irector of the &ffice of the 0ersonnel /elations, both at the Central &ffice of the Civil Service Commission in Huezon Cit , ;etropolitan ;anila. 2hile petitioners were so serving, /esolution 3o. CD"EF:G signed b public respondents 0atricia A. Sto. Tomas and /amon *reneta, Br., Chairman and Commissioner, respectivel , of the Commission, was issued . Issues . @:A2hether or not the Civil Service Commission had legal authorit to issue /esolution 3o. CD"EF:G to the extent it merged the &CSS (&ffice of Career S stems and Standards), the &0IA (&ffice of 0ersonnel Inspection and Audit) and the &0/ (&ffice of 0ersonnel /elations), to form the />& (/esearch and >evelopment &ffice)! and @=A2hether or not /esolution 3o. CD"EF :G violated petitioners, constitutional right to securit of tenure. /uling. 0ublic office is fre#uentl used to refer to the right, authorit and dut , created and conferred b law, b which, for a given period either fixed b law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government, to be exercised b that individual for the benefit of the public @radlapsbipA *xamination of the foregoing statutor provisions reveals that the &CSS, &0*/A and &//, and as well each of the other &ffices, consist of aggregations of >ivisions, each of which >ivisions is in turn a grouping of Sections. *ach Section, >ivision and &ffice comprises groups of positions within the agenc called the Civil Service Commission, each group being entrusted with a more or less definable function or functions these functions are related to one another, each of them being embraced b a common or limits itself to recommendations which ma be adopted or re$ected b those who have the power to legislate or administer the particular function involved in their implementation.
2|Page

general sub$ect matter. These offices relate to the internal structure of the Commission. The ob$ectives sought b the Commission in enacting /esolution 3o. CD" EF:G were described in that /esolution in broad terms as 'effect(ing) changes in the organization to streamline (the Commission,s) operations and improve deliver of service.' These changes in internal organization were rendered necessar b , on the one hand, the decentralization and devolution of the Commission,s functions effected b the creation of fourteen @:DA /egional &ffices and ninet "five @CIA -ield &ffices of the Commission throughout the countr , to the end that the Commission and its staff ma be brought closer ph sicall to the government emplo ees that the are mandated to serve. 3.1. 2e @SCA note, firstl , that appointments to the staff of the Commission are not appointments to a specified public office but rather appointments to particular positions or ran+s. Thus a person ma be appointed to the position of >irector III or >irector I%! or to the position of Attorne I% or Attorne %! or to the position of /ecords &fficer I or /ecords &fficer II! and so forth. In the instant case, petitioners were each appointed to the position of >irector I%, without specification of an particular office or station. The same is true with respect to the other persons holding the same position or ran+ of >irector I% of the Commission. E. Reasons for creation of administrative agencies ( Re(es vs Caneba /uling. '@TAhe thrust of the related doctrines of primar administrative $urisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carr out their functions and discharge their responsibilities within the specialized areas of t0eir respective competence . Acts of an administrative agenc must not casuall be overturned b a court, and a court should as a rule not substitute its $udgment for that of the administrative agenc acting within the perimeters of its own competence.' 'lue 'ar Coconut .0il. 1s #antuico 2% *ul( %$$ /uling. The petitioners also #uestion the respondents, authorit to audit them. The contend that the are outside the ambit of respondents, 'audit' power which is confined to government"owned or controlled corporations. This argument has no merit. Section = @:A of Article IJ"> of the Constitution provides that 'The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authorit and dut to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenues and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and propert , owned or held in trust b or pertaining to, the 7overnment, or an of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including government"owned or controlled corporation with original charters, and on a post"audit basis. x x x @dA such nongovernmental entities receiving subsid or e#uit directl or indirectl from or through the 7overnment which are re#uired b law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsid or e#uit .' @Italics suppliedA The Constitution formall embodies the long established rule that private entities who handle government funds or subsidies in trust ma be examined or audited in their handling of said funds b government auditors.
&ianga 'a( &ogging) Inc. vs *udge +nage 6 *ul( %$, /uling. As recentl stressed b the Court, 'in this era of clogged court doc+ets, the need for specialized administrative boards or commissions with the special +nowledge, experience and capabilit to hear and determine promptl disputes on technical matters or essentiall factual matters, sub$ect to $udicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion, has become well nigh indispensable. Solid -omes vs .a(a/al 2% August %$% /uling. As a result of the growing complexit of the modern societ , it has become necessar to create more and more administrative bodies to help in the regulation of its ramified activities. Specialized in the particular fields assigned to them, the can deal with the problems thereof with more expertise and dispatch than can be expected from the legislature or the courts of $ustice.
E.
T )es of administrative agencies
:. Those created to function in situations wherein the government is offering some gratuit , grant, or special privilege! @SSS, 7SIS,0A&A =. Those set up to function in situations wherein the government is see+ing to carr on certain functions of government! @1I/, 6/A, 1oC, 1IA E. Those set up to function in situations wherein the government is performing some business service for the public! @1ureau of 0osts, 03/, ;2SA D. Those set up to function in situations wherein the government is see+ing to regulate business affected with public interest! @6T-/1, */1, K65/1A
3|Page

I. Those set up to function in situations wherein the government is see+ing under the police power to regulate private business and individuals! @;T/C1, 7A1, >>1A L. Those agencies to set up to function in situations wherein the government is see+ing to ad$ust individual controversies because of some strong social polic involved. @36/C, *CC, >A/, C&AA
D.
>efinition of Administration " 4S vs 5orr 2 .0il 332
-acts. >orr is the owner of newspaper 8manila freedom9 charge with the crime of libel together with *duard &?1rian. F. Re&ation %et'een administrative agencies and co"rts The defendants were tried and found guilt of the offense charged in the complaint, and each was sentenced to six months? imprisonment at hard labor and a fine of M:,GGG, 5nited States currenc . -rom this $udgment the defendants have appealed to this court. >uring the course of the proceedings a motion was made b the defendants as+ing that the be granted a trial b $ur , as provided for in Article :::, section =, of the Constitution of the 5nited States, and under the sixth amendment to the Constitution, which motion was denied b the court, and an exception was also ta+en to this ruling. Issue . The issue is to determine whether these provisions of the Constitution of the 5nited States relating to trials b $ur are in force in the 0hilippine Islands. /uling. Administration is the aggregate of those persons in whose hands the reins of government are for the time being. :. That while the 0hilippine Islands constitute territor which has been ac#uired b and belongs to the 5nited States, there is a difference between such territor and the territories which are a part"of the 5nited States with reference to the Constitution of the 5nited States. =. That the Constitution was not extended here b the terms of the treat of 0aris, under which the 0hilippine Islands were ac#uired from Spain. 1 the treat the status of the ceded territor was to be determined b Congress. E. That the mere act of cession of the 0hilippines to the 5nited States did not extend the Constitution here, except such parts as fall within the general principles of fundamental limitations in favor of personal rights formulated in the Constitution and its amendments, and which exist rather b inference and the general spirit of the Constitution, and except those express provisions of the Constitution which prohibit Congress from passing laws in their contravention under an circumstances! that the provisions contained in
Administrative agencies have certain #uasi"$udicial powers which allows them to interpret and appl rules and regulations. -indings of these administrative agencies are rendered conclusive on the courts. G. Administrative frame'or* of t+e $+i&i))ines ,E-ec"tive Order No. ./.0 Iron and Steel Aut0orit( vs CA 2!% SCRA 23$ :. >efinition of 7overnment of the /epublic of the 0hils. " refers to the corporate governmental entit through which the functions of government are exercised throughout the 0hilippines, including, save as the contrar appears from the context, the various arms through which political authorit is made effective in the 0hilippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the provincial, cit , municipal or baranga subdivisions or other forms of local government. =. >efinition of Agenc of the government " refers to an of the various units of the 7overnment, including a department, bureau, office, instrumentalit , or government"owned or controlled corporations, or a local government or a distinct unit therein. E. >efinition of Instrumentalit " refers to an agenc of the 3ational 7overnment, not integrated within the department framewor+ vested within special functions or $urisdiction b law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and en$o ing operational autonom , usuall through a charter. This term includes regulator agencies, chartered institutions and government"owned or controlled corporations.
4|Page

the Constitution relating to $ur trials do not fall within either of these exceptions, and, conse#uentl , the right to trial b $ur has not been extended here b the mere act of the cession of the territor . D. That Congress has passed no law extending here the provision of the Constitution relating to $ur trials, nor were an laws in existence in the 0hilippine Islands, at the date of their cession, for trials b $ur , and conse#uentl there is no law in the 0hilippine Islands entitling the defendants in this case to such trial! that the Court of -irst Instance committed no error in overruling their application for a trial b $ur The act of Congress of Bul :, :CG=, entitled 8An Act temporaril to provide for the administration of the affairs of civil government in the 0hilippine Islands, and for other purposes,9 in section I extends to the 0hilippine Islands nearl all of the provisions of the Constitution +nown as the 1ill of /ights. 1ut there was excepted from it the provisions of the Constitution relating to $ur trials contained in section =, Article :::, and in the sixth amendment. The court reach the conclusion that the 0hilippine Commission is a bod expressl recognized and sanctioned b act of Congress, having the power to pass laws, and has the power to pass the libel law under which the defendants where convicted. /uling. 3o. '*xcept for such offices as are created b the Constitution, the creation of public offices is primaril a legislative function, In so far as the legislative power in this respect is not restricted b constitutional provisions, it is supreme, and the legislature ma decide for itself what offices are suitable, necessar , or convenient. 2hen in the exigencies of government it is necessar to create and define duties, the legislative department has the discretion to determine whether additional offices shall be created, or whether these duties shall be attached to and become ex"officio duties of existing offices. An office created b the legislature is wholl within the power of that bod , and it ma prescribe the mode of filling the office and the powers and duties of the incumbent, and, if it sees fit, abolish the office.' 1. Abolition of administrative agencies 'usaca( v. 'uenaventura %3 .0il ,$, -acts. 0laintiff ;arcelino A. 1usaca was a dul "appointed and #ualified pre" war toll collector, classified as permanent b the Civil Service Commission, but was laid off due to the destruction of the bridge caused b flood. 2hen the bridge was reconstructed and reopened to traffic, 1usaca notified the respondent 0rovincial Treasurer of his intention and readiness to resume his duties, but he was refused reinstatement. Issue. 2hether or not the total destruction of the bridge abolished the position of toll collector. Keld. The SC ruled in the negative. All offices created b statute are more or less temporar , transitor or precarious in that the are sub$ect to the power of the legislature to abolish them. 1ut this is not sa ing that the rights of the incumbents of such positions ma be impaired while the offices exist, except for cause. 5e la &lana v. Alba 2 SCRA 2%!
II.
Creation, reorganization, and abolition of administrative agencies A. Creation of administrative agencies +ugenio vs CSC 2!3 SCRA %6
-acts. 0etitioner is the >eput >irector of the 0hilippine 3uclear /esearch Institute. She applied for a Career *xecutive Service @C*SA *ligibilit and a C*S& ran+, &n August =, :CCE, she was given a C*S eligibilit . &n September :I, :CCE, she was recommended to the 0resident for a C*S& ran+ b the Career *xecutive Service 1oard. All was not to turn well for petitioner. &n &ctober :, :CCE, respondent Civil Service Commission= passed /esolution 3o. CEDEIC. The resolution became an impediment to the appointment of petitioner as Civil Service &fficer, /an+ I%. Issue. 2&3 the CSC had the power to abolish the career executive service board.
-acts. The petitioners #uestioned the constitutionalit of the Budiciar /eorganization Act of :CNG b imputing the lac+ of good faith in its enactment and characterizing as an undue delegation of legislative power to the president his authorit to fix compensation and allowance of the $ustices and $udges thereafter appointed and the determination of the date when the reorganization shall be deemed completed. &n the other hand, the solicitor general interposed a defense of legitimate exercise of the power vested in the 1atasang 0ambansa.
5|Page

Issue. 2&3 the enactment into law of 10 :=C was done in good faith. /uling. Oes, it was done in good faith and is valid. This conclusion flows from the fundamental proposition that the legislature ma abolish courts inferior to the Supreme Court and therefore ma reorganize them territoriall or otherwise thereb necessitating new appointments and commissions. Section =, Article %III of the Constitution vests in the 3ational Assembl the power to define, prescribe and apportion the $urisdiction of the various courts, sub$ect to certain limitations in the cage of the Supreme Court. Crisostomo v. Court of Appeals 22$ SCRA 3!
C.
/eorganization of administrative agencies :. /eorganization, defined
6ational &and #itles and 5eeds Registration Administration vs CSC 22 SCRA !2
-acts. 0resident -erdinand *. ;arcos issued 0.>. 3o. :ED: converting the 0hil College of Commerce into a 0ol technic 5niversit , defining its ob$ectives, organizational structure and functions, and expanding its curricular offerings. Issue. 2hether or not 0.>. :ED: did not abolish but onl former 0CC into what is now the 050. changed, the
Keld. 3o, what too+ place was a change in academic status of the educational institution not in its corporate life. 2hen the purpose is to abolish a department or an office or an organization and to replace it with another one, the lawma+ing authorit sa s so. 3either the addition of a new course offerings nor changes in its existing structure and organization bring about the abolition of an educational institution and the creation of a new one onl an express declaration to that effect b the lawma+ing authorit will. 8Stand transferred9 simpl means that lands transferred to the 0CC were to be understood as transferred to the 0CC were to be understood as transferred to the 050 as the new name of the institution. 1ut these are hardl indicia of an intent to abolish an existing institution and to create a new one. 3ew course offerings can be added to the curriculum of a school without affecting its legal existence. 3or will changes in its existing structure and organization bring about its abolition and the creation of a new one. &nl an express declaration to that effect b the lawma+ing authorit will.
-acts. he records show that in :CFF, petitioner 7arcia, a 1achelor of 6aws graduate and a -irst grade civil service eligible was appointed >eput /egister of >eeds %II under permanent status. Said position was later reclassified to >eput /egister of >eeds III pursuant to 0> :I=C, to which position, petitioner was also appointed under permanent status up to September :CND. She was for two ears, more or less, designated as Acting 1ranch /egister of >eeds of ;e caua an, 1ulacan. 1 virtue of *xecutive &rder 3o. LDC @which too+ effect on -ebruar C, :CN:A which authorized the restructuring of the 6and /egistration Commission to 3ational 6and Titles and >eeds /egistration Administration and regionalizing the &ffices of the /egisters therein, petitioner 7arcia was issued an appointment as >eput /egister of >eeds II on &ctober :, :CND, under temporar status, for not being a member of the 0hilippine 1ar. She appealed to the Secretar of Bustice but her re#uest was denied. 0etitioner 7arcia moved for reconsideration but her motion remained unacted. &n &ctober =E, :CND, petitioner 7arcia was administrativel charged with Conduct 0re$udicial to the 1est Interest of the Service. 2hile said case was pending decision, her temporar appointment as such was renewed in :CNI. In a ;emorandum dated &ctober EG, :CNL, the then ;inister, now Secretar , of Bustice notified petitioner 7arcia of the termination of her services as >eput /egister of >eeds II on the ground that she was 'receiving bribe mone '. Said ;emorandum of Termination which too+ effect on -ebruar C, :CNF, was the sub$ect of an appeal to the Inter"Agenc /eview Committee which in turn referred the appeal to the ;erit S stems 0rotection 1oard @;S01A. Issue. 2hether or not membership in the 1ar, which is the #ualification re#uirement prescribed for appointment to the position of >eput /egister of >eeds under Section D of *xecutive &rder 3o. LDC @/eorganizing the 6and /egistration Commission @6/CA into the 3ational 6and Titles and >eeds /egistration Administration or 3A6T>/AA should be re#uired of and/or applied onl to new applicants and not to those who were alread in the service of the 6/C as deput register of deeds at the time of the issuance and implementation of the abovesaid *xecutive &rder.
6|Page

/uling. If the newl created office has substantiall new, different or additional functions, duties or powers, so that it ma be said in fact to create an office different from the one abolished, even though it embraces all or some of the duties of the old office it will be considered as an abolition of one office and the creation of a new or different one. The same is true if one office is abolished and its duties, for reasons of econom are given to an existing officer or office. *xecutive &rder 3o. LDC was enacted to improve the services and better s stematize the operation of the 6and /egistration Commission. A reorganization is carried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of econom or to ma+e bureaucrac more efficient. To this end, the re#uirement of 1ar membership to #ualif for +e positions in the 3A6T>/A was imposed to meet the changing circumstances and new development of the times. 0rivate respondent 7arcia who formerl held the position of >eput /egister of >eeds II did not have such #ualification. It is thus clear that she cannot hold an +e position in the 3I6T>/A. The additional #ualification was not intended to remove her from office. /ather, it was a criterion imposed concomitant with a valid reorganization measure. III. 0ower of control, supervision and investigation b the 0resident A. *xecutive power, defined Marcos vs Manglapus ,, SCRA 66$ The issue is basicall one of power. whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted b the Constitution, the 0resident ma prohibit the ;arcoses from returning to the 0hilippines. 2hether or not the 0resident has the power under the Constitution, to bar the ;arcoses from returning to the 0hilippines. Then, we shall determine, pursuant to the express power of the Court under the Constitution in Article %III, Section :, whether or not the 0resident acted arbitraril or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac+ or excess of $urisdiction when she determined that the return of the ;arcoses to the 0hilippines poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare and decided to bar their return. The case for petitioners is founded on the assertion that the Tight of the marcose?s to return to the 0hilippines is guaranteed under the following provisions of the 1ill of /ights, to wit. Section :. 3o person shall be deprived of life, libert , or propert without due process of law, nor shall an person be denied the e#ual protection of the laws. /espondents argue for the primac of the right of the State to national securit over individual rights. In support thereof, the cite Article II of the Constitution, to wit. Section D. The prime dut of the 7overnment is to serve and protect the people. The 7overnment ma call upon the people to defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens ma be re#uired, under conditions provided b law, to render personal, militar , or civil service. The parties are in agreement that the underl ing issue is one of the scopes of presidential power and its limits. *xecutive power As stated above, the Constitution provides that '(t)he executive power shall be vested in the 0resident of the 0hilippines.' @Art. %II, Sec. :). Kowever, it does not define what is meant b 'executive power' although in the same article it touches on the exercise of certain powers b the 0resident, i.e., the power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, the power to execute the laws, the appointing power, the powers under the commander"in"chief clause, the power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, the power to grant"amnest with the concurrence of Congress, the power to contract or guarantee foreign loans, the power to enter into treaties or international agreements, the power to submit the budget to Congress, and the power to address Congress (Art. %II, Secs. :D"=E). The inevitable #uestion then arises. b enumerating certain powers of the 0resident did the framers of the Constitution intend that the 0resident shall exercise those specific powers and no other4 Are these enumerated powers the breadth and scope of 'executive power'4 0etitioners advance the view that the 0resident,s powers are limited to those specificall enumerated in the :CNF Constitution. Thus, the assert. 'The 0resident has enumerated powers, and what is not enumerated is impliedl denied to her. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.' &n these premises, we hold the view that although the :CNF Constitution imposes limitations on the exercise of specific powers of the 0resident, it maintains intact what is traditionall considered as within the scope of 'executive power.' Corollar , the powers of the 0resident cannot be said to
7|Page

be limited onl to the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. In other words, executive power is more than the sum of specific powers so enumerated. It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government that is neither legislative nor $udicial has to be executive. The 0ower Involved The Constitution declares among the guiding principles that '(t)he prime dut of the 7overnment is to serve and protect the people' and that '(t)he maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, libert , and propert , and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the en$o ment b all the people of the blessings of democrac .' (Art. K, Secs. D and I.) Admittedl , service and protection of the people, the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, libert and propert , and the promotion of the general welfare are essentiall ideals to guide governmental action. 1ut such does not mean that the are empt words. Thus, in the exercise of presidential functions, in drawing a plan of government, and in directing implementing action for these plans, or from another point of view, in ma+ing an decision as 0resident of the /epublic, the 0resident has to consider these principles, among other things, and adhere to them. -aced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the ;arcoses to return to the 0hilippines, the 0resident is, under the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at a decision. ;ore than that, having sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, the 0resident has the obligation under the Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance the national interest. It must be borne in mind that the To the 0resident, the problem is one of balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. The power involved is the 0resident,s residual power to protect the general welfare of the people. It is founded on the dut of the 0resident, as steward of the people. /uling. As stated above, the Constitution provides that '(t)he executive power shall be vested in the 0resident of the 0hilippines.' @Art. %II, Sec. :). Kowever, it does not define what is meant b 'executive power' although in the same article it touches on the exercise of certain powers b the 0resident, i.e., the power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, the power to execute the laws, the appointing power, the powers under the commander"in"chief clause, the power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, the power to grant"amnest with the concurrence of Congress, the power to contract or guarantee foreign loans, the power to enter into treaties or international agreements, the power to submit the budget to Congress, and the power to address Congress (Art. %II, Secs. :D"=E). 7more t0an t0e sum of t0e po/ers enumerated8 1. 0ower of control, defined < power of the president to nullif , modif , alter or set aside the decisions of a subordinate. Section , Article 1II) %$, Constitution Section 12. The 0resident shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. Ke shall ensure that the laws be faithfull executed.
Carpio vs +9ecutive Secretar( 206 SCRA 2%0 -acts. The petitioner #uestioned the constitutionalit of /.A. LCFI otherwise +nown as the 030 &rganic law placing the 0hilippine 3ational 0olice under the reorganized >epartment of Interior and 6ocal 7overnment in pursuant to the provision of the constitution that the state shall establish and maintain one police force which is national in scope and civilian in character. The petitioner alleged that the said law limits onl the power of the 3ational 0olice Commission into an administrative control over the 030, thus, control remained with the >epartment Secretar under whom both the 030 and 3A0&6C&; were placed. Issue 2hether or not the control over the 030 is vested sole to the >epartment Secretar of the >I67. /uling The 0residential 0ower of control was held to mean the power of the 0resident to alter or modif or nullif or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the $udgment of the former with that of the latter. This 0residential power of control over the executive branch of government extends over all executive officers from Cabinet Secretar to the lowliest cler+ and has been held b us. Thus, and in short, the 0resident?s power of control is directl exercised b him over the members of the Cabinet who, in turn, and b his authorit ,
8|Page

control the bureaus and other offices under their respective $urisdictions in the executive department. action against him, except on appeal from a decision of the corresponding provincial board. Araneta vs :atmaitan 0 .0il 23$ -acts. The 0resident of the 0hilippines issued *xecutive &rders restricting the banning of trawl fishing from San ;iguel 1a . Kowever, a group of other trawl operators #uestioned the said executive orders alleging the same as null and void. Issue. 2&3 the executive orders in #uestion are null and void. Keld. Since the secretar of agriculture was empowered to regulate or ban trawl
fishing, the 0resident, in the exercise of his power of control, can ta+e over from him such authorit and issue the executive order to exercise it. The 0resident?s power of control means that if a cabinet secretar or a head of a bureau or agenc can issue rules and regulations, as authorized b law, the 0resident has the power not onl to modif or amend the same but can also supplant the rules b another set entirel different from those issued b his subordinate.
.elaez vs Auditor :eneral 2 SCRA 26% -acts. The 0resident of the 0hil., pursuant to section LN of the /evised Administrative code, issued *.& nos. CE to :=:,:=D and :=L to :=C creating municipalities. Kowever, *mmanuel 0elaez, as %ice 0resident of the 0hil and as a taxpa er instituted a writ of prohibition with prelim in$unction against the Auditor general from passing in audit an public funds. The petitioner alleges that executive orders are null and void, upon the ground Sec. LN has been impliedl repealed b /.A no =EFG and constitutes undue delegation of legislative power Issue. 2hether or not the *.& nos issued constitutes undue delegation of legislative power. Keld. Oes, the authorit to create municipal corporations is essentiall legislative in nature. Although congress ma delegate to another branch of the government the power to fill in the details in the execution, enforcement or administration of a law, it is essential, to forestall a violation of the separation of powers, the said law. a. be complete in itself" it must set forth the polic to be executed, carried out or implemented b the delegate! b. fix a standard" the limits of which are sufficientl determinate of determinable The power of control under this provision implies the right of the 0resident to interfere in the exercise of such discretion as ma be vested b law in the officers of the executive departments, bureaus, or offices of the national government, as well as to act in lieu of such officers. This power is denied b the Constitution to the *xecutive, insofar as local governments are concerned. 2ith respect to the latter, the fundamental law permits him to wield no more authorit than that of chec+ing whether said local governments or the officers thereof perform their duties as provided b statutor enactments. Kence, the 0resident cannot interfere with local governments, so long as the same or its officers act within the scope of their authorit . Ke ma not enact an ordinance which the municipal council has failed or refused to pass, even if it had thereb violated a dut imposed thereto b law, although he ma see to it that the corresponding provincial officials ta+e appropriate disciplinar action therefor. 3either ma he veto, set aside or annul an ordinance passed b said council within the scope of its $urisdiction, no matter how patentl unwise it ma be. Ke ma not even suspend an elective official of a regular municipalit or ta+e an disciplinar
C. >octrine of #ualified political agenc , defined < alter ego doctrine! 6oble;as vs Salas 6, SCRA !, -acts. It appears that on several occasions prior to :CLN, various land titles @Torrens titlesA covering lands situated within the 0rovince of /izal were amended on the basis of supposed corrective resurve s, b increasing the respective areas covered b said titles. The corresponding certifications of the verifications of these resurve s were issued b the 6and /egistration &ffice, headed then b petitioner 3oble$as, and subse#uentl approved b the court, in instances where the subdivision plans were complex, the action of the office being sufficient where the subdivision plans were simple. Allegedl , however, it turned out that the increases in said various amendments were far in excess of the respective corresponding real areas of the lands involve, so much so that even vast portions of lands and waters of the public domain not capable of appropriation b an private person or entit have been included within the expanded titles. 3oble$as contention. That the State is stopped to prosecute the accused because it used him as a prosecution witness in cases similar to this case and because -iscal 1en$amin K. A#uino, with the approval of the Secretar
9|Page

of Bustice, exonerated the defendant from an resurve s with expanded areas. criminal complicit in Mondano vs Silvosa %, .0il !3 -acts . The petitioner is the dul elected and #ualified ma or of the municipalit of ;ainit, province of Surigao. &n =F -ebruar :CID Consolacion %da. de ;osende filed a sworn complaint with the 0residential Complaints and Action Committee accusing him of @:A rape committed on her daughter Caridad ;osende! and @=A concubinage for cohabiting with her daughter in a place other than the con$ugal dwelling. &n L ;arch the Assistant *xecutive Secretar indorsed the complaint to the respondent provincial governor for immediate investigation, appropriate action and report. &n :G April the petitioner appeared before the provincial governor in obedience to his summons and was served with a cop of the complaint filed b the provincial governor with the provincial board. &n the same da , the provincial, governor issued Administrative &rder 3o. N suspending the petitioner from office. Thereafter, the 0rovincial 1oard proceeded to hear the charges preferred against the petitioner over his ob$ection. The petitioner pra s for a writ of prohibition with preliminar in$unction to en$oin the respondents from further proceeding with the hearing of the administrative case against him and for a declaration that the order of suspension issued b the respondent provincial governor is illegal and without legal effect. Issue . 2hether or not the department head as agent has the direct control and supervision over all bureaus and offices under his $urisdiction /uling . The department head as agent of the 0resident has direct control and supervision over all bureaus and offices under his $urisdiction as provided for in section FC@cA of the /evised Administrative Code, but he does not have the same control of local governments as that exercised b him over bureaus and, offices under his $urisdiction. 6i+ewise, his authorit to order the investigation of an act or conduct of an person in the service of an bureau or office under his department is confined to bureaus or offices under his $urisdiction and does not extend to local governments over which the 0resident exercises onl general supervision as ma be provided b law @section :G, paragraph :, Article %II of the ConstitutionA. If the provisions of section FC@cA of the /evised Administrative Code are to be construed as conferring upon the corresponding department head direct control, direction, and supervision over all local governments and that for that reason he ma order the investigation of an official of a local government for malfeasance in office, such interpretation would be contrar to the provisions of paragraph :, section :G, article %II, of the Constitution. In administrative law supervision means overseeing or the power or authorit of an officer to see that
As a matter of fact, Section NE of the /evised Administrative Code places him under the ,general supervision and control, of the >epartment of Bustice together with other prosecuting officers and under Section FD of the same Code, the Secretar of Bustice as ,>epartment Secretar shall assume the burden and responsibilit of all activities of the 7overnment under his control and supervision. Conse#uentl , the constitutional power of the 0resident of control of all executive departments, bureaus or offices @sec. :G, Art. %II, Constitution of the 0hilippinesA should be considered as embracing his office. Issue. Can the agent act for and in behalf of the principal.
/uling. The power of control . . . . implies the right of the 0resident @and
naturall of his alter egoA to interfere in the exercise of such discretion as ma be vested b law in the officers of the national government, as well as to act in lieu of such officers. The provisions of the existing law to the contrar notwithstanding, whenever a specific power, authorit , dut , function, or activit is entrusted to a chief of bureau, office, division or service, the same shall be understood as also conferred upon the proper >epartment Kead who shall have authorit to act directl in pursuance thereof, or to review, modif or revo+e an decision or action of said chief of bureau, office, division or service. Accordingl , the law confers upon the Secretar onl ,general supervision and control, ma not be construed as limiting or in an wa diminishing the pervasiveness of the Secretar ,s power of control which is constitutionall based, since he acts also as alter ego of the 0resident. Acts of t0e 7alter ego8 secretar( is presumed to be t0at of t0e president. >. >oes not include. :. the abolition or creation of an executive office! =. the suspension or removal of career executive officials or emplo ees without due process of law! E. the setting aside, modification, or supplanting of decisions of #uasi"$udicial agencies, including the office of the 0resident, on contested cases to have become final pursuant to law or to rules and regulations promulgated to implement the law! *. 0ower of supervision 6imitations on the power of control
10 | P a g e

subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them the former ma ta+e such action or step as prescribed b law to ma+e them perform these duties. Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modif or nullif or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the $udgment of the former for that of the latter. The power to oversee that the officials concerned
performs their dut and if the later fail or neglect to fulfill them, to ta+e such action or steps as prescribed b law to ma+e them perform their duties.
#aule vs Santos 200 SCRA 2 2 -acts. The -ederation of Associations of 1aranga Councils @-A1CA of Catanduanes decided to hold the election of +atipunan despite the absence of five @IA of its members, the 0rovincial Treasurer and the 0rovincial *lection Supervisor wal+ed out. The 0resident elect " /uperto Taule %ice" 0resident" Allan A#uino Secretar " %icente Avila Treasurer" -idel Bacob Auditor" 6eo Sales /espondent 6eandro 6 %erceles, 7overnor of Catanduanes sent a letter to respondent 6uis T. Santos, the Secretar of 6ocal 7overnment,PP protesting the election of the officers of the -A1C and see+ing its mullification in view of several flagrant irregularities in the manner it was conducted. /espondent Secretar issued a resolution nullif ing the election of the officers of the -A1C in Catanduanes held on Bune :N, :CNC and ordering a new one to be conducted as earl as possible to be presided b the /egional >irector of /egion % of the >epartment of 6ocal 7overnment. 0etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution but it was denied b respondent Secretar . Issue. 2hether or not the respondent Secretar has $urisdiction to entertain an election protest involving the election of the officers of the -ederation of Association of 1aranga Councils. Assuming that the respondent Secretar has $urisdiction over the election protest, whether or not he committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac+ of $urisdiction in nullif ing the election4 /uling. The Secretar of 6ocal 7overnment is not vested with $urisdiction to entertain an protest involving the election of officers of the -A1C. There is no #uestion that he is vested with the power to promulgate rules and regulations as set forth in Section === of the 6ocal 7overnment Code. 0residential power over local governments is limited b the Constitution to the exercise of general supervision 'to ensure that local affairs are administered according to law.' The general supervision is exercised b the 0resident through the Secretar of 6ocal 7overnment. -. 0ower of review of other executive officers, defined .0il. :amefo/l Commission vs IAC !6 SCRA 2%!
Rodriguez vs Montinola %! .0il %,3 -acts. An original action of certiorari instituted in the Supreme Court b the 0rovincial 7overnor and the members of the 0rovincial 1oard of 0angasinan to nullif the disapproval of the Secretar of -inance of their /esolution abolishing the positions of three special counsel in the province, to prohibit the provincial treasurer and the district from pa ing the salaries if three special counsel and to prevent the latter from continuing to occup and exercise the functions incident to their positions. Issue. 2hether or not the said resolution re#uires the approval of the Secretar of -inance. /uling. The court granted the petition. 2hile the Secretar of -inance has the power to revise their budget, local governments should be given a large degree of freedom in determining for themselves the propriet and wisdom of the expenses that the ma+e provided that the expenses contemplated are within their financial capacit . The supervisor authorit of the 0resident over local governments is limited b the phrase 8as provided b law9 and where there is no law in accordance with which said authorit is to be exercised, it must be exercised in accord with general principles of law. The Secretar of -inance is an official of the central government, not of provincial governments, which are distinct and separate. The power of general supervision granted to the 0resident over local governments, in the absence of an express provision of law, ma not generall be interpreted to mean that hem or his alter ego the Secretar of -inance, ma direct the form and manner in which local officials shall perform or compl with their duties. -urther, the court ruled that the act of the provincial board in suppressing the positions of three special counsel not being contrar to law, nor an act of maladministration, nor an act of abuse, the same ma not be disapproved b the Secretar of -inance acting as a representative of he 0resident b virtue of the latter?s power of general supervision over local governments.
11 | P a g e

/uling. The power of review is exercised to determine whether it is necessar to correct the acts of the subordinate. If such correction is necessar , it must be done b the authorit exercising control over the subordinate or through the instrumentalit of the courts of $ustice, unless the subordinate motu proprio corrects himself after his error is called to his attention b the official exercising the power of supervision and review over him. $O3ERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES I. >octrine of separation of powers A. >istribution of powers of government. :. 4egis&ative )o'er is the power to propose, enact, amend and repeal laws. =. E-ec"tive )o'er is the power to execute and implement the laws. E. 5"dicia& )o'er is the power of the courts of $ustice to settle actual controversies involving legal rights which are demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac+ or excess of $urisdiction. The >octrine of Separation of 0owers, though not mentioned an where b such name in the :CNF Constitution, can be inferred from its provisions. The heart of the doctrine is that the basic powers of the government must be +ept separate from each other, each power being under the principal control of a branch of government. The legislative power is granted to the Congress, the executive power to the 0resident, and the $udicial power to the Budiciar . The 0resident as Chief *xecutive exercises control over agencies and offices which perform rule"ma+ing or ad$udicator functions. If the agenc is created b Congress, consider the law that created it. If the law is silent as to the control which the 0resident ma exercise, the 0resident can onl supervise, i.e., to see to it that the laws are faithfull executed. 1. 0urpose of doctrine concert that the can wor+ with other departments and conduct chec+s and balances regarding the actions of each. 1asis for blending of powers. 1. 3o function is capable of exact definition. >escription is onl a generalization concerning its principal but not all of its characteristics! 2. The Constitution allocated to the several departments specific powers which in their nature did not ordinaril pertain to them. 3. 0ractical necessit of exercising powers incidental to those that are express or are appropriate to it, even if such incidental powers should fall within the categor of functions pertaining to another department. II. >octrine of non"delegation of powers " what has been delegated cannot be delegated. A. 7eneral rule 4S vs 'arrias .0il 32,
/uling. &ne of the settled maxims in constitutional law is, that the power conferred upon the legislature to ma+e laws cannot be delegated b that department to an other bod or authorit . 2here the sovereign power of the State has located the authorit , there it must remain! and b the constitutional agenc alone the laws must be made until the constitution itself is changed. !. *xception to the general rule Calalang vs <illiams ,0 .0il ,26 -acts. Calalang, in his capacit as taxpa er #uestioned the constitutionalit of Commonwealth Act IDN. The Secretar of 0ublic wor+s and highwa s with the recommendation of the >irector of 0ublic 2or+s and the Chairman of the 3ational Traffic Commission promulgated a rule closing a certain road in ;anila for animal drawn vehicle for a specific time. The petitioner, in his contention, empowers the Secretar of 0ublic 2or+s with the recommendation of the >irector of 0ublic wor+s to legislate rules and laws relative to the regulation of traffic in the countr . -urther, the petitioner contended that such act is invalid delegation of legislative power.
So that the power of the government would not be concentrated in one department @one person or group of personsA that would lead to abuse. C. 1lending of powers < though each department has their own duties and functions, the nevertheless exercise the same in
12 | P a g e

&rder 3o. =G= dated Bune :C, :CNF. Section I@cA of the said executive order authorizes 6T-/1 'to determine, prescribe, approve and periodicall review and ad$ust reasonable fares, rates and other related charges, relative to the operation of public land transportation services provided b motorized vehicles.' Such delegation of legislative power to an administrative agenc is permitted in order to adapt to the increasing complexit of modern life. As sub$ects for governmental regulation multipl , so does the difficult of administering the laws. Kence, specialization even in legislation has become necessar . 7iven the tas+ of determining sensitive and delicate matters as route"fixing and rate"ma+ing for the transport sector, the responsible regulator bod is entrusted with the power of subordinate legislation. 2ith this authorit , an administrative bod and in this case, the 6T-/1 ma implement broad policies laid down in a statute b neither 8filling in' the details which the 6egislature ma neither have time nor competence to provide. Kowever, nowhere under the aforesaid provisions of law are the regulator bodies, the 0SC and 6T-/1 ali+e, authorized to delegate that power to a common carrier, a transport operator, or other public service. The authorit given b the 6T-/1 to the provincial bus operators to set a fare range over and above the authorized existing fare is illegal and invalid as it is tantamount to art undue delegation of legislative authorit . 0otestas delegata non delegari potest. 2hat has been delegated cannot be delegated. 7iven the complexit of the nature of the function of rate fixing and its far" reaching effects on millions of commuters, government must not relin#uish this important function in favor of those who would benefit and profit from the industr . American #obacco vs 5irector of .atents 6, SCRA 2$, :R6 &>26$03 ?ct. !) %,2 -acts. This is an original action in the Supreme Court for ;andamus with preliminar in$unction. 0etitioners herein, who have pending interference and cancellation proceedings, #uestions the validit of /ule :LN of the /evised /ules of 0ractice before the 0hilippine 0atent &ffice in Trademar+ Cases as amended which authorized the >irector of 0atents to designate an ran+ing official of said office to hear 8inter partes9 proceedings. ;oreover, the rule also provided that $udgment on the merits shall be personall and directl prepared b the >irector and signed b him. 0etitioners contend that the amendment made b the >irector on the /ule vesting hearing officers
The respondent public official asserted that such promulgation of rules is in connection with the powers vested to them b the said law. Issue. 2&3 the said constitute an invalid delegation of legislative power. /uling. The Supreme Court ruled that the said act is not an invalid delegation of power. The authorit therein conferred upon them and under which the promulgated the rules and regulations now complained of is not to determine what public polic demands but merel to carr out the legislative polic laid down b the 3ational Assembl in said Act, to wit, 'to promote safe transit upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets designated as national roads b acts of the 3ational Assembl or b executive orders of the 0resident of the 0hilippines' and to close them temporaril to an or all classes of traffic 'whenever the condition of the road or the traffic thereon ma+es such action necessar or advisable in the public convenience and interest.' The delegated power, if at all, therefore, is not the determination of what the law shall be, but merel the ascertainment of the facts and circumstances upon which the application of said law is to be predicated. To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads and to determine when and how long a national road should be closed to traffic, in view of the condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the re#uirements of public convenience and interest, is an administrative function which cannot be directl discharged b the 3ational Assembl , It must depend on the discretion of some other government official to whom is confided the dut of determining whether the proper occasion exists for executing the law. 1ut it cannot be said that the exercise of such discretion is the ma+ing of the law. C. 0rohibition against re"delegation! exceptions =M4 vs :arcia) *r. 23% SCRA 3$6 -acts. 0etitioner Q;5 #uestion the constitutionalit of the memoranda no. C="GGC issued b the >&TC and 6T-/1 which, among others, to authorize provincial bus and $eepne operators to increase or decrease the prescribed transportation fares without application there for with the 6T-/1 and without hearing and approval thereof b said agenc and other matters. Issue. 2&3 the ;emoranda issued is constitutional4 /uling. 0etition granted and held the memoranda 3o. C="GGC invalid. 6egislature delegated to the defunct 0ublic Service Commission the power of fixing the rates of public services. /espondent 6T-/1, the existing regulator bod toda , is li+ewise vested with the same under *xecutive
13 | P a g e

authorit to hear their cases was illegal and void because under the law, it is the >irector who should personall hear the cases of petitioners. Issue. 2hether or not the >irector has the power to delegate his functions. /uling . It has been held that the power conferred upon an administrative agenc to which the administration of a statute is entrusted to issue such regulations and orders as ma be deemed necessar or proper in order to carr out its purpose and provisions ma be an ade#uate source of authorit to delegate a particular function, unless b express provisions of the Act or b implication it has been withheld. There is no provision under the general law and /A :LI and :LL which prohibits such authorit insofar as the designation of hearing examiners is concerned. The nature of the power and authorit entrusted to the >irector suggests that the aforementioned laws should be construed so as to give aforesaid official the administrative flexibilit necessar for the prompt and expeditious discharge of his duties in the administration of said laws. Budgment and discretion will still be exercised b him since that the parties will still be able to adduce evidence. >ue process of law nor the re#uirements of fair hearing re#uire the actual ta+ing of testimon before the same officer who will ma+e the decision. III. 0owers of administrative agencies, in general A. Sources of powers of an administrative agenc :. Constitution < is the bod of rules and principles b which the fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and defined. =. Statutes < rules and regulations promulgated b the legislature. 1. 6imitations to the powers of an administrative agenc Matienzon vs Abellera 62 SCRA -acts . 0etitioners and private respondents are taxicab operators. 0rivate respondents filed their petitions with the respondent board for the legalization of their unauthorized taxicab units citing 0> :G: in order 8to eradicate the harmful and unlawful trade of clandestine operators, b replacing or allowing them to become legitimate and responsible operators. 0etitioners contend that the 1&T does not have $urisdiction over the case since the law provided a period of six @LA months which limited the time period to legitimize such clandestine operations b certain taxicab operators. /uling . There was nothing in said law to suggest the expiration of such powers granted to the 1&T, six @LA months after its promulgation. It is a settled principle of law that in determining whether a board or commission has a certain power, the authorit given should be liberall construed in the light of the purposes for which it was created, and that which is incidentall necessar to a full implementation of the legislative intent should be upheld as being germane to the law. -eirs of Santiago .astral vs Secretar( of .ublic <or@s 62 SCRA 6 % -acts . 0rivate respondent herein led a group of residents in filing a case against herein petitioner with the >epartment of 0ublic 2or+s and Communications for the reason that latter were encroaching a part of the river with their fishpond. The petitioner countered that the were given permission b the 1ureau of -isheries. The secretar of public wor+s designated the Cit *ngineer to conduct hearings on the same and eventuall ordered the same be removed. 0etitioners went to the Court of -irst Instance to assail the decision of the secretar and obtain an in$unction which were ruled in their favor. The secretar appealed the lower court?s decision. Issues . 2hether or not the secretar had the power to order an investigation and order the removal of the encroachment made on the river. /uling . Section : of /epublic Act =GIL is explicit in that 'An provision or provisions of law to the contrar notwithstanding, the construction or building of dams, di+es x x x which encroaches into an public navigable river, stream, coastal waters and an other navigable public waters or waterwa s x x x shall be ordered removed as public nuisance or as prohibited construction as herein provided x x x. The record shows that the petitioners, fishpond permit was issued in :CDN while the Act too+ effect on Bune E, :CIN. Therefore, the Secretar ,s more specific authorit to remove di+es constructed in fishponds whenever the obstruct or impede the free passage of an navigable river or stream or would cause inundation of agricultural areas @Section =, /epublic Act =GILA ta+es precedence. ;oreover, the power of the Secretar of 0ublic 2or+s to investigate and clear public streams from unauthorized encroachments and obstructions was granted as earl as Act EFGN of the old 0hilippine 6egislature and has been upheld b
Issues . 2hether or not the 1&T had the power to legalize illegal taxicab operators under 0> :G: even after the lapse of six @LA months.
14 | P a g e

this Court in the cases of 0alanca v. Commonwealth @LC 0hil. DDCA and ;eneses v. Commonwealth @LC 0hil. LDFA. The same rule was applied in 6ovina v. ;oreno, @supraA Santos etc., et al. v. Secretar of 0ublic 2or+s and Communications @:C SC/A LEFA. C. 3ature of the powers of administrative agencies initiall decide the removal, separation or suspension Commissioner is thereunder empowered to pass upon. which the
Huasi legislative < consists of issuance of rules and regulations! general applicabilit ! and prospective in application! Huasi Budicial < refers to orders, rewards or decision! applies to a specific situation! and determination of rights, privileges,etc. @fact finding investigateA >epends on the enabling statute >. *xpress and implied powers 1illegas vs Subido 30 SCRA !%$
Such power, furthermore, is sub$ect to an express limitation contained in Section :L@iA, namel , the saving clause '*xcept as otherwise provided b law.' Accordingl , it does not obtain at all in those instances where the power of removal is b law conferred on another bod alone, with no appeal therefrom, as in the case provided for in Section :D of /epublic Act =CL. &&5A v. Court of Appeals 23 SCRA 2%2 /uling . 66>A has a special charter that gives it the responsibilit to protect the inhabitants of the laguna la+e region from the deleterious effect of pollutants emanating from the discharge of wastes from the surrounding area. It has the power and authorit to issue a cease and desist order under /A DNIG and its amendator laws. ;oreover, the power to ma+e, alter, or modif orders re#uiring the discontinuance of pollution is also impliedl bestowed upon 66>A b *& C=F. 6ecessaril( implied in t0e e9ercise of its e9press po/ers It is a fundamental power rule that an administrative agenc has onl such power as are expressl granted to it b law, li+ewise an administrative agenc has also such power as are necessaril implied in the exercise of its express powers. .olloso vs :angan 332 SCRA ,20 -acts . 0etitioner was the pro$ect manager of 30C who filed a letter of explanation and appeal from the notice of disallowance issued b the C&A. The case stemmed from the hiring of a private law er, Att . Satorre, who was compensated b virtue of a contract entered b the 30C and the former. The C&A held several persons liable for pa ment of the amount due to said law er which included herein petitioner. 0etitioner contends the nature of services that was contracted with the law er. /espondent contends that there was a memorandum prohibiting the hiring of private law ers without following the necessar procedures re#uired b the C&A. Issue . 2as the issuance of the C&A circular valid and applicable in this case4 /uling . 2hat can be gleaned from a reading of the circular is that government agencies and instrumentalities are restricted in their hiring of private law ers to render legal services or handle their cases. 3o public
-acts . The commissioner on Civil Service issued a memorandum which provided for the procedure of removal and suspension of policemen. 0etitioner herein contends that the Civil Service Act impliedl repealed /A IIF which provides, among others, that charges against policemen shall be referred b the ma or and investigated b the cit or municipal council. Issues . 2hether or not /A ==LG impliedl repealed /A IIF and Sec. == of /A DGC so as to vest in the Commissioner of Civil Service exclusive and original $urisdiction to remove, suspend and separate policemen and emplo ees of the Cit of ;anila in competitive service. /uling . /epublic Act ==LG, particularl Section :L @iA thereof, is not inconsistent with the power of the Cit Council under /epublic Act IIF to decide cases against policemen and the power of the Cit ;a or of ;anila under Section == of /epublic Act DGC to remove cit emplo ees in the classified service. Section :L @iA of /epublic Act ==LG leaves no doubt that the removal, suspension or separation effected b said Cit Council or Cit ;a or, can be passed upon or reviewed b the Commissioner of Civil Service. 3onetheless, the Commissioner,s 'final authorit to pass upon the removal, separation and suspension' of classified service emplo ees presupposes, rather than negates, the power vested in another official to originall or
15 | P a g e

funds will be disbursed for the pa ment to private law ers unless prior to the hiring of said law er, there is a written conformit and ac#uiescence from the Solicitor 7eneral or the 7overnment Corporate Counsel. It bears repeating that the purpose of the circular is to curtail the unauthorized and unnecessar disbursement of public funds to private law ers for services rendered to the government. This is in line with the Commission on Audit?s constitutional mandate to promulgate accounting and auditing rules and regulations including those for the prevention and disallowance of irregular, unnecessar , excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures or uses of government funds and properties. 'laAuera vs Alcala 2%2 SCRA ! 'uenaseda vs "lavier 226 SCRA 6!2 -acts . 0etitioners are officials and emplo ees of several government departments and agencies who were paid incentive benefits for the ear :CC=, pursuant to *xecutive &rder 3o. =C= : @'*& =C='A, otherwise +nown as the Administrative Code of :CNF, and the &mnibus /ules Implementing 1oo+ % = of *& =C=. &n Banuar :C, :CCE, then 0resident -idel %. /amos @'0resident /amos'A issued Administrative &rder 3o. =C @'A& =C'A authorizing the grant of productivit incentive benefits for the ear :CC= in the maximum amount of 0:,GGG.GG E and reiterating the prohibition D under Section F I of Administrative &rder 3o. =LN @'A& =LN'A, en$oining the grant of productivit incentive benefits without prior approval of the 0resident. Section D of A& =C directed '(a)ll departments, offices and agencies which authorized pa ment of CO :CC= 0roductivit Incentive 1onus in excess of the amount authorized under Section : hereof (are hereb directed) to immediatel cause the return/refund of the excess within a period of six months to commence fifteen @:IA da s after the issuance of this &rder.' In compliance therewith, the heads of the departments or agencies of the government concerned, who are the herein respondents, caused the deduction from petitioners, salaries or allowances of the amounts needed to cover the alleged overpa ments. To prevent the respondents from ma+ing further deductions from their salaries or allowances, the petitioners have come before the Supreme Court to see+ relief. Issues . 2hether or not the issued Administrative &rders are valid. /uling . In accordance with rules, regulations, and standards promulgated b the Commission, the 0resident or the head of each department or agenc is authorized to incur whatever necessar expenses involved in the honorar recognition of subordinate officers and emplo ees of the government who b their suggestions, inventions, superior accomplishment, and other personal efforts contribute to the efficienc , econom , or other improvement of -acts . The petition see+s to nullif the &rder of the &mbudsman directing the preventive suspension of petitioners for violations of graft and corruption. Issues . 2hether or not the ombudsman has power to suspend government officials and emplo ees pending investigation of administrative complaints. /uling . The &mbudsman is vested with authorit to preventivel suspend officers as contained in sec. =D of the &mbudsman Act. government operations, or who perform such other extraordinar acts or services in the public interest in connection with, or in relation to, their official emplo ment.' @Chapter I, Subtitle A, 1oo+ %A. Conformabl , it is 'the 0resident or the head of each department or agenc who is authorized to incur the necessar expenses involved in the honorar recognition of subordinate officers and emplo ees of the government.' It is not the dut of the Commission to fix the amount of the incentives. Such function belongs to the 0resident or his dul empowered alter ego. RC.I vs 6#C 2 2 SCRA !22 7/3 CE=EF
*.
>iscretionar powers vs. ministerial dut Carino vs Capulong 222 SCRA 2%3
-acts. The petitioner filed the present case to annul the order issued b the respondent Budge and prevent the same in conducting further hearing thereof. A;A Computer College situated in >avao cit operated as an *ducational Institution without the re#uired authorization that must be secured first before the >*CS. As a conse#uence thereof, the >*CS issued an order for the closure of the said school with the aid of the militar as per agreement of the two governmental agencies. The private respondent filed a case before the /TC >avao to en$oin >*CS from implementing the said closure pending the approval of the re#uest to operate of the said school. The said re#uest was denied b the >*CS for not compl ing the re#uirements prescribed b the >epartment. The said case was dismissed,
16 | P a g e

undaunted the private respondent appeal before the CA which later affirmed the decision of the lower court. The private respondent then filed a petition before the /TC of ;a+ati with the same cause of action now using the organization of the parents of their students. The said court presided b the respondent Budge issued the preliminar in$unction sought b the private respondent. Kence, this petition. The private respondent contended that the same should be permitted to operate because >*CS is onl performing a ministerial power over the circumstance. The >*CS on the other hand contended that it exercises a discretionar power in pursuant to the provisions of law with respect to educational institutions. Issues . 2hether or not the public petitioner exercised ministerial or discretionar function. /uling . The SC ruled that the public petitioner exercised discretionar power with respect to the issuance of permit to operate as an educational institution. The Court further distinguished ministerial and discretionar powers. A purely ministerial act or duty to a discretional act, is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment , upon the propriet of the act done. If the law imposes a dut upon a public officer, and gives him the right to decide how or when the dut shall be performed, such dut is ministerial onl when the discharge of the same re#uires neither the exercise of official discretion nor $udgment. Accordingl , the granting of license to operate is vested upon the $udgment of the >*CS in securing the #ualit education that an educational institution should provide pursuant to the constitutional provision on education and the organic law authorizing said department to issue rules and regulations pertinent thereto. Mateo vs CA %6 SCRA 2$0 -acts . 0etitioners filed an action for the recover of a parcel of land. /TC ruled in favor the petitioner. Issued execution of $udgment for private respondent. 0etitioner filed relief from $udgment. Budge denied petition for relief from $udgment. 0etitioner filed mandamus. Issues . 2hether or not granting of the petition for relief from $udgment is ministerial4 /uling . ;inisterial dut in granting appeal. 1ut deciding on $udging on the appeal is discretionar . :. ;inisterial dut , defined " is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment @remed mandamusA =. >iscretionar power, defined " If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer, and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed @remed certiorariA E. Importance of +nowing distinction determine the remedies available D. < to
>elegation of ministerial and discretionar power
'inamira vs :arruc0o $$ SCRA 2! -acts . 0etitioner herein filed a #uo warranto see+ing reinstatement to the &ffice of 7eneral ;anager in the >epartment of Tourism. In :CNL, petitioner was designated b then ;inister 7onzales as 7eneral ;anager of the 0TA. The ;inister sought the approval of the president which was favored b the latter. In :CCG, respondent was the new Secretar of Tourism and as+ed for the resignation of the petitioner. The president issued a memorandum to 7arrucho designating him as 7eneral ;anager for the reason that petitioner was not appointed b the 0resident as re#uired b 0> ILD but onl b the Secretar of Tourism which was invalid. 0etitioner contends that he was validl appointed to the position since that the act of then ;inister 7onzales was also the act of the president which presumes that the act of the department heads were the act of the president. Issue . 2hether or not petitioner was validl appointed to his position. /uling . 0> ILD clearl provides that the appointment of the 7eneral ;anager of the 0hilippine Tourism Authorit shall be made b the 0resident of the 0hilippines, not b an other officer. Appointment involves the exercise of discretion, which because of its nature cannot be delegated. 6egall spea+ing, it was not possible for ;inister 7onzales to assume the exercise of that discretion as an alter ego of the 0resident. The appointment @or designationA of the petitioner was not a merel mechanical or ministerial
17 | P a g e

act that could be validl performed b a subordinate even if he happened as in this case to be a member of the Cabinet. An officer to whom a discretion is entrusted cannot delegate it to another, the presumption being that he was chosen because he was deemed fit and competent to exercise that $udgment and discretion, and unless the power to substitute another in his place has been given to him, he cannot delegate his duties to another. -. ;andator /prohibitor and permissive/director duties and powers Article 2 Civil Code Art. I. Acts executed against the provisions of mandator or prohibitor laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validit . :. ;andator /prohibitor statute, defined and effect -acts . 0etitioner was appl ing for a position for guidance counselor in a school @nav basedA which was denied even though she was #ualified. -iled a case against the militar officials concerned because of discrimination. The militar invo+ed the non"suabilit of the state. Issue . 2hether or not the non"suabilit clause applies. /uling . The principle of non"suabilit does not appl because the petitioner is #uestioning the personal $udgment or discretion of the officials not their office b virtue of their official capacit . =. *stoppel inapplicable Secretar , now ;inister of -inance @whose act is that of the 0resident unless reprobatedA, such decision or ruling is a valid exercise of discretion in the performance of official dut and cannot be controlled much less reversed b mandamus. A contrar view, whereb an stranger or informer would be allowed to usurp and control the official functions of the Commissioner of Internal /evenue would create disorder and confusion, if not chaos and total disruption of the operations of the government. Agpalo: A director statute is a statue which is permissive or discretionar in nature and merel outlines the act to be done in such a wa that no in$ur can result from ignoring it or that its purpose can be accomplished in a manner other that prescribed and substantiall the same result obtained. 7. *rror in the exercise of powers :. >octrine of non"suabilit of the state inapplicable < the state cannot be sued without its consent. S0auf vs CA % SCRA , 3 Sarina vs C"I of 'u@idnon 2! SCRA , 2 /uling. A mandator statute is a statute which commands either positivel that
something be done, or performed in a particular wa , or negativel that something be not done, leaving the person concerned no choice on the matter except to obe .
=.
0ermissive/director statute, defined and effect Meralco Securities Corp. vs Savellano , SCRA $0!
-acts. This case sought to set aside and annul the writ of mandamus issued b Budge Savellano, ordering petitioner ;eralco Securities Corporation to pa and petitioner Commissioner of Internal /evenue to collect from the former the amount of I:; b wa of alleged deficienc corporate income tax, plus interests and surcharges due thereon and to pa private respondents =IR of the total amount collectible as informers? reward. Issue. 2&3 the writ of mandamus is correct. /uling . Thus, after the Commissioner who is specificall charged b law with the tas+ of enforcing and implementing the tax laws and the collection of taxes has after a mature and thorough stud rendered his decision or ruling that no tax is due or collectible, and his decision is sustained b the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs C#A 23! SCRA 3!$ /uling . Illegal or invalid acts which are in excess of the $urisdiction of administrative agenc cannot bind the government, therefore estoppels does not appl . E. 0resumption of regularit
'lue 'ar Coconut vs #antuico 63 SCRA , 6
18 | P a g e

-acts. The 0resident issued 0> =E= creating the 0hilippine Coconut Authorit and established a coconut stabilization fund. The members were originall :: but reduced to F. Thereafter, respondent chairman of the coconut authorit initiated a special coconut end"user companies which included the petitioner. The chairman directed to collect short levies and overpriced subsidies to appl the same to settlement of short levies should the fail to pa . C&A agreed to release the subsid provided the post a bond e#ual to the amount of the disputed claim. 0etitioner contended that it is unacceptable that the C&A Chairman and Auditor had no $urisdiction. The caused the withholding of the subsid case endorsed to the court. Issue. 2&3 respondent C&A chairman ma disregard the 0CA rules and decision had became moot. /uling . The legal presumption is that official dut has been dul performed! and it is ,particularl strong as regards administrative agencies x x vested with powers said to be #uasi"$udicial in nature, in connection with the enforcement of laws affecting particular fields of activit , the proper regulation and/or promotion of which re#uires a technical or special training, ,aside from a good +nowledge and grasp of the overall conditions, relevant to said fields, containing in the nation. The conse#uent polic and practice underl ing our Administrative 6aw is that courts of $ustice should respect the findings of fact of said administrative agencies, unless there is absolutel no evidence in support thereof or such evidence is clearl , manifestl and patentl insubstantial. Acts done by an official are presumed to be valid. I%. Investigator 0owers A. Scope and extent of powers The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining facts of controvers is not $udicial function. To be considered such, the facult of receiving evidence and ma+ing factual conclusion in controvers ma be accompanied b the authorit of appl ing the law to those factual conclusions to the end that the controvers ma be decided or determined authoritivel , finall and definitel , sub$ect to such appeals or modes or review as ma be provided b law. The power to investigate does not carry with it the power to adjudicate. >oes the power of #uasi"legislative carries with it the power to investigate4 Quasi legislative may or may not possess the power to investigate depending on the law granting such power.
Carino vs C-R 20! SCRA !$3 -acts. ;anila public school teachers association @;0STAA and alliance of concerned teachers @ACTA undertoo+ what the described as 8mass concerted actions9 to dramatize and highlight their plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been bought to the latter?s attention. As a result of the said action, the >*CS secretar dismissed from the service one of the private respondents and the other nine were suspended. Issue. 2&3 the CK/ has $urisdiction over certain specific t pe of cases. =. 2on the CK/ can tr and decide cases as court of $ustice even #uasi" $udicial bodies do4 /uling . The function of receiving evidence and ascertaining facts of controvers is not a $udicial function. To be considered such, the facult of receiving evidence and ma+ing factual conclusion in controvers ma be accompanied b the authorit of appl ing the law to those factual conclusions. Court declared that CK/ has no $urisdiction on ad$udicator power over certain specific t pe of cases li+e alleged human rights violation involving civil or political rights. The most that ma be conceded to the CK/ in the wa of ad$udication power is that it ma investigate,.eg,. /eceive evidence and ma+e findings of facts as regard claimed human rights violation involving civil and political rights.
5e &eon : Investigator or in#uisitorial powers include the power to inspect, secure, re#uire the disclosure of information b means of accounts, records, reports, statements, testimon of witnesses, production of documents, or otherwise. The are conferred on practicall all administrative agencies. In fact, the investigator powers of administrative agencies, or their power and facilities to investigate, initiate action, and control the range of investigation, is one of the distinctive functions which sets them apart from the court.
19 | P a g e

Can an administrative agenc perform investigation with or without #uasi" legislative or #uasi"$udicial power4 !es. "or the reason that some agencies are formed for the sole purpose of investigation only #fact finding, etc.$ Concerned ?fficials of M<SS vs 1asAuez 2!0 SCRA 202 -acts. ;2SS launched the Angat 2ater Suppl &ptimization 0ro$ect in order to provide about :.E million liters of water dail to about E.N million people in the ;etropolitan area. The pro$ect was financed b funds loaned b the &verseas *conomic Coop -und of Bapan to the 3ational 7overnment. ;2SS caused the publication or an 8invitation for pre"#ualification and bids.9 The ma$or factors considered in the evaluation were the applicants? financial condition, technical #ualification and experience to underta+e the pro$ect. 0rivate /espondent 0hil. 6arge >iameter 0ressure 0ipes ;anufacturers? Association sent letters offering suggestions on the technical specifications. Thereafter E lowest bidders for the pro$ect were +nown 01AC"CST* recommended -.- Cruz and Inc. but other members both disagreed and opted for a rebidding bating the contract to be awarded to Boint %enture. 1ut ;2SS 1oard Committee on construction ;anagement and 1oard Committee on *ngineering that contract be awarded to -.-. Cruz and Co., Inc. being the lowest compl ing bidder. 06>00;A, through its 0resident filed with the office of the &mbudsman a letter"complaint protesting the public bidding conducted b the ;2SS to favor suppliers of fiberglass pipes and urging the &mbudsman to conduct an investigation there on. &mbudsman, in its fact"finding investigation pursuant to power, functions and duties of the office under Sec. :I of /.A LLFG ;2SS was diverted to set aside the recommendation of ;2SS to award contract. 0etitioner filed a special civil, action in the SC and cited that respondent &mbudsman acted be ond the $urisdiction notwithstanding that Section =G of the &mbudsman Act, which enumerated the administrative act, or omission that ma not be the sub$ect of investigation clearl among the cases exempts the same b his office. Issue. 2hether or not the &mbudsman has $urisdiction to ta+e cognizance of 06>00;A?s complaint and to correspondingl issue its challenged orders directing the 1oard of Trustees of the ;2SS to se aside the recommendation of the 01AC"CTS*. /uling . 3o, the particular aspect in #uestion is the investigator power and public assistance duties that can be found in the first and second part of Sec.:E, Art. JI of the Constitution. 2hile the broad authorit of the &mbudsman to investigate an act or omission which xxx appears illegal, un$ust, improper or inefficient ma be ielded, it is difficult to e#uall concede however, that the constitution and the &mbudsman Act have intended to confer upon it veto or provisor power over an exercise of $udgment or discretion is lawfull vested. 2hile the authorit of the ombudsman to investigate an act or omission of an public officer or emplo ee, other than those specificall excepted under the Constitution and /epublic Acts 3o. LFFG, which appears illegal, un$ust, improper, or inefficient, is broad, the Constitution and the &mbudsman Act did not intend to confer upon the &mbudsman veto or revisor power over an exercise of $udgment or discretion is lawfull vested. Thus, on the #uestion of whether to accept or re$ect a bid and award contract vested b law in a government agenc , which involves the exercise of discretion, the &mbudsman has exceeded his power b reviewing the award and granting it to another bidder. 5eloso vs 5omingo % SCRA 2!2 -acts . An alleged ambushed led to the prosecution of 7overnor >elloso who was charged before the Special 0rosecutor with multiple murder. 7overnor >elloso #uestioned the said referral to the &mbudsman alleging that the same has no $urisdiction over the case for being irrelevant of the crime he committed to his official function as governor. Issue . 2hether or not the &mbudsman has $urisdiction over the case. /uling . The Court ruled in positive manner. As protector of the people, the office of the &mbudsman has the power, function and dut to act promptl on complaints filed in an form or manner against public officials and to investigate an act or omission of an public officials when such act or omission appears to be illegal, un$ust, improper or inefficient. &mbudsman is also empowered to direct the officer concerned, in this case the Special 0rosecutor, to ta+e appropriate action against a public official and to recommend his prosecution. -urther, the court ruled that the law does not re#uired that the act or omission be related to or be connected with or arise from the performance of official dut .
20 | P a g e

respondents it being that the pleadings and papers alread alread ade#uate for them to act on said petition. filed were
!. Re6"irement of notice and +earing < when the law is silent, notice and hearing ma be dispensed with, which depends upon the stage of the proceedings. @substantial right < can be given notice and hearingA Secretar( of *ustice vs &antion 322 SCRA 60 -acts. A re#uest for extradition was filed against ;ar+ Bimenez for alleged violation of man criminal laws in the 5S. The >&B formed a panel of law ers to review and stud the re#uest. 0ending the review, ;B re#uested copies of all documents and papers relative to the re#uest that the proceedings be suspended for the meantime. The >&B denied the re#uest, hence ;B filed a petition for mandamus before the /TC of ;anila to compel the >&B to furnish him the documents. The /TC of ;anila issued a T/& to maintain a status #uo ante, hence the >&B filed an appeal to the SC. Issue. 2hether or not ;B is entitled to notice and hearing during the preliminar or the evaluation stage of the extradition treat against him. /uling . -rom the procedures earlier abstracted, after the filing of the extradition petition and during the $udicial determination of the propriet of extradition, the rights of notice and hearing are clearl granted to the prospective extradite. Kowever, prior thereto, the law is silent as to these rights. /eference to the 5.S. extradition procedures also manifests this silence. Ruiz vs 5rilon 20% SCRA 6%2 -acts . 7/ 3o. :GEIFG refers to a petition for review on the decision of the court of appeals consolidated with 7/ 3o. :G:LLL for certiorari and prohibition to review the decision of the executive secretar . 0etitioner herein was the president of Central 6uzon State 5niversit who was dismissed b the 0resident of the 0hilippines from his position after investigation of a committee on several charges against him. 0etitioner undertoo+ to as+ for a reconsideration on the same which respondent >rilon, as executive secretar denied. 0etitioner filed with the CA a petition for prohibition with a pra er for T/& which granted the latter pra er. After eight da s, petitioner filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition with pra er for T/&. The CA dismissed the petition on the ground that the petition was not meritorious and a case of forum shopping. The SC dispensed with the comment of the Solicitor 7eneral for the public
Issue . 2hether or not the public respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion or an act without or in excess of $urisdiction in rendering the assailed administrative orders. / 2as the petitioner entitled to be informed of the findings of an investigative committee created to in#uire into charges against him4 /uling . 0etitioner is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of an investigating committee created to in#uire into charges filed against him. Ke is entitled onl to an administrative decision that is based on substantial evidence made of record and a reasonable opportunit to meet the charges made against him and the evidence presented against him during the hearings of the investigating committees.
.efianco vs Moral 322 SCRA !3% -acts. ;a. 6uisa ;oral instituted an action for mandamus and in$unction before the regular courts against Secretar 7loria, who was later replaced b Secretar 0efianco, pra ing that she be furnished a cop of the >*CS Investigation Committee /eport and that the >*CS Secretar be en$oined from enforcing the order of dismissal until she received a cop of the said report. ;oral was ordered dismissed from the government service. /espondent did not appeal the $udgement . Secretar 7loria moved to dismiss the mandamus case for lac+ of cause of action but the trial court denied his motion, thus elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on certiorari which sustained the trial court. Issue. 2hether or not the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for Certiorari for failure of petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration of the order den ing the motion to dismiss. /uling . A respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings and recommendations of an investigating committee created to in#uire into charges filed against him. Ke is entitled onl to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence made of record, and a reasonable opportunit to meet the charges and the evidence presented against her during the hearings of the investigation committee. /espondent no doubt had been accorded these rights.
21 | P a g e

/esidual 0owers < unless congress provides otherwise, the 0resident shall exercise such other powers and functions vested in the 0resident which are provided for under the laws and which are not specificall enumerated above, or which are not delegated b the 0resident in accordance with law. &arin vs +9ecutive Secretar( 2$0 SCRA , 3 -acts. 0etitioner herein was an assistant commissioner of the excise tax service of the 1I/ being appointed b then 0resident A#uino. Sometime in :CC=, a decision was rendered b the Sandiganba an convicting petitioner of grave misconduct. Acting on a report b then acting -inance Secretar 6eong, the 0resident, through its executive secretar , issued a memorandum creating an executive committee to investigate the administrative charge against petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a position paper as re#uired b the committee. Conse#uentl , the president issued a memorandum which streamlined the operations of the 1I/ abolishing some of the offices which included the office of excise tax and another memorandum dismissing herein petitioner from office as a result of the investigation. 0etitioner contends that he is a Career *xecutive Service officer and he cannot be removed. &n the other hand, respondents contended that since petitioner is a presidential appointee, he falls under the disciplining authorit of the president. Issue. 2ho has the power to discipline the petitioner or does the president have the power to order an investigation against herein petitioner4 /uling . The position of Assistant Commissioner of the 1I/ is part of the Career *xecutive Service under the law which is appointed b the president. As a presidential appointee who belongs to career service of the Civil Service, he comes under the direct disciplining authorit of the president in line with the principle that the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint conferred b the Constitution. The memorandum issued b the president which created a committee to investigate the administrative charge against petitioner was pursuant to the power of removal b the president. Kowever, the power of removal is not absolute since the petitioner herein is a career service officer who has in his favor the securit of tenure who ma onl be removed through a cause enumerated b law. +vangelista vs *arencio 6$ SCRA %% Section 20 'oo@ III) %$, Administrative Code
C. /ight to counsel in administrative investigations < a counsel ma or ma not assist a person under investigation. 7Remolona v. CSC8 D. Importance of administrative investigations +vangelista vs *arencio 6$ SCRA %% -acts. 0etitioner filed a case before the SC see+ing to annul the order of the respondent $udge in civil case manalastas vs. bagatsing et, al. which order that preliminar in$unction restraining respondent from further issuing subpoena in connection with the fact finding investigation against petitioner. 0ursuant to his special powers and duties under Section LD of the /evised Administrative Code, : the 0resident of the 0hilippines created the 0residential Agenc on /eforms and 7overnment &perations @0A/7&A under *xecutive &rder 3o. D of Banuar F, :CLL. -or a realistic performance of these functions, the 0resident vested in the Agenc all the powers of an investigating committee under Sections F: and ING of the /evised Administrative Code, including the power to summon witnesses b subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, ta+e testimon or evidence relevant to the investigation. Issue. 2hether the Agenc , acting thru its officials, en$o s the authorit to issue subpoenas in its conduct of fact"finding investigations. /uling . Since the onl purpose of investigation is to discover facts as a basis of future action, an unnecessar extension of the privilege would thus be unwise. E. *xecutive power to investigate, source Section 6!c Revised Administrative Code 0ower of the president <to order, when in his opinion the good of the public service so re#uires, an investigation of an action or the conduct of an person in the 7overnment service, and in connection therewith to designate the official, committee, or person b whom such investigation shall be conducted.
22 | P a g e

-acts. 0etitioner filed a case before the SC see+ing to annul the order of the respondent $udge in civil case manalastas vs. bagatsing et, al. which order that preliminar in$unction restraining respondent from further issuing subpoena in connection with the fact finding investigation against petitioner. 0ursuant to his special powers and duties under Section LD of the /evised Administrative Code, : the 0resident of the 0hilippines created the 0residential Agenc on /eforms and 7overnment &perations @0A/7&A under *xecutive &rder 3o. D of Banuar F, :CLL. -or a realistic performance of these functions, the 0resident vested in the Agenc all the powers of an investigating committee under Sections F: and ING of the /evised Administrative Code, including the power to summon witnesses b subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, ta+e testimon or evidence relevant to the investigation. Issue . 2hether or not 0A/7& has the power to issue subpoenas /uling . The subpoena issued b petitioner Huirico *vangelista to respondent -ernando ;analastas is well within the legal competence of the Agenc to issue. Administrative agencies ma enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations, whether or not ad$udication is involved, and whether or not probable cause is shown and even before the issuance of a complaint. /e#uirements in issuing a subpoena. :. =. E. %. 2ithin the authorit of the agenc Information is reasonabl relevant >emand is not indefinite -acts. The case at bar involves the validit of a :CLF regulation, penalizing electro fishing in fresh water. Issue. 2hether or not the -isher Administrative &rder 3o. ND penalizing electro fishing. /uling. The fisher laws did not expressl prohibit electro fishing. The lawma+ing bod cannot delegate to administrative official the power to declare what act constitute a criminal offense. *lectro fishing is now punishable b virtue of 0> FGD. Thus, an administrative regulation must be in harmon with law! it must not amend an act of the legislature. In a prosecution for violation of an administrative order it must clearl appear that the order falls within the scope of the authorit conferred b law. :. &rdinance power of the 0resident/>elegation to the 0resident A. 3ature of power, definition < Administrative agencies are endowed with powers legislative in nature or #uasi"legislative, and in practical effect, with the power to ma+e law. Kowever, the essential legislative functions ma not be delegated to administrative agencies and in this sense, it is said that administrative agencies have no legislative power and are precluded from legislating in the strict sense. .eople vs Maceren ,% SCRA !20 A formal charge was filed against petitioner /emolona, 3er C. /emolona and Att . Kad$i Sdupadin for possession of fa+e eligibilit , falsification and dishonest . CSS found *stelito /emolona and 3er remolona guilt but 3er /emolona was absolved from legibilit . &n appeal, CA dismissed the petition and therefore a review b the SC. Issue . 2hether or not the CSC can dismiss the petitioner despite of the fact that the offense committed was not done in the performance of his official dut . /uling . If the government officer or emplo ee is dishonest or is guilt of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are not connected with his office, the affect his right to continue in office. Rule ma@ing po/er " the power to issue rules and regulations.
Huasi"legislative //ule";a+ing 0owers Remolona vs CSC 362 SCRA 30!
-acts. *srelito /omolona was the post master at the postal office service in Infanta, Huezon, >istrict Supervisor of the >*CS in#uired from the Civil Service Commission as to the status of the Civil Service eligibilit of ;rs. /emolona who got a rating of N:.=IR of as per report of rating issued b the 3ational 1oard for Teachers. After an investigation, /emolona?s name is not in the list of passing and failing examinees. /emolona admitted that he was responsible in ac#uiring the alleged fa+e eligibilit , that his wife has no +nowledge and that he did it because he wanted them to be together.
23 | P a g e

The president has the power to issue rules and regulations @executive orders, proclamations, etc.A Sections 23.2) 2$.2) Article 1I) Constitution Section =E. =. " In times of war or other national emergenc , the Congress ma , b law, authorize the 0resident, for a limited period and sub$ect to such restrictions as it ma prescribe, to exercise powers necessar and proper to carr out a declared national polic . 5nless sooner withdrawn b resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next ad$ournment thereof. Section =N. = " The Congress ma , b law, authorize the 0resident to fix within specified limits, and sub$ect to such limitations and restrictions as it ma impose, tariff rates, import and export #uotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framewor+ of the national development program of the 7overnment. Sections 2) 3) !) 2) 6) ,) 'oo@ III) #itle I) C0apter 2) %$, Admin. Code Chapter = &/>I3A3C* 0&2*/ Sec. =. *xecutive &rders. " Acts of the 0resident providing for rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or execution of constitutional or statutor powers shall be promulgated in executive orders. Sec. E. Administrative &rders. " Acts of the 0resident which relate to particular aspect of governmental operations in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders. Sec. D. 0roclamations. " Acts of the 0resident fixing a date or declaring a status or condition of public moment or interest, upon the existence of which the operation of a specific law or regulation is made to depend, shall be promulgated in proclamations which shall have the force of an executive order. Sec. I. ;emorandum &rders. " Acts of the 0resident on matters of administrative detail or of subordinate or temporar interest which onl concern a particular officer or office of the 7overnment shall be embodied in memorandum orders. Sec. L. ;emorandum Circulars. " Acts of the 0resident on matters relating to internal administration, which the 0resident desires to bring to the attention of all or some of the departments, agencies, bureaus or offices of the 7overnment, for information or compliance, shall be embodied in memorandum circulars. Sec. F. 7eneral or Special &rders." Acts and commands of the 0resident in his capacit as Commander"in"Chief of the Armed -orces of the 0hilippines shall be issued as general or special orders. Araneta v. :atmaitan 0 .0il 32$ -acts. The 0resident of the 0hilippines issued *xecutive &rders restricting and banning trawl fishing from San ;iguel 1a . Kowever, a group of other trawl operators #uestioned the said executive orders alleging that the same is null and void. Issue . 2hether or not the issuance of the executive order was valid.
/uling . 1efore the issuance of the eo, a resolution b the municipalit allowed thrall fishing. Such law is not deemed complete unless it la s down a standard or pattern sufficientl fixed or determinate, or, at least, determinable without re#uiring another legislation, to guide the administrative bod concerned in the performance of its dut to implement or enforce said polic . *& issued b the secretar was valid since that it was part of the agencies functions.
?lsen B Co. vs Aldanese) !3 .0il. 22% -acts. 2alter &lsen, a dul licensed domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and export of cigars made of tobacco grown in the 0hilippines assailed the constitutionalit of Act =L:E, allegedl depriving them of their right of exporting cigars to the 5nited States due to the refusal of the Collector of Internal /evenue to issue certificate of origin and that the cigars were not manufactured of long filler tobacco produced exclusivel in the province of Caga an, Isabela or 3ueva %isca a. Issue. 2hether or not the Collector of Internal /evenue is authorized to ma+e rules and regulations which are not within the scope of Act =L:E.
24 | P a g e

/uling. The onl power conferred to the Collector of Internal /evenue was that a proper standard of the #ualit of tobacco should be fixed and defined and that all of these who produce tobacco of the same standard would have e#ual rights and opportunities. Such delegated power the rules and regulations promulgated should be confined to and limited b the power conferred b the legislative act. The authorit of the Collector of Internal /evenue to ma+es rules and regulations is specified and defined to the ma+ing of rules and regulations for the classification, mar+ing and pac+ing of leaf or manufactured tobacco of good #ualit and the handling of it under sanitar conditions. =. >elegation to the Supreme Court Section 2.2) Article 1III) Constitution 0romulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under"privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speed disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modif substantive rights. /ules of procedure of special courts and #uasi"$udicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved b the Supreme Court. *& ==L in so far as the manner of appeal. Appeals from decisions of 1&I, which statutes allowed to be filed with SC, are brought to CA.
E.
>elegation to 675s
Sections 2 and %) Article C) Constitution Section 7. *ach local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to lev taxes, fees and charges sub$ect to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress ma provide, consistent with the basic polic of local autonom . Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusivel to the local governments. Section /. 6egislative bodies of local governments shall have sectoral representation as ma be prescribed b law.
Sections 2!) 22) 26) 2,) Republic Act 6o. , 60 SECTION 78. A))rova& of Ordinances. " @aA *ver ordinance enacted b the Sangguniang 0anlalawigan, Sangguniang 0anlungsod, or Sangguniang ba an shall be presented to the provincial governor or cit or municipal ma or, as the case ma be. If the local chief executive concerned approves the same, he shall affix his signature on each and ever page thereof! otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his ob$ections to the Sanggunian, which ma proceed to reconsider the same. The Sanggunian concerned ma override the veto of the local chief executive b two"thirds @=/EA vote of all its members, thereb ma+ing the ordinance or resolution effective for all legal intents and purposes. @bA The veto shall be communicated b the local chief executive concerned to the Sanggunian within fifteen @:IA da s in the case of a province, and ten @:GA da s in the case of a cit or a municipalit ! otherwise, the ordinance shall be deemed approved as if he had signed it. @cA ordinances enacted b the Sangguniang 1aranga shall, upon approval b the ma$orit of all its members, be signed b the 0unong 1aranga . SECTION 77. Veto $o'er of t+e 4oca& C+ief E-ec"tive . " @aA The local chief executive ma veto an ordinance of the Sangguniang 0anlalawigan, Sangguniang 0anlungsod, or Sangguniang ba an on the ground that it is
"irst &epanto Ceramics vs CA 23 SCRA 30 -acts. 1&I granted -irst 6epanto to amend certificate of recognition b changing scope of its reg product from glazed floor tiles to ceramic stiles. ;ariwasa oppose filed motion for reconsideration. ;ariwasa filed petition for review with respondent CA. it is temporaril restrained 1&I from implementing decision, =G da s lapsed without respondent court issuing preliminar in$unction. 6epanto filed motion to dismiss, court appellate. Burisdiction over 1&I vested with SC. Issue. 2hether or not CA has $urisdiction. Keld. Oes, *.& ==L grants the right of appeal from decisions of 1&I. It simpl deals with procedural aspects with court has the power to regulate b virtue of its cons rule"ma+ing power. Circular :"C: repealed or suspended
25 | P a g e

ultra vires or pre$udicial to the public welfare, stating his reasons therefor in writing. @bA The local chief executive, except the 0unong 1aranga , shall have the power to veto an particular item or items of an appropriations ordinance, an ordinance or resolution adopting a local development plan and public investment program, or an ordinance directing the pa ment of mone or creating liabilit . In such a case, the veto shall not affect the item or items which are not ob$ected to. The vetoed item or items shall not ta+e effect unless the Sanggunian overrides the veto in the manner herein provided! otherwise, the item or items in the appropriations ordinance of the previous ear corresponding to those vetoed, if an , shall be deemed reenacted. @cA The local chief executive ma veto an ordinance or resolution onl once. The Sanggunian ma override the veto of the local chief executive concerned b two"thirds @=/EA vote of all its members, thereb ma+ing the ordinance effective even without the approval of the local chief executive concerned. SECTION 79. Revie' of Com)onent Cit and M"nici)a& Ordinances or Reso&"tions % t+e Sangg"niang $an&a&a'igan . " @aA 2ithin three @EA da s after approval, the secretar to the Sanggunian 0anlungsod or Sangguniang ba an shall forward to the Sangguniang 0anlalawigan for review, copies of approved ordinances and the resolutions approving the local development plans and public investment programs formulated b the local development councils. @bA 2ithin thirt @EGA da s after receipt of copies of such ordinances and resolutions, the Sangguniang 0anlalawigan shall examine the documents or transmit them to the provincial attorne , or if there be none, to the provincial prosecutor for prompt examination. The provincial attorne or provincial prosecutor shall, within a period of ten @:GA da s from receipt of the documents, inform the Sangguniang 0anlalawigan in writing of his comments or recommendations, which ma be considered b the Sangguniang 0anlalawigan in ma+ing its decision. @cA If the Sangguniang 0anlalawigan finds that such an ordinance or resolution is be ond the power conferred upon the Sangguniang 0anlungsod or Sangguniang ba an concerned, it shall declare such ordinance or resolution invalid in whole or in part. The Sangguniang 0anlalawigan shall enter its action in the minutes and shall advise the corresponding cit or municipal authorities of the action it has ta+en. @dA If no action has been ta+en b the Sangguniang 0anlalawigan within thirt @EGA da s after submission of such an ordinance or resolution, the same shall be presumed consistent with law and therefore valid. SECTION 72. Revie' of !aranga Ordinances % t+e Sangg"niang $an&"ngsod or Sangg"niang !a an. " @aA 2ithin ten @:GA da s after its enactment, the Sangguniang 1aranga shall furnish copies of all 1aranga ordinances to the Sangguniang 0anlungsod or Sangguniang ba an concerned for review as to whether the ordinance is consistent with law and cit or municipal ordinances. @bA If the Sangguniang 0anlungsod or Sangguniang ba an, as the case ma be, fails to ta+e action on 1aranga ordinances within thirt @EGA da s from receipt thereof, the same shall be deemed approved. @cA If the Sangguniang 0anlungsod or Sangguniang ba an, as the case ma be, finds the 1aranga ordinances inconsistent with law or cit or municipal ordinances, the Sanggunian concerned shall, within thirt @EGA da s from receipt thereof, return the same with its comments and recommendations to the Sangguniang 1aranga concerned for ad$ustment, amendment, or modification! in which case, the effectivit of the 1aranga ordinance is suspended until such time as the revision called for is effected.
!.
/ationale for the delegation of #uasi"legislative power #atad vs Secretar( of 5?+ 2$ SCRA 330
-acts. This is a petition to challenge the constitutionalit of /epublic Act 3o. N:NG entitled 'An Act >eregulating the >ownstream &il Industr and -or &ther 0urposes'./.A. 3o. N :NG ends twent six @=LA ears of government regulation of the downstream of industr . In :CC=, Congress enacted /.A. 3o. FLEN which created the >epartment of *nerg to prepare, the law also aimed to encourage free and active participation and investment b the private sector in all energ activities. Section I@eA of the law states that 'at the end of four @DA ears from the affectivit of this Act, the >epartment shall, upon approval of the 0resident, institute the programs and timetable of deregulation of appropriate energ pro$ects and activities of the energ industr .' &n -ebruar ,s, :CCF, the 0resident implemented the full deregulation of the >ownstream &il Industr through *.&. 3o.EF=. 0etitioner contends that that the inclusion of the tariff provision in Section I@bA of /.A. 3o. N :NG violates Section =L@lA Article %I of the Constitution
26 | P a g e

re#uiring ever law to have onl one sub$ect which shall be expressed in its title. That the imposition of tariff rates in Section I@bA of /.A. 3o. N:NG is foreign to the sub$ect of the law which is the deregulation of the downstream oil industr . Section :I of /.A. 3o. N:NG constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power to the 0resident and the Secretar of *nerg because it does not provide a determinate or determinable standard to guide the *xecutive 1ranch in determining when to implement the full deregulation of the downstream oil industr . Issue. 2&3 /A 3o. N:NG is unconstitutional4 /uling. The court ruled that /A 3o. N:NG is declared unconstitutional and *>. 3o. EF= void.The rational of the Court annulling /A 3o. N:NG is not because it disagrees with deregulation as an economic polic but because as cobbled b Congress in its present form, the law violates the Constitution. There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power, viz. the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. 5nder the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislative such that when it reaches the delegate the onl thing he will have to do is to enforce it. 5nder the sufficient standard test, there must be ade#uate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate,s authorit and prevent the delegation from running not. 1oth tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authorit to the delegates who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentiall legislative. The validit of delegating legislative power is now a #uiet area in our constitutional landscape. As sagel observed, delegation of legislative power has become an inevitabilit in light of the increasing complexit of the tas+ of government. To cede to the *xecutive the power to ma+e law is to invite t rann , indeed, to transgress the principle of separation of powers. The exercise of delegated power is given a strict scrutin b courts for the delegate is a mere agent whose action cannot infringe the terms of agenc . +astern S0ipping &ines vs .?+A 66 SCRA 233 -acts. >avao pilot association filed a petition against the *astern shipping lines for sum of mone and attorne ?s fee claiming that herein respondent rendered pilotage service to petitioner, the lower court ruled in favor of the respondent! herein petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the CA. The factual antecedents of the controvers are simple. 0etitioner insists on pa ing pilotage fees prescribed under 00A circulars. 1ecause *& :GNN sets a higher rate, petitioner now assails its constitutionalit . Issue. won *& :GNN is unconstitutional /uling. it is axiomatic that administrative agenc li+e 0hilippine port authorit has no discretion whether or not to implement the law. Its dut is to enforce the law, thus, there is a conflict between 00A circular and a law li+e *& :GNN, the latter prevails. 0etition is dismissed. .angasinan #ransportation Co.) Inc. vs .ublic Service Commission) ,0 .0il. 22 -acts. 0angasinan Transportation Co. has been engaged in transporting passengers in 0angasinan and Tarlac to 3ueva *ci$a and Sambales b means of T05 buses for =G ears. It filed with 0ublic Service Commission to be authorized to operate ten additional new 1roc+wa Truc+s on the ground that the were needed to compl with the terms and conditions of its current certificates. As a result of the application of the *ight Kour 6abor 6aw. The 0ublic Service Commission denied it. ;otion for /econsideration denied. 0etition for a writ of certiorari filed. Issues. @:A 2hether or not the legislative powers granted to the 0ublic Service Commission b Sec.: of the Commonwealth Act 3o. DID constitute a complete and total abdication of the 6egislatures? functions and thus unconstitutional and void. @=A 2hether or not 0ublic Service Commission has exceeded its authorit . Keld. @:A 3o, Commonwealth Act no. DID is constitutional. Section N of Art. JIII of the Constitution provides that no franchise, certificate or an other form of authorization for the operation of a public utilit shall be 8for a longer period than fift ears9 and when it was ordained. 2hile in Sec. :I of Commonwealth Act 3o. :DL as amended b Commonwealth Act 3o. DID that the 0ublic Service Commission ma prescribe as a condition for the issuance of a certificate. That it shall be valid onl for a period of time it has been declared that the period shall not be longer than IG ears. Therefore,
27 | P a g e

all that has been delegated to the commission is the admin functionT, including the use of discretion, to carr out the will of the 3ational Assembl having in view, in addition, the promotion of 8public interests in a proper and suitable manner.9 2ith the growing complexit of modern life, the multiplication of the sub$ects of governmental regulation and the increased difficult of administering the laws, there is a constantl growing tendenc towards the delegation of greater powers b the legislative and towards the approval of the practice b the courts. @=A 3o, this right of the state to regulate public utilities is founded upon the police power, applicable not onl to those public utilities coming into existence after its passage, but li+ewise to those alread established and in operation. Calalang vs <illiams ,0 .0il ,26 -acts. Calalang in his capacit as taxpa er #uestioned the constitutionalit of Commonwealth Act IDN. The Secretar of 0ublic wor+s and highwa s with the recommendation of the >irector of 0ublic wor+s and the Chairman of the 3ational Traffic Commission promulgated a rule closing a certain road in ;anila for animal drawn vehicle for a specific time. The petitioner, in his contention, empowers the Secretar of 0ublic 2or+s with the recommendation of the >irector of 0ublic wor+s to legislate rules and laws relative to the regulation of traffic in the countr . -urther, the petitioner contended that such act is an invalid delegation of legislative power. The respondent public official asserted that such promulgation of rules is in connection with the powers vested to them b the said law. Issue. 2hether or not the said Act constitute an invalid delegation of legislative power. /uling. The Supreme Court ruled that the said act is not an invalid delegation of power. The authorit therein conferred upon them and under which the promulgated the rules and regulations now complained of is not to determine what public polic demands but merel to carr out the legislative polic laid down b the 3ational Assembl in said Act, to wit, 'to promote safe transit upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets designated as national roads b acts of the 3ational Assembl or b executive orders of the 0resident of the 0hilippines' and to close them temporaril to an or all classes of traffic 'whenever the condition of the road or the traffic thereon ma+es such action necessar or advisable in the public convenience and interest.' The delegated power, if at all, therefore, is not the determination of what the law shall be, but merel the ascertainment of the facts and circumstances upon which the application of said law is to be predicated. To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads and to determine when and how long a national road should be closed to traffic, in view of the condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the re#uirements of public convenience and interest, is an administrative function which cannot be directl discharged b the 3ational Assembl , It must depend on the discretion of some other government official to whom is confided the dut of determining whether the proper occasion exists for executing the law. 1ut it cannot be said that the exercise of such discretion is the ma+ing of the law.
C.
6imitations on the rule"ma+ing power
Smart Communications vs 6#C :.R. 6o. 2 %0$) 2 August 2003 -acts. petitioners Isla Communications Co., Inc. and 0ilipino Telephone Corporation filed against the 3ational Telecommunications Commission, Commissioner Boseph A. Santiago, >eput Commissioner Aurelio ;. 5mali and >eput Commissioner 3estor C. >acana , an action for declaration of nullit of 3TC ;emorandum Circular 3o. :E"L"=GGG @the 1illing CircularA. 0etitioners allege that the 3TC has no $urisdiction to regulate the sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since such $urisdiction belongs to the >epartment of Trade and Industr under the Consumer Act of the 0hilippines! that the 1illing Circular is oppressive, confiscator and violative of the constitutional prohibition against deprivation of propert without due process of law! that the Circular will result in the impairment of the viabilit of the prepaid cellular service b undul prolonging the validit and expiration of the prepaid SI; and call cards! and that the re#uirements of identification of prepaid card bu ers and call balance announcement are unreasonable. Kence, the pra ed that the 1illing Circular be declared null and void ab initio. Issue .2&3 the /TC has $urisdiction of the case
28 | P a g e

Keld. 0etitions are granted. The issuance b the 3TC of ;emorandum Circular 3o. :E"L"=GGG and its ;emorandum dated &ctober L, =GGG was pursuant to its #uasi"legislative or rule"ma+ing power. As such, petitioners were $ustified in invo+ing the $udicial power of the /egional Trial Court to assail the constitutionalit and validit of the said issuances. 2hat is assailed is the validit or constitutionalit of a rule or regulation issued b the administrative agenc in the performance of its #uasi"legislative function, the regular courts have $urisdiction to pass upon the same. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued b an administrative agenc contravenes the law or the constitution is within the $urisdiction of the regular courts. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of $udicial review or the power to declare a law, treat , international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts.=I This is within the scope of $udicial power, which includes the authorit of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validit of the acts of the political departments.=L Budicial power includes the dut of the courts of $ustice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legall demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac+ or excess of $urisdiction on the part of an branch or instrumentalit of the 7overnment. .0ilippine Apparel <or@ers 4nion vs 6&RC 06 SCRA !!! /uling . 1 virtue of such rule"ma+ing authorit , the Secretar of 6abor issued on ;a :, :CFF a set of rules which exempts not onl distressed emplo ers but also 'those who have granted in addition to the allowance under 0.>. I=I, at least 0LG.GG monthl wage increase on or after Banuar :, :CFF, provided that those who paid less than this amount shall pa the difference @paragraph + of said rulesA. Clearl , the inclusion of paragraph + contravenes the statutor authorit granted to the Secretar of 6abor, and the same is therefore void. The recognition of the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the administration of the statute, necessaril limited to what is provided for in the legislative enactment. It is of elementar +nowledge that an act of Congress cannot be amended b a rule promulgated b an administrative agenc . 'It seems too clear for serious argument that an administrative officer cannot change a law enacted b Congress. A regulation that is merel an interpretation of the statute when once determined to have been erroneous becomes a nullit .'
D.
/e#uisites for valid delegation of #uasi"legislative power #atad vs Secretar( of 5?+ 2$ SCRA 330
-acts. This is a petition to challenge the constitutionalit of /epublic Act 3o. N:NG entitled 'An Act >eregulating the >ownstream &il Industr and -or &ther 0urposes'./.A. 3o. N :NG ends twent six @=LA ears of government regulation of the downstream of industr . In :CC=, Congress enacted /.A. 3o. FLEN which created the >epartment of *nerg to prepare, the law also aimed to encourage free and active participation and investment b the private sector in all energ activities. Section I@eA of the law states that 'at the end of four @DA ears from the affectivit of this Act, the >epartment shall, upon approval of the 0resident, institute the programs and timetable of deregulation of appropriate energ pro$ects and activities of the energ industr .' &n -ebruar ,s, :CCF, the 0resident implemented the full deregulation of the >ownstream &il Industr through *.&. 3o.EF=. 0etitioner contends that that the inclusion of the tariff provision in Section I@bA of /.A. 3o. N :NG violates Section =L@lA Article %I of the Constitution re#uiring ever law to have onl one sub$ect which shall be expressed in its title. That the imposition of tariff rates in Section I@bA of /.A. 3o. N:NG is foreign to the sub$ect of the law which is the deregulation of the downstream oil industr . Section :I of /.A. 3o. N:NG constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power to the 0resident and the Secretar of *nerg because it does not provide a determinate or determinable standard to guide the *xecutive 1ranch in determining when to implement the full deregulation of the downstream oil industr . Issue. 2&3 /A 3o. N:NG is unconstitutional4 /uling. the court ruled that /A 3o. N:NG is declared unconstitutional and *>. 3o. EF= void.The rational of the Court annulling /A 3o. N:NG is not because it disagrees with deregulation as an economic polic but because as cobbled b Congress in its present form, the law violates the Constitution. The right call therefore should be for Congress to write a new oil deregulation law that conforms to the Constitution and not for this Court to shir+ its dut of stri+ing down a law that offends the Constitution. Stri+ing down /A. 3o. N:NG ma cost losses in #uantifiable terms to the oil oligopolists. 1ut the loss in tolerating the tampering of our Constitution is not #uantifiable in pesos and centavos. ;ore worth of protection than the supra"normal profits of private
29 | P a g e

corporations is the sanctit of the fundamental principles of the Constitution. 2hen confronted b a law violating the Constitution, the Court has no option but to stri+e it down dead. 6est it is missed, the Constitution is a covenant that grants and guarantees both the political and economic rights of the people. The Constitution mandates this Court to be the guardian not onl of the people,s political rights but their economic rights as well. The protection of the economic rights of the poor and the powerless is of greater importance to them for the are concerned more with the exoteric of living and less with the esoteric of libert . Kence, for as long as the Constitution reigns supreme so long will this Court be vigilant in upholding the economic rights of our people especiall from the onslaught of the powerful. &ur defense of the people,s economic rights ma appear heartless because it cannot be half"hearted. :. Completeness test < the law must be complete in all its items and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate, the onl thing the will have to do is enforce it @*astern Shipping vs. 0&*AA %hat cannot be delegated are those which are purely legislative in nature. &e cannot determine what the law shall be. 4S vs Ang #ang -o &>!2$$ 20 6ov %22
.eople vs 1era 62 .0il 26 -acts. Cu 5n$ieng filed an application for probation on =F 3ovember :CEL, before the trial court, under the provisions of Act D==: of the defunct 0hilippine 6egislature. Cu 5n$ieng states in his petition, inter alia, that he is innocent of the crime of which he was convicted, that he has no criminal record and that he would observe good conduct in the future. The C-I of ;anila, Budge 0edro Tuason presiding, referred the application for probation of the Insular 0robation &ffice which recommended denial of the same :N Bune :CEF. Thereafter, the C-I of ;anila, seventh branch, Budge Bose &. %era presiding, set the petition for hearing on I April :CEF. &n = April :CEF, the -iscal of the Cit of ;anila filed an opposition to the granting of probation to Cu 5n$ieng. The private prosecution also filed an opposition on I April :CEF, alleging, among other things, that Act D==:, assuming that it has not been repealed b section = of Article J% of the Constitution, is nevertheless violative of section :, subsection @:A, Article III of the Constitution guaranteeing e#ual protection of the laws for the reason that its applicabilit is not uniform throughout the Islands and because section :: of the said Act endows the provincial boards with the power to ma+e said law effective or otherwise in their respective or otherwise in their respective provinces. The private prosecution also filed a supplementar opposition on April :C, :CEF, elaborating on the alleged unconstitutionalit on Act D==:, as an undue delegation of legislative power to the provincial boards of several provinces @sec. :, Art. %I, ConstitutionA. The Cit -iscal concurred in the opposition of the private prosecution except with respect to the #uestions raised concerning the constitutionalit of Act D==:. &n =N Bune :CEF, Budge Bose &. %era promulgated a resolution, concluding that Cu 5n$ieng 'es inocente por duda racional' of the crime of which he stands convicted b the Supreme court in 7/ D:=GG, but den ing the latter,s petition for probation. &n E Bul :CEF, counsel for Cu 5n$ieng filed an exception to the resolution den ing probation and a notice of intention to file a motion for reconsideration. An alternative motion for reconsideration or new trial was filed b counsel on :E Bul :CEF. This was supplemented b an additional motion for reconsideration submitted on :D Bul :CEF. The aforesaid motions were set for hearing on E: Bul :CEF, but said hearing was postponed at the petition of counsel for Cu 5n$ieng because a motion for leave to intervene in the case as amici curiae signed b EE @EDA attorne s had $ust been filed with the trial court. &n L August :CEF, the -iscal of the Cit of ;anila filed a motion with the trial court for the issuance of an order of execution of the $udgment of this court in said case and forthwith to commit Cu 5n$ieng to $ail in obedience to said $udgment. &n :G August :CEF, Budge %era issued an order re#uiring all parties including the movants for intervention as amici
+astern S0ipping &ines vs .?+A 66 SCRA 233 -acts. >avao pilot association filed a petition against the *astern shipping lines for sum of mone and attorne ?s fee claiming that herein respondent rendered pilotage service to petitioner, the lower court ruled in favor of the respondent! herein petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the CA. The factual antecedents of the controvers are simple. 0etitioner insists on pa ing pilotage fees prescribed under 00A circulars. 1ecause *& :GNN sets a higher rate, petitioner now assails its constitutionalit . Issue. won *& :GNN is unconstitutional /uling. it is axiomatic that administrative agenc li+e 0hilippine port authorit has no discretion whether or not to implement the law. Its dut is to enforce the law, thus, there is a conflict between 00A circular and a law li+e *& :GNN, the latter prevails. 0etition is dismissed.
30 | P a g e

curiae to appear before the court on :D August :CEF. &n the last"mentioned date, the -iscal of the Cit of ;anila moved for the hearing of his motion for execution of $udgment in preference to the motion for leave to intervene as amici curiae but, upon ob$ection of counsel for Cu 5n$ieng, he moved for the postponement of the hearing of both motions. The $udge thereupon set the hearing of the motion for execution on =: August :CEF, but proceeded to consider the motion for leave to intervene as amici curiae as in order. *vidence as to the circumstances under which said motion for leave to intervene as amici curiae was signed and submitted to court was to have been heard on :C August :CEF. 1ut at this $uncture, KS1C and the 0eople came to the Supreme Court on extraordinar legal process to put an end to what the alleged was an interminable proceeding in the C-I of ;anila which fostered 'the campaign of the defendant ;ariano Cu 5n$ieng for dela in the execution of the sentence imposed b this Konorable Court on him, exposing the courts to criticism and ridicule because of the apparent inabilit of the $udicial machiner to ma+e effective a final $udgment of this court imposed on the defendant ;ariano Cu 5n$ieng.' The scheduled hearing before the trial court was accordingl suspended upon the issuance of a temporar restraining order b the Supreme Court on =: August :CEF. Issue. 2hether the 0eople of the 0hilippines, through the Solicitor 7eneral and -iscal of the Cit of ;anila, is a proper part in present case. Keld. O*S. The 0eople of the 0hilippines, represented b the Solicitor" 7eneral and the -iscal of the Cit of ;anila, is a proper part in the present proceedings. The unchallenged rule is that the person who impugns the validit of a statute must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustained, direct in$ur as a result of its enforcement. It goes without sa ing that if Act D==: reall violates the constitution, the 0eople of the 0hilippines, in whose name the present action is brought, has a substantial interest in having it set aside. &f greater import than the damage caused b the illegal expenditure of public funds is the mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law b the enforcement of an invalid statute. Kence, the well"settled rule that the state can challenge the validit of its own laws. =. Sufficient standard test < to map out the boundaries of the delegates? authorit b defining legislative polic and indicating circumstances under which it is pursued. 'erve to canali(e the ban)s of the river from overflowing. C0iongbian vs ?rbos 2!2 SCRA 223
-acts. 0etitioners challenged the validit of a provision of /.A LFED, 8authorizing the 0resident of the 0hilippines to merge b administrative determination the regions remaining after the establishment of the Autonomous /egion, and the *xecutive &rder issued b the 0resident pursuant to such authorit , 80roviding for the /eorganization of Administrative /egions in ;indanano.9 -our provinces includes, 6anao del Sur, ;aguindanao, Sulu and Tawi"Tawi voted in favor of creating an autonomous region, thus became A/;;. After the plebiscite, *.& D=C as amended b *.& DEC was issued b the Chief *xecutive providing for the /eorganization of the Administrative /egions in ;indanao. The contentions of the 0etitioners contends that /.A LFED is unconstitutional because :.A it undul delegates the legislative power to the 0resident b authorizing him to merge the existing regions. =.A the power granted is not expressed in the title of the law. Issue. 2hether the Congress has provided a sufficient standard b which the 0resident is to be guided in the exercise of the power granted. 2hether the grant of power to the 0resident is included in the sub$ect expressed in the title of the law. /uling. A legislative standard need not be expressed. It ma simpl be gathered or implied, nor it be found in the law challenged because it ma be embodied in other statutes on the same sub$ect as that of the challenged legislation. *ver bill passed b the Congress shall embrace onl one sub$ect which shall be expressed in the title. The title is not re#uired to be an index of the content of the bill. It is a sufficient compliance with the constitutional re#uirement if the title expresses the general sub$ect and all provisions of the statute are pertinent to that sub$ect. The /eorganization of the remaining administrative regions is pertinent to the general sub$ect of /.A LFED, which is the establishment of the Autonomous /egion in ;uslim ;indanao. A legislative standard need not be expressed. It ma simpl be gathered or implied. 3or need it be found in the law challenged because it ma be embodied in other statutes on the same sub$ect as that of the challenged legislation. 2ith respect to the power to merge existing administrative regions, the standard is to be found in the same polic underl ing the grant to the 0resident in the law.
31 | P a g e

Cervantes vs Auditor :eneral &>!0!3 26 Ma( %22 -acts. 0etitioner was manager of the national abaca and -ibers Corporation. Its board of directors granted #uarter allowances to petitioner. Submitted to the control of the government enterprise council created in *& CE in pursuance to /A I: for approval, the resolution was disapproved on recommendation b auditor general. :. That #uarter allowance constituted additional compensation prohibited b 3A-C& charter. =. -inancial condition of 3A-C&. /econsideration was denied, hence, this petition for review b certiorari/ Issue. that *& CE is invalid as based on the law that is unconstitutional being an undue delegation of legislative power to executive. /uling. the rule that so long as the legislative 8la s down polic and a standard is established b the statute there is no undue delegation. /A I: is authorizes the president to ma+e reforms and changes in the government controlled corporation for the purpose of promoting simplicit , econom and efficienc in their operations. This la s down a standard and polic . pursuant to this authorit , the president promulgate *& CE creating government enterprises council with power to pass upon the program of activities and earl budget of member corporations. 0etition is dismissed. .elaez vs Auditor :eneral 2 SCRA 26% -acts. The 0resident of the 0hil., pursuant to section LN of the /evised Administrative code, issued *.& nos. CE to :=:,:=D and :=L to :=C creating municipalities. Kowever, *mmanuel 0elaez, as %ice 0resident of the 0hil and as a taxpa er instituted a writ of prohibition with prelim in$unction against the Auditor general from passing in audit an public funds. The petitioner alleges that executive orders are null and void, upon the ground Sec. LN has been impliedl repealed b /.A no =EFG and constitutes undue delegation of legislative power Issue. 2hether or not the *.& nos issued constitutes undue delegation of legislative power. Keld. Oes, the authorit to create municipal corporations is essentiall legislative in nature. Although congress ma delegate to another branch of the government the power to fill in the details in the execution, enforcement or administration of a law, it is essential, to forestall a violation of the separation of powers, the said law. a. be complete in itself" it must set forth the polic to be executed, carried out or implemented b the delegate! b. fix a standard" the limits of which are sufficientl determinate of determinable Dnot vs IAC !$ SCRA 62% -acts. The petitioner is #uestioning the validit of the *xecutive order issued b the 0resident of the 0hilippines prohibiting the interprovincial movement of carabaos and the slaughtering of carabaos not compl ing with the re#uirements of *xecutive &rder 3o. L=L particularl with respect to age. &bviousl , the petitioner was affected to the said order with the contention that the said order is an invalid delegation of power and undul oppressive to the industr . The Solicitor 7eneral contended that the said law is a proper delegation of legislative power to the 0resident of the /epublic. Issue. 2hether or not the said executive order is a valid delegation of power. /uling. The court ruled in that the said order is an invalid delegation of power. The court further ruled that the challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method emplo ed to conserve the carabaos is not reasonabl necessar to the purpose of the law and, worse, is undul oppressive. >ue process is violated because the owner of the propert confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediatel condemned and punished. The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to ad$udge the guilt of the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on $udicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of powers. There is, finall , also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the distribution of the properties arbitraril ta+en. -or these reasons, the court declared *xecutive &rder 3o. L=L"A unconstitutional. E. *xceptions to the re#uirement of sufficient legislative standards :. power which is not directl or exclusivel a legislative one and has no relation whatsoever to personal or propert rights! =. power to regulate a mere matter of privilege
32 | P a g e

;ust not regulate or prohibit trade ;ust not be against a statute F. /ule and rule"ma+ing, defined Section 2.2 'oo@ 1II) Admin Code of %$, '/ule' means an agenc statement of general applicabilit that implements or interprets a law, fixes and describes the procedures in, or practice re#uirements of, an agenc , including its regulations. The term includes memoranda or statements concerning the internal administration or management of an agenc not affecting the rights of, or procedure available to, the public. Section !) 'oo@ 1II) Admin Code of %$, '/ule ma+ing' means an agenc process for the formulation, amendment, or repeal of a rule. +slao vs C?A 236 SCRA 6
E.
Issues on validit of legislation :. Against the delegating statute itself """ whether or not the re#uisites of valid delegation are present! =. Against the exercise of the delegated power """ whether or not the rule or regulation conforms with what the statute provides and whether the same is reasonable.
Solicitor :eneral vs Metropolitan Manila Aut0orit() 20! SCRA $3, -acts. -or his part, A.%. *mmanuel said he confiscated Trieste,s driver,s license pursuant to a memorandum dated -ebruar =F, :CC:, from the >istrict Commander of the 2estern Traffic >istrict of the 0hilippine 3ational 0olice, authorizing such sanction under certain conditions. >irector 7eneral Cesar 0. 3azareno of the 0hilippine 3ational 0olice assured the Court in his own Comment that his office had never authorized the removal of the license plates of illegall par+ed vehicles and that he had in fact directed full compliance with the above"mentioned decision in a memorandum. Issue. 2&3 ;emorandum/ordinance of ;;A is valid. Keld. @:A declaring &rdinance 3o. ::, 3566 and %&I>! and @=A en$oining all law"enforcement authorities in ;etropolitan ;anila from removing the license plates of motor vehicles @except when authorized under 6&I DEA and confiscating driver,s licenses for traffic violations within the said area. Kence, regardless of their merits, the cannot be imposed b the challenged enactments b virtue onl of the delegated legislative powers. It is for Congress to determine, in the exercise of its own discretion, whether or not to impose such sanctions, either directl through a statute or b simpl delegating authorit to this effect to the local governments in ;etropolitan ;anila. 2ithout such action, 0> :LGI remains effective and continues to prohibit the confiscation of license plates of motor vehicles @except under the conditions prescribed in 6&I DEA and of driver,s licenses as well for traffic violations in ;etropolitan ;anila. An ordinance to be valid* ;ust not be in contravention of the constitution ;ust not be oppressive ;ust not be discriminator
-acts. *slao, in his capacit as president of the 0angasinan State 5niversit as+ed the SC to set aside the C&A decision which denied honoraria and per diems claimed under the 3ational Compensation Circular 3o. IE b certain 0S5 personnel including petitioner. Issue. 2hether or not the acts done b the C&A in the case at bar are valid. /uling. C&A is not authorized to substitute its own $udgment for an applicable law or administrative regulation with the wisdom or propriet of which it does not agree at least not before such law or regulation was set aside b authorized agenc of government as unconstitutional or illegal and void. Administrative regulations and policies enacted b administrative bodies to interpret the law have the force of law and are entitled to great respect.
'upplementary legislation < A statute which leaves to the executive the power to fill in the technical details in view of the latter?s expertise is a recognized delegation of legislative power.
33 | P a g e

This case originated from a protest case for alleged overlapping or encroachment between two mining claims. 0etitioners filed with the 1ureau of ;ines a letter complain against private respondents for alleged overlapping and encroachment of the '5llmann' claim over the '0ed' claim. The >irector of ;ines rendered a decision declaring that there was no conflict between the '0ed and '5llmann and dismissed the petition. Since the protest case was filed after 0res. >ecree 3o. DLE @;ineral /esources >evelopment >ecree of :CFDA too+ effect on ;a :F, :CFD, the provisions of the law were made applicable to petitioners. 0res. >ecree 3o. DLE mandates compliance with certain re#uirements in order for subsisting mining claims, such as the '0ed' claim, to avail of the benefits granted under the >ecree. &therwise, mining rights to the claim will be lost. Issue. @:A whether or not public respondents have $urisdiction to pass upon the validit of the '0ed' claim in a protest case of overlapping of mining claims! and @=A should public respondents have such $urisdiction, whether or not the committed grave abuse of discretion or excess of $urisdiction in declaring petitioners to have abandoned their mining claim. /uling. 0etition dismissed. The public respondent has $urisdiction. 0etitioners had filed the protest case pursuant to 0res. >ecree 3o. DLE which vests the 1ureau of ;ines with $urisdiction over protests involving mining claims (Section DN, 0res. >ecree 3o. DLE:. 5nder the same >ecree, Section CG confers upon the Secretar of 3atural /esources, upon recommendation of the >irector of ;ines, the authorit to issue rules, regulations and orders necessar to carr out the provisions and purposes of the >ecree. In accordance with the statutor grant of rulema+ing power. Section :=N of the implementing rules invo+ed b public respondents as basis for their $urisdiction cannot be tainted with invalidit . -irst, it was issued b the >epartment Kead pursuant to validl delegated rule"ma+ing powers. Second, it does not contravene the provisions of 0res. >ecree 3o. DLE, nor does it expand the coverage of the >ecree. Section :=N merel prescribes a procedural rule to implement the general provisions of the enabling law. It does not amend or extend the provisions of the statute It is established in $urisprudence that Congress ma validl delegate to administrative agencies the authorit to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies.
Must be in compliance /it0 t0e enabling la/ and not :. Classification of rules and regulations a. Those issued b an administrative superior and directed exclusivel to the subordinates """ rules and regulations of internal administration to be observed b subordinate officials for the prompt and efficient dispatch of government business and to facilitate the transactions of the general public with the government! b. Those directed not onl to the inferior officers but also and primaril to private individuals, fixing the manner b which the terms of a statute are to be complied with. T pes of rule"ma+ing powers =.:. /ule"ma+ing b reason of particular delegation of authorit @supplementar or detailed legislationA""" refers to the power to issue rules and regulations which have the force and effect of law! =.=. /ule"ma+ing b the construction and interpretation of a statute being administered @interpretative legislationA""" refers to the power to interpret and construe the statutes entrusted to them for implementation! =.E. The ascertainment of facts which will form the basis for the enforcement of a statute @contingent legislation or determinationA.
=.
G.
Supplementar /detailed legislation :. =. Source < enabling law! /e#uisites for validit .
1da de .ineda vs .ena $, SCRA 22
-acts. Assailed in this petition for certiorari and prohibition is that part of the decision of the >irector of ;ines, affirmed b the ;inister of 3atural /esources, which declared that petitioners have abandoned and lost their rights over their mining claim.
34 | P a g e

Secretar >rilon is acting in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac+ or in excess of $urisdiction in issuing the same. The Secretar however contended that the said order was $ust a supplementar to the law which the same tried to erase the cloud thereof. Issue. 2hether or not the said order is a valid administrative regulation. /uling. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The court further ruled that the Supplementar /ules and /egulations Implementing 0residential >ecree NI: is even more emphatic in declaring that earnings and other remunerations which are not part of the basic salar shall not be included in the computation of the lEth"month pa . '2hile doubt ma have been created b the prior /ules and /egulations Implementing 0residential >ecree NI: which defines basic salar to include all remunerations or earnings paid b an emplo er to an emplo ee, this cloud is dissipated in the later and more controlling Supplementar /ules and /egulations which categoricall exclude from the definitions of basic salar earnings and other remunerations paid b emplo er to an emplo ee. A cursor perusal of the two sets of /ules indicates that what has hitherto been the sub$ect of a broad inclusion is now a sub$ect of broad exclusion. The Supplementar /ules and /egulations cure the seeming tendenc of the former rules to include all remunerations and earnings within the definition of basic salar . 'The all embracing phrase ,earnings and other remunerations, which are deemed not part of the basic salar includes within its meaning pa ments for sic+, vacation, or maternit leaves, premium for wor+s performed on rest da s and special holida s, pa s for regular holida s and right differentials. As such the are deemed not part of the basic salar and shall not be considered i the computation of the :Eth month pa . If the were not excluded it is hard to find an ,earnings and other remunerations, expressl excluded in the computation of the :E"month pa . Then the exclusionar provision would prove to be idle and with no purpose.
! reAuisites of t0e valid supplementar( delegation
must be germane to the ob$ects and purposes of the law conform to the standards that the law prescribes must be reasonable must be related to carr ing in to effect the general provisions of law
4S# v. Court of #a9 Appeals %3 .0il 3,6 -acts. The Collector of Internal /evenue notified petitioner that its income as an educational institution was taxable. 6ater on 5ST submitted a memorandum before the Sec. of -inance disputing the decision of the latter as regard the taxabilit of the former?s income from tuition fees. The case was elevated before the 1oard of Tax Appeals in accordance with the rules romulgated b said 1oard under *.&. 3o. DG:"A, whereb the petitioner #uestioned the $urisdiction of respondent to ta+e cognizance of the petition for review. Issue. 2hether or not *.&. 3o. DG:"A is tainted with invalidit for the reason that it deprives the C-I?s of their $urisdiction to ta+e cognizance of cases involving recover of taxes. Keld. *.&. 3o. DG:"A does not merel create the 1TA, which, as an instrumentalit of the >ept of -inance ma properl come within the purview of /.A. 3o. D==, but goes as far as depriving the C-I?s of their $urisdiction to act on internal evenue cases, a matter which is foreign to it and which comes within the exclusive province of Congress. This the Chief *xecutive cannot do, nor can that power be delegated b Congress alone has 8the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the $urisdiction of the various department.9 'oie #a@eda C0emicals vs 5ela Serna 22$ SCRA 32% -acts. This is a consolidated case #uestioning the supplementar regulation issued b the >epartment of 6abor and *mplo ment Secretar regarding the application and implementation of :Eth month pa law. The >epartment order included commission as part of the computation of determining the :E th month pa of the emplo ees. 5pon inspection, the petitioners were found to be violators of the law for not including the commission on its emplo ees in the computation of the :Eth month pa . The petitioner contended that the
:MCR vs 'ell #elecommunication .0il.) Inc. 2, SCRA ,% -acts. 1efore us are consolidated petitions see+ing the review and reversal of the decision: of the respondent Court of Appeals= declaring the 3ational Telecommunications Commission @hereafter, 3TCA to be a collegial bod under *xecutive &rder 3o. IDL E and ordering the 3TC to heretofore sit and act en bane, i.e., with the concurrence of at least two commissioners, for a valid dispensation of its #uasi"$udicial functions. Issue. 2&3 3TC is a collegial bod
35 | P a g e

Keld. 2e hereb declare that the 3TC is a collegial bod re#uiring a ma$orit vote out of the three members of the commission in order to validl decide a case or an incident therein. Corollaril , the vote alone of the chairman of the commission, as in this case, the vote of Commissioner Qintanar, absent the re#uired concurring vote coming from the rest of the membership of the commission to at least arrive at a ma$orit decision, is not sufficient to legall render an 3TC order, resolution or decision. Simpl put, Commissioner Qintanar is not the 3ational Telecommunications Commission. Ke alone does not spea+ for and in behalf of the 3TC. The 3TC acts through a three" man bod , and the three members of the commission each has one vote to cast in ever deliberation concerning a case or an incident therein that is sub$ect to the $urisdiction of the 3TC.
'2e reiterate the principle that the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules and regulations in the implementation of a statute is necessaril limited onl to carr ing into effect what is provided in the legislative enactment. The regulations adopted under legislative authorit b a particular department must be in harmon with the provisions of the law, and for the sole purpose of carr ing into effect its general provisions. 1 such regulations, of course, the law itself can not be extended. So long, however, as the regulations relate solel to carr ing into effect the provision of the law, the are valid.,
:rego vs C?M+&+C 2,! SCRA !$ Romulo) Mabanta vs -5M" 333 SCRA ,,, -acts. >eput Sheriff 1asco was found guilt b the cit court of manila of serious misconduct and dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits with pre$udice to reinstatement to an position in the national or local government, its agencies and instrumentalities or 7&CC. 1asco run as a councilor in :CNN election won and assume office. In the :CC= election he run again and this time his victor not without unchallenged. A #uo warranto was filed against him but was dismissed. At second time petitioner 7rego a registered voted file a petition with comelec for dis#ualification and suspension of his proclamation. 1asco was proclaimed and assume office! petitioner filed an urgent motion see+ing to annul a hast and illegal proclamation. Issue. >oes Section DG @bA of /epublic Act 3o. F:LG appl retroactivel to those removed from office before it too+ effect on Banuar :, :CC=4 /uling. There is no provision in the statute which would clearl indicate that the same operates retroactivel . It, therefore, follows that (Section) DG @bA of the 6ocal 7overnment Code is not applicable to the present case. 1asco was 3&T sub$ect to an dis#ualification at all under Section DG @bA of the 6ocal 7overnment Code which, as we said earlier, applies onl to those removed from office on or after Banuar :, :CC=. -acts. Issue of the validit of the Amendments to the /ules and /egulations Implementing /epublic Act 3o. FFD=, which re#uire the existence of a plan providing for both provident/retirement and housing benefits for exemption from the 0agUI1I7 -und coverage under 0residential >ecree 3o. :FI=, as amended. Issue. 2&3 the amendments are valid Keld. The amendments are null and void insofar as the re#uire that an emplo er should have both a provident/ retirement plan and a housing plan superior to the benefits offered b the -und in order to #ualif for waiver or suspension of the -und coverage. 6asipit &umber Co. vs 6<.C 2$% SCRA 66,
E.
/e#uirement of reasonableness a. 1ears a reasonable relation to the purpose sought to be accomplished! b. Supported b good reasons!
36 | P a g e

c. -ree from constitutional infirmities or charge of arbitrariness &upangco vs CA 60 SCRA $!$ -acts. 0/C issued resolution no. :GI 8that no examine shall attend an review class, briefing, conference, or the li+e conducted b or shall receive an handouts, review material or an tip from school or an review center during the three da s immediatel preceding ever examination da including the examination da . Issue. won the resolution no. :GI is valid. /uling. the court rule in favor of petitioner. Its is an axiom of administrative law administrative authorities should not act arbitraril and capriciousl in the issuance of rules and regulations. To be valid, such rules and regulations must be reasonable and fairl adapted to secure the end view. If shown to bear no reasonable relation to the purpose for which the are authorized to be issued, then the must be held invalid. #0e po/er of administrative officials to promulgate rules and regulations in t0e implementation of a statute is necessaril( limited to carr(ing into effect /0at is provided in t0e legislative enactment. H. Interpretative legislation :. >istinction between rule and interpretation ! .0il 222 2. enforcement of not appl ing the statute to certain situations! b usage or practiceA! b. Construction b the Secretar of Bustice as chief legal adviser of the government. ;a be reversed b 0resident in the exercise of the power to modif , alter or reverse! c. Interpretation handed down in an adversar proceeding in the form of a ruling b an executive officer exercising #uasi"$udicial power. 2eight accorded to administrative constructions
Asturias Sugar Central vs Commissioner of Customs 2% SCRA 6 , -acts. The 1ureau of Customs issued an Administrative &rder in the silence of the Tariff and Customs Code which extends the period of exportation of a specific containers in which the petitioner was directl affected. The petitioner #uestioned the said order alleging that the construction of a specific statute b an administrative bod must not be observed. Issue. 2hat weight should the court observes in administrative construction. /uling. The court ruled that where the court of last resort has not previousl interpreted the stature, the rule is that the courts will give considerations to construction b administrative or executive departments of the state. The construction of the office charged with implementing and enforcing the provisions of a statute should be given controlling weight. Melendres vs C?M+&+C 3 % SCRA 262 -acts. 0etitioner alleges that the C&;*6*C gravel abused its discretion in issuing and promulgating ex parte the assailed resolution without compl ing with the provisions of Sections I and L of /ule =N, Section : of /ule :G, Sections : to L of /ule :D, Sections : to D of /ule :F and Section C of /ule :N, all of the C&;*6*C /ules of 0rocedure. 0etitioner were candidates for the position of 1aranga Chairman of 1aranga Caniogan, 0asig Cit , in the ;a :=, :CCF baranga elections. After the counting of the votes, petitioner @ConcepcionA was proclaimed as the dul elected 1aranga Chairman. &n ;a =:, :CCF, private respondent @;elendresA filed an election protest against petitioner @ConcepcionA with the ;etropolitan Trial Court of 0asig Cit , contesting therein the results of the
1ictorias Milling Co vs Social Securit( Commission
/atio . 2hen an administrative agenc promulgates rules and regulations, in the exercise of its rule ma+ing power delegated to it b the legislature, it ma+es a new law with the force and effect of a valid law. 2hen it renders an opinion, or gives a statement of polic , it merel interprets a pre"existing law, hence, merel advisor . =. T pes of executive construction/interpretation a. Construction b an executive officer directl called to implement the law. It ma be express @embodied in a circular, directive or regulationA or implied @practice or mode of
37 | P a g e

election in all fort "seven @DFA precincts of said baranga . The case was assigned to 1ranch LN. &n Bune D, :CCF, after the preliminar hearing of the election case, it was shown that no filing or doc+et fee was paid b the protestant therein, which pa ment is re#uired in the C&;*6*C /ules of 0rocedure, /ule EF, Sec. L. 0etitioner Concepcion moved to dismiss the case on the ground of failure to compl with this re#uirement. In the contested &rder, public respondent denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that the re#uirement of pa ment of filing or doc+et fee is merel an administrative procedural matter and (is) not $urisdictional. Issue. 2&3 the C&;*6*C committed grave abuse of discretion Keld. &n the basis of all the foregoing considerations, it is resolved that the pa ment of the filing of fee for purposes of an election protest and counter" protest is not $urisdictional and, hence, non"compliance therewith at the outset will not operate to deprive the Court of $urisdiction conferred upon it b law and ac#uired pursuant to the /ules. Accordingl , the ;otion to >ismiss the instant petition is hereb denied. 2hen an administrative agenc renders an opinion or issues a statement of polic , it merel interprets a pre"existing law and the administrative interpretation is at best advisor for it is the court that finall determine what the law means. .eralta vs CSC 2 2 SCRA !22 4nited C0ristian Missionar( Societ( vs SSC 30 SCRA %$2 Marcos vs CA 2,$ SCRA $!3 -acts. this is the appeal from SSC, see+ing to annul the orders of commissioner in dismissing the petition, on the ground that in the absence of express provision in Social Securit act, vesting in the commission the power to condone penalties. 0etitioners contention that the had under the impression that international organization, the were not cover under SSC. The paid their premiums and as+ for condonation, which was denied b commissioner. ISS5*. 2&3 the commission erred in ruling that it has no authorit under SSC to condone the penalt prescribed b law for late premiums. /56I37. 3o error in the commissioner?s action. The provision on the SSC precisel enumerates the power of the commission, nowhere from the said 4S v. .anlilio 2$ .0il 60$ -acts. >ependant 0anlilio was charged and convicted of the C-I of 0rovince of 0ampaga of a violation of the law relating to the #uarantining of animals suffering from dangerous diseases +nown as rinderpest. The conviction was grounded on illegal and voluntar act of herein accused b wa of permitting and ordering the carabaos on issue to be ta+en from the corral while the #uarantines against the same was still enforce. &n other hand, that herein defendant interposed a defense that the acts complained of did not constitute a crime. Issue. 2&3 the acts complaint of in the case at bar did not constitute a crime. powers ma it shown that the commissioner is granted expressl implication the authorit to condone penalties imposed b the act. 3. Construction regulations of administrative rules or b
and
?llada vs Secretar( of "inance 0% .0il 0,2 /atio . An administrative bod has the power to interpret its own rules and such interpretation becomes part of the rule itself. 5nless shown to be erroneous, unreasonable or arbitrar , such interpretation is entitled to recognition and respect from the courts, as no one is better #ualified to interpret the intent of the regulation than the authorit that issued it. Thus, its interpretation that the rule it issued is not retroactive, not being unreasonable, should be followed. I. Contingent legislation or delegation to ascertain facts Cruz vs Doungberg 26 .0il 23! .eople vs 1era 62 .0il 26 4S vs Ang #ang -o !3 .0il &ovina vs Moreno % SCRA 22, J. 0enal rules and regulations :. /e#uisites for validit regulations of penal rules and
38 | P a g e

0hilippines, in which case, notice and hearing are not re#uired for their validit . L. *ffectivit of administrative rules and regulations :. .eople v. +9conde 0 .0il 22 .eople v. Maceren ,% SCRA !20 =. Imposition authorities K. /ate"fixing power .0ilcomsat v. Alcuaz $0 SCRA 2 $ -acts. 0hilippine Satellite Corporation filed a petition see+ing to annul and set aside an order issued b respondent Commissioner Bose 6uis Alcuaz of the 3TC, which directs the provisional reduction of the rates which ma be charged b petitioner for certain specified lines of its services b :IR with the reservation to ma+e further reduction later, for being violative of the constitutional prohibition against undue delegation of legislative power and a denial or procedural, as well as substantial due process of law. The said provisional reduction is allegedl under the contemplation of *.&. IDL, providing for the creation of 3TC and granting its rate"fixing powers! and *.&. :CL, placing petitioner under the $urisdiction of respondent 3TC. Issue. 2hether or not the order in issue is constitutional. Keld. The Supreme Court ruled that the challenged order, particularl on the issue of rates provided therein, being violative of due process clause is void and should be nullified . Thus, temporar rate"fixing order is not exempt from the procedural re#uirement of notice and hearing. ;oreover the temporar rate"fixing becomes final legislative act as to the period during which it has to remain in force pending the final determination of the case. In case of delegation of rate"fixing power, the onl standard which the legislature is re#uired to prescribe for the guidance of the admin authorit is that the rate reasonable and $ust. Kowever, it has been held that even in the absence of an express re#uirement as to reasonableness, this standard ma be implied. The fixing of rate is #uasi"legislative when the rules or the rates are meant to appl to all enterprises of a given +ind throughout the of penalties b administrative 0ublication re#uirement Section 2) Civil Code Section =, Civil Code states that the law shall ta+e effect after fifteen @:IA da s following their completion of their publication in the &fficial 7azette unless otherwise provided. Section $) 'oo@ ) %$, Administrative Code Sec. :N. 2hen 6aws Ta+e *ffect. " 6aws shall ta+e effect after fifteen @:IA da s following the completion of their publication in the &fficial 7azette or in a newspaper of general circulation, unless it is otherwise provided. C0apter 2 'oo@ 1II) %$, Administrative Code
/uling. the court ruled in the negative. The acts complaint in the case at bar do not fall within an of the provisions of the Act 3o. :FLG. Kowever, the said finding does not prevent the court from finding the accused guilt of a violation of an article of the revised penal code.
Chapter = /56*S A3> /*756ATI&3S Sec. E. -iling. " @:A *ver agenc shall file with the 5niversit of the 0hilippines 6aw Center three @EA certified copies of ever rule adopted b it. /ules in force on the date of effectivit of this Code which are not filed within three @EA months from that date shall not thereafter be the basis of an sanction against an part or persons. @=A The records officer of the agenc , or his e#uivalent functionar , shall carr out the re#uirements of this section under pain of disciplinar action. @EA A permanent register of all rules shall be +ept b the issuing agenc and shall be open to public inspection. Sec. D. *ffectivit . " In addition to other rule"ma+ing re#uirements provided b law not inconsistent with this 1oo+, each rule shall become effective fifteen @:IA da s from the date of filing as above provided unless a different date is fixed b law, or specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger to
39 | P a g e

public health, safet and welfare, the existence of which must be expressed in a statement accompan ing the rule. The agenc shall ta+e appropriate measures to ma+e emergenc rules +nown to persons who ma be affected b them. Sec. I. 0ublication and /ecording. " The 5niversit of the 0hilippines 6aw Center shall. @:A 0ublish a #uarter bulletin setting forth the text of rules filed with it during the preceding #uarter! and @=A Qeep an up"to"date codification of all rules thus published and remaining in effect, together with a complete index and appropriate tables. Sec. L. &mission of Some /ules. " @:A The 5niversit of the 0hilippines 6aw Center ma omit from the bulletin or the codification an rule if its publication would be undul cumbersome, expensive or otherwise inexpedient, but copies of that rule shall be made available on application to the agenc which adopted it, and the bulletin shall contain a notice stating the general sub$ect matter of the omitted rule and new copies thereof ma be obtained. @=A *ver rule establishing an offense or defining an act which, pursuant to law, is punishable as a crime or sub$ect to a penalt shall in all cases be published in full text. Sec. F. >istribution of 1ulletin and Codified /ules. " The 5niversit of the 0hilippines 6aw Center shall furnish one @:A free cop each of ever issue of the bulletin and of the codified rules or supplements to the &ffice of the 0resident, Congress, all appellate courts and the 3ational 6ibrar . The bulletin and the codified rules shall be made available free of charge to such public officers or agencies as the Congress ma select, and to other persons at a price sufficient to cover publication and mailing or distribution costs. Sec. N. Budicial 3otice. " The court shall ta+e $udicial notice of the certified cop of each rule dul filed or as published in the bulletin or the codified rules. Sec. C. 0ublic 0articipation. " @:A If not otherwise re#uired b law, an agenc shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of proposed rules and afford interested parties the opportunit to submit their views prior to the adoption of an rule. @=A In the fixing of rates, no rule or final order shall be valid unless the proposed rates shall have been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least two @=A wee+s before the first hearing thereon. @EA In case of opposition, the rules on contested cases shall be observed. #anada v. #uvera !6 SCRA !!6 "acts: Invo+ing the people,s right to be informed on matters of public concern @Section L, Article I% of the :CFE 0hilippine ConstitutionA as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the &fficial 7azette or otherwise effectivel promulgated, 6orenzo ;. Tanada, Abraham -. Sarmiento and ;ovement of Attorne s for 1rotherhood, Integrit and 3ationalism, Inc. @;abiniA see+ a writ of mandamus to compel Buan C. Tuvera @in his capacit as *xecutive Assistant to the 0residentA, Boa#uin %enus @in his capacit as >eput *xecutive Assistant to the 0residentA, ;el#uiades 0. de la Cruz @in his capacit as >irector, ;alacaVang /ecords &fficeA, and -lorendo S. 0ablo @in his capacit as >irector, 1ureau of 0rintingA, to publish, and or cause the publication in the &fficial 7azette of various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders. Issue: 2hether publication in the &fficial 7azette is not a sine #ua non re#uirement for the effectivit of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivit dates -eld: 3&. 7enerall , publication in the &fficial 7azette is necessar in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivit date W for then the date of publication is material for determining its date of effectivit , which is the fifteenth da following its publication W but not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect. This is correct insofar as it e#uates the effectivit of laws with the fact of publication. Article = of the 3ew Civil Code, however, does not preclude the re#uirement of publication in the &fficial 7azette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivit . The clear ob$ect of the such provision is to give the general public ade#uate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. 2ithout such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim 'ignorantia legis non excusat.' It would be the height of in$ustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for
40 | P a g e

the transgression of a law of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. -urther, publication is necessar to apprise the public of the contents of regulations and ma+e the said penalties binding on the persons affected thereb . The publication of laws has ta+en so vital significance when the people have bestowed upon the 0resident a power heretofore en$o ed solel b the legislature. 2hile the people are +ept abreast b the mass media of the debates and deliberations in the 1atasan 0ambansa W and for the diligent ones, read access to the legislative records W no such publicit accompanies the law"ma+ing process of the 0resident. The publication of all presidential issuances 'of a public nature' or 'of general applicabilit ' is mandated b law. 0residential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden on the people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within this categor . &ther presidential issuances which appl onl to particular persons or class of persons such as administrative and executive orders need not be published on the assumption that the have been circularized to all concerned. The publication of presidential issuances 'of a public nature' or 'of general applicabilit ' is a re#uirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person ma be bound b law, he must first be officiall and specificall informed of its contents. 0residential issuances of general application, which have not been published, shall have no force and effect. Kowever, the implementation/enforcement of presidential decrees prior to their publication in the &fficial 7azette is an operative fact, which ma have conse#uences which cannot be $ustl ignored. The past cannot alwa s be erased b a new $udicial declaration that an all"inclusive statement of a principle of absolute retroactive invalidit cannot be $ustified. The publication must be full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of its contents. =. 3otice and hearing re#uirement %I. Ad$udicator 0owers a. Huasi"$udicial power and #uasi"$udicial bod , defined
Huasi"$udicial power " This is the power to hear and determine #uestions of fact to which the legislative polic is to appl and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down b the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. Huasi"$udicial bod < an organ of government other than a court and other than a legislature, which affects the rights of private parties through either ad$udication or rule ma+ing power. Smart Communications vs 6#C :.R. 6o. 2 %0$ 2 August 2003 -acts. 0etitioners Isla Communications Co., Inc. and 0ilipino Telephone Corporation filed against the 3ational Telecommunications Commission, Commissioner Boseph A. Santiago, >eput Commissioner Aurelio ;. 5mali and >eput Commissioner 3estor C. >acana , an action for declaration of nullit of 3TC ;emorandum Circular 3o. :E"L"=GGG @the 1illing CircularA. 0etitioners allege that the 3TC has no $urisdiction to regulate t0e sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since such $urisdiction belongs to the >epartment of Trade and Industr under the Consumer Act of the 0hilippines! that the 1illing Circular is oppressive, confiscator and violative of the constitutional prohibition against deprivation of propert without due process of law! that the Circular will result in the impairment of the viabilit of the prepaid cellular service b undul prolonging the validit and expiration of the prepaid SI; and call cards! and that the re#uirements of identification of prepaid card bu ers and call balance announcement are unreasonable. Kence, the pra ed that the 1illing Circular be declared null and void ab initio. Issue .2&3 the /TC has $urisdiction over the case Keld. 0etitions are granted. The issuance b the 3TC of ;emorandum Circular 3o. :E"L"=GGG and its ;emorandum dated &ctober L, =GGG was pursuant to its #uasi"legislative or rule"ma+ing power. As such, petitioners were $ustified in invo+ing the $udicial power of the /egional Trial Court to assail the constitutionalit and validit of the said issuances. 2hat is assailed is the validit or constitutionalit of a rule or regulation issued b the administrative agenc in the performance of its #uasi"legislative function, the regular courts have $urisdiction to pass upon the same. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued b an administrative agenc
Misamis ?riental Association of Coco #raders vs 5?" 23$ SCRA 63 E. Application, general rule < that the issuance of rules and regulations to implement the law does not re#uire that there be prior notice and hearing conducted b the administrative agencies. Kowever, if the statute ma+ing the delegation re#uires such hearing, then one must be conducted before such rules and regulations are issued. &n the other hand, if the statute is silent on the matter, a public hearing, if practicable, ma be conducted.
41 | P a g e

contravenes the law or the constitution is within the $urisdiction of the regular courts. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of $udicial review or the power to declare a law, treat , international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts. This is within the scope of $udicial power, which includes the authorit of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validit of the acts of the political departments. Budicial power includes the dut of the courts of $ustice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legall demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac+ or excess of $urisdiction on the part of an branch or instrumentalit of the 7overnment. 3ot to be confused with the #uasi"legislative or rule"ma+ing power of an administrative agenc is its #uasi"$udicial or administrative ad$udicator power. This is the power to hear and determine #uestions of fact to which the legislative polic is to appl and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down b the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative bod exercises its #uasi"$udicial power when it performs in a $udicial manner an act which is essentiall of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonabl necessar for the performance of the executive or administrative dut entrusted to it. In carr ing out their #uasi"$udicial functions, the administrative officers or bodies are re#uired to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a $udicial nature. Santiago) *r. vs 'autista 32 SCRA $$ -acts. The appellant was a grade L pupil in a certain public elementar school. As the school ear was then about to end, the 'Committee &n the /ating &f Students -or Konor' was constituted b the teachers concerned at said school for the purpose of selecting the 'honor students' of its graduating class. 2ith the school 0rincipal, as chairman, and the members of the committee deliberated and finall ad$udged Socorro ;edina, 0atricia 6iVgat and Teodoro C. Santiago, Br. as first, second and third honors, respectivel . The school,s graduation exercises were thereafter set for ;a =:, :CLI! but three da s before that date, the 'third placer' Teodoro Santiago, Br., represented b his mother, and with his father as counsel, sought the invalidation of the 'ran+ing of honor students' thus made, b instituting the above"mentioned civil case in the Court of -irst Instance of Cotabato, committee members along with the >istrict Supervisor and the Academic Supervisor of the place.
Issue. 2&3 the committee committed grave abuse of discretion Keld. ',3& 7/A%* A15S* &- >ISC/*TI&39 'Allegations relating to the alleged ,grave abuse of discretion, on the part of teachers refer to errors, mista+es, or irregularities rather than to a real grave abuse of discretion that would amount to lac+ of $urisdiction. ;ere commission of errors in the exercise of $urisdiction ma not be corrected b means of certiorari. 2KAT A/* B5>ICIA6 &/ H5ASI B5>ICIA6 ACTS. It is difficult, if not impossible, precisel to define what are $udicial or #uasi $udicial acts, and there is considerable conflict in the decisions in regard thereto, in connection with the law as to the right to a writ of certiorari, it is clear, however, that it is the nature of the act to be performed, rather than of the office, board, or bod which performs it, that determines whether or not it is the discharge of a $udicial or #uasi"$udicial function. It is not essential that the proceedings should be strictl and technicall $udicial, in the sense in which that word is used when applied to courts of $ustice, but it is sufficient if the are #uasi $udicial. It is enough if the officers act $udiciall in ma+ing their decision, whatever ma be their public character. . .., The precise line of demar+ation between what are $udicial and what are administrative or ministerial functions is often difficult to determine. The exercise of $udicial functions ma involve the performance of legislative or administrative dudes, and the performance of administrative or ministerial duties, ma , in a measure, involve the exercise of $udicial functions. It ma be said generall that the exercise of $udicial functions is to determine what the law is, and what the legal rights of parties are, with respect to a matter in controvers ! and whenever an officer is clothed with that authorit , and underta+es to determine those #uestions, he acts $udiciall .
"ilipinas S0ell .etroleum Corp. vs ?il Industr( Commission !2 SCRA !33 -acts. /espondent ;anuel 1. Oap is a gasoline dealer b virtue of a 'Sublease and >ealer Agreement' entered into with petitioner 0ilipinas Shell 0etroleum Corporation @hereinafter +nown as ShellA originall in the ear :CLI and superseded in the ear :CLC. The latter was filed and registered with the &IC.
42 | P a g e

2hile petitioner Shell complied with its contractual commitments, ;anuel 1. Oap defaulted in his obligations upon failure to pa for his purchases of gasoline and other petroleum products. 0etitioner Shell sent demand letters to respondent ;anuel 1. Oap who continued to ignore these demands letters forcing petitioner Shell to exercise its contractual rights to terminate the contract. 0etitioner Shell sent respondent Oap the re#uired CG"da written notice to terminate their contract as provided for b Sec. I of their 'Sublease and >ealer Agreement.' >espite the pendenc of the controvers before the ordinar civil courts, &IC persisted in asserting $urisdiction over it b rendering a decision stating it has $urisdiction to pass upon the alleged contractual right of petitioner to declare Oap,s contract terminated. The &IC negated the existence of such right because the stipulation is an 'unfair and onerous trade practice.' /espondent &IC also allowed respondent Oap reasonable time from receipt of the decision within which to pa his $udgment debt to petitioner as ad$udged in a Civil Case. 0etitioner Shell moved for a reconsideration but respondent &IC denied it. Issue. 2&3 /espondent &IC has $urisdiction to hear and decide contractual disputes between a gasoline dealer and an oil compan . Keld. The contentions of petitioner are well"founded. A detailed reading of the entire &IC Act will reveal that there is no express provision conferring upon respondent &IC the power to hear and decide contractual disputes between a gasoline dealer and an oil compan . It is of course a well"settled principle of administrative law that unless expressl empowered, administrative agencies li+e respondent &IC, are bereft of #uasi"$udicial powers. As 2e declared in ;iller vs. ;ardo, et al @= SC/A NCNA. ' . . . It ma be conceded that the 6egislature ma confer on administrative boards or bodies #uasi"$udicial powers involving the exercise of $udgment and discretion, as incident to the performance of administrative functions, but in so doing, the legislature must state its intention in express terms that would leave no doubt, as even such #uasi"$udicial prerogatives must be limited, if the are to be valid, onl to those incidental to, or in connection with, the performance of administrative duties which do not amount to conferment of $urisdiction over a matter exclusivel vested in the courts.' b. >istinguished from $udicial power Budicial 0ower < is the power to courts of $ustice to settle actual case of controversies involving legal rights which are demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there is grave abuse of discretion. Carino vs C-R 20! SCRA !$3 -acts. Some NGG public school teachers, among them members of the ;anila 0ublic School Teachers Association @;0STAA and Alliance of Concerned Teachers @ACTA undertoo+ what the described as amass concerted actions' to 'dramatize and highlight, their plight resulting from the alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon grievances that had time and again been brought to the latter,s attention. According to them the had decided to underta+e said 'mass concerted actions' after the protest rall staged at the >*CS premises on September :D, :CCG without disrupting classes as a last call for the government to negotiate the granting of demands had elicited no response from the Secretar of *ducation. Through their representatives, the teachers participating in the mass actions were served with an order of the Secretar of *ducation to return to wor+ in =D hours or face dismissal, and a memorandum directing the >*CS officials concerned to initiate dismissal proceedings against those who did not compl and to hire their replacements. '-or failure to heed the return"to"wor+ order, the CK/ complainants @private respondentsA were administrativel charged on the basis of the principal,s report and given five @IA da s to answer the charges. The were also preventivel suspended for ninet @CGA da s ,pursuant to Section D: of 0.>. NGF, and temporaril replaced. An investigation committee was conse#uentl formed to hear the charges in accordance with 0.>. NGF.' Issue. 2&3 the Commission on Kuman /ights has $urisdiction, ad$udicator powers over, or the power to tr and decide, or hear and determine, certain specific t pe of cases, li+e alleged human rights violation involving civil or political rights. Keld. The Court declares the Commission on Kuman /ights to have no such power! and that it was not meant b the fundamental law to be another court or #uasi"$udicial agenc in this countr , or duplicate much less ta+e over the functions of the latter. As should at once be observed, onl the first of the enumerated powers and functions bears an resemblance to ad$udication or ad$udgment. The Constitution clearl and categoricall grants to the Commission the power to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. It can exercise that power on its own initiative or on complaint of an person. It ma exercise that power pursuant to such rules of procedure as it
43 | P a g e

ma adopt and, in cases of violations of said rules, cite for contempt in accordance with the /ules of Court. In the course of an investigation conducted b it or under its authorit , it ma grant immunit from prosecution to an person whose testimon or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessar or convenient to determine the truth. It ma also re#uest the assistance of an department, bureau, office, or agenc in the performance of its functions, in the conduct of its investigation or in extending such remed as ma be re#uired b its findings. 1ut it cannot tr and decide cases @or hear and determine causesA as courts of $ustice, or even #uasi"$udicial bodies do. To investigate is not to ad$udicate or ad$udge. 2hether in the popular or the technical sense, these terms have well understood and #uite distinct meanings. 'x x ,It ma be said generall that the exercise of $udicial functions is to determine what the law is, and what the legal rights of parties are, with respect to a matter in controvers ! and whenever an officer is clothed with that authorit , and underta+es to determine those #uestions, he acts $udiciall .,x x.' Kence it is that the Commission on Kuman /ights, having merel the power 'to investigate,' cannot and should not 'tr and resolve on the merits' @ad$udicateA the matters involved in Stri+ing Teachers K/C of our present law relating to voluntar arbitration provides that '@tAhe award or decision of the %oluntar Arbitrator x x x shall be final and executor after ten @:GA calendar da s from receipt of the cop of the award or decision b the parties,'I while the '@dAecision, awards, or orders of the 6abor Arbiter are final and executor unless appealed to the Commission b an or both parties within ten @:GA calendar da s from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders.'L Kence, while there is an express mode of appeal from the decision of a labor arbiter, /epublic Act 3o. LF:I is silent with respect to an appeal from the decision of a voluntar arbitrator. c. >istinguished from administrative function
Administrative -unction < are those which involve the regulation and control over the conduct and affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to better carr out the polic of the legislature as such are devoled upon the admin agenc b the organic law of existence. .residential Anti>5ollar Salting #as@ "orce vs CA , SCRA 3!$ -acts. The petitioner, the 0residential Anti">ollar Salting Tas+ -orce, the 0resident,s arm assigned to investigate and prosecute so"called 'dollar salting' activities in the countr . 0A>S issued search warrants against certain companies. Issue. 2&3 the 0A>S is a #uasi"$udicial bod issue search warrants under the :CFE Constitution4
&uzon 5evelopment 'an@ vs Association of &5' +mplo(ees 2!% SCRA 62 -acts. -rom a submission agreement of the 6uzon >evelopment 1an+ @6>1A and the Association of 6uzon >evelopment 1an+ *mplo ees @A6>1*A arose an arbitration case to resolve the following issue. Issue. 2&3 the compan has violated the Collective 1argaining Agreement provision and the ;emorandum of Agreement dated April :CCD, on promotion. Keld. It will thus be noted that the Burisdiction conferred b law on a voluntar arbitrator or a panel of such arbitrators is #uite limited compared to the original $urisdiction of the labor arbiter and the appellate $urisdiction of the 3ational 6abor /elations Commission @36/CA for that matter.D The state
Keld. A #uasi"$udicial bod has been defined as 'an organ of government other than a court and other than a legislature, which affects the rights of private parties through either ad$udication or rule ma+ing.' The most common t pes of such bodies have been listed as follows. @:A Agencies created to function in situations wherein the government is offering some gratuit , grant, or special privilege, li+e the defunct 0hilippine %eterans 1oard, 1oard on 0ensions for %eterans, and 3A//A, and 0hilippine %eterans Administration. @=A Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the government is see+ing to carr on certain government functions, li+e the 1ureau of Immigration, the 1ureau of Internal /evenue, the 1oard of Special In#uir and 1oard
44 | P a g e

of Commissioners, the Civil Service Commission, the Central 1an+ of the 0hilippines. @EA Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the government is performing some business service for the public, li+e the 1ureau of 0osts, the 0ostal Savings 1an+, ;etropolitan 2aterwor+s X Sewerage Authorit , 0hilippine 3ational /ailwa s, the Civil Aeronautics Administration. @DA Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the government is see+ing to regulate business affected with public interest, li+e the -iber Inspections 1oard, the 0hilippine 0atent office, office of the Insurance Commissioner. @IA Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the government is see+ing under the police power to regulate private business and individuals, li+e the Securities X *xchange Commission, 1oard of -ood Inspectors, the 1oard of /eview for ;oving 0ictures, and the 0rofessional /egulation Commission. @LA Agencies set up to function in situations wherein the government is see+ing to ad$ust individual controversies because of some strong social polic involved, such as the 3ational 6abor /elations Commission, the Court of Agrarian /elations, the /egional &ffices of the ;inistr of 6abor, the Social Securit Commission, 1ureau of 6abor Standards, 2omen and ;inors 1ureau. As ma be seen, it is the basic function of these bodies to ad$udicate claims and/or to determine rights, and unless its decision are seasonabl appealed to the proper reviewing authorities, the same attain finalit and become executor . A perusal of the 0residential Anti">ollar Salting Tas+ -orce,s organic act, 0residential >ecree 3o. :CEL, as amended b 0residential >ecree 3o. =GG=, convinces the Court that the Tas+ -orce was not meant to exercise #uasi"$udicial functions, that is, to tr and decide claims and execute its $udgments. As the 0resident,s arm called upon to combat the vice of 'dollar salting' or the blac+mar+eting and salting of foreign exchange, it is tas+ed alone b the >ecree to handle the prosecution of such activities, but nothing more. Co;uangco vs .C:: %0 SCRA 226 -acts. 0resident Corazon C. A#uino directed the Solicitor 7eneral to prosecute all persons involved in the misuse of coconut lev funds. 0ursuant to the above directive the Solicitor 7eneral created a tas+ force to conduct a thorough stud of the possible involvement of all persons in the anomalous use of coconut lev funds. 5pon the creation of the 0C77 under *&. : issued b 0resident A#uino, the 0C77 was charged with the tas+ of assisting the 0resident not onl in the recover of illgotten wealth or unexplained wealth accumulated b the former 0resident, his immediate famil , relatives, subordinates and close associates but also in the investigation of such cases of graft and corruption as the 0resident ma assign to the Commission from time to time and to prevent a repetition of the same in the future. 0etitioner alleges that the 0C77 ma not conduct a preliminar investigation of the complaints filed b the Solicitor 7eneral without violating petitioner,s rights to due process and e#ual protection of the law, and that the 0C77 has no right to conduct such preliminar investigation. Issue. 2&3 the 0residential Commission on 7ood 7overnment @0C77A has the power to conduct a preliminar investigation of the anti"graft and corruption cases filed b the Solicitor 7eneral against *duardo Co$uangco, Br. and other respondents for the alleged misuse of coconut lev funds. Keld. Considering that the 0C77, li+e the courts, is vested with the authorit to grant provisional remedies of @:A se#uestration, @=A freezing assets, and @EA provisional ta+eover, it is indispensable that, as in the case of attachment and receivership, there exists a prima facie factual foundation, at least, for the se#uestration order, freeze order or ta+eover order, an ade#uate and fair opportunit to contest it and endeavor to cause its negation or nullification. 1oth are assured under the foregoing executive orders and the rules and regulations promulgated b the 0C77. The general power of investigation vested in the 0C77 is concerned, it ma be divided into two stages. The first stage of investigation which is called the criminal investigation stage is the factfinding in#uiring which is usuall conducted b the law enforcement agents whereb the gather evidence and interview witnesses after which the assess the evidence and if the find sufficient basis, file the complaint for the purpose of preliminar investigation. The second stage is the preliminar investigation stage of the said complaint. It is at this stage, as above discussed, where it is ascertained if there is sufficient evidence to bring a person to trial. It is in such instances that 2e sa one cannot be 'a prosecutor and $udge at the same time.' Kaving gathered the evidence and filed the complaint as a law enforcer, he cannot be expected to handle with impartialit the preliminar investigation of his own complaint, this time as a public prosecutor.
45 | P a g e

The Court holds that a $ust and fair administration of $ustice can be promoted if the 0C77 would be prohibited from conducting the preliminar investigation of the complaints sub$ect of this petition and the petition for intervention and that the records of the same should be forwarded to the &mbudsman, who as an independent constitutional officer has primar $urisdiction over cases of this nature, to conduct such preliminar investigation and ta+e appropriate action. Sideco vs Sarenas) ! .0il. $0 -acts. Two parties, Crispulo Sideco on the one hand, and 6eocadio Sarenas and /ufino Sarenas on the other hand, claim the exclusive right to the use of the waters flowing through the estero for irrigation purposes. The claim of Sideco goes bac+ to :NNI when the predecessor in interest of his father constructed a dam in these waters! the use of the dam was afterwards interrupted b outside causes such as imprisonment and war, but again reasserted in :C::, :C:I, and :C:L. *xactl what the two Sarenas, contention is, is not #uite clear on the facts before us. Kowever, it appears that the made application to the >irector of 0ublic 2or+s, onl to meet with the opposition of Sideco, and that the >irector of 0ublic 2or+s, with the approval of the Secretar of Commerce and Communications, granted the two Sarenas the right, in preference to all other persons, to use the waters of the estero 1angad. Sideco then too+ the proceedings to the Court of -irst Instance of 3ueva *ci$a. After trial, $udgment was entered, dismissing the complaint and the appeal of Sideco and confirming the decision of the administrative authorities, with the costs against the plaintiff. The further appeal of Sideco to this court, while conceding the correctness of the findings of the trial court, s#uarel challenges its $udgment. Issue. 2&3 Keld. Administrative machiner for the settlement of disputes as to the use of waters is provided b the Irrigation Act, as amended. Controversies must be submitted to the Secretar of Commerce and Communications through the >irector of 0ublic 2or+s. The 'decision' of the Secretar thereon is final 'unless appeal therefrom be ta+en to the proper court within. thirt da s after the date of the notification of the parties of said decision. In case of such appeal the court having $urisdiction shall tr the controvers de novo.' @See. D.A A more extensive method is also provided, somewhat a+in to our cadastral s stem, which ma+es it the dut of the >irector of 0ublic 2or+s to ma+e a technical examination of streams and to prepare a list of priorities. In the performance of this wor+, the >irector of 0ublic 2or+s or an official especiall authorized b him, ma examine witnesses under oath, and can '3o examinee shall attend an review class, briefing, conference or the li+e conducted b , or shall receive an hand"out, review material, or an tip from an school, college or universit , or an review center or the li+e or an reviewer, lecturer, instructor official or emplo ee of an of the aforementioned or similar institutions during the three da s immediatel preceding ever examination da including the examination da . An examinee violating this instruction shall be sub$ect to the sanctions. 0etitioners, all reviewees preparing to ta+e the licensure examinations in accountanc filed in their own behalf and in behalf of all others similarl situated li+e them, with the /TC a complaint for in$unction with a pra er for the issuance of a writ of preliminar in$unction against respondent 0/C to restrain the latter from enforcing the above"mentioned resolution and to declare the same unconstitutional. >*CISI&3 &- >I/*CT&/ &- 0516IC 2&/QS AS 0A/T &- B5>ICIA6 /*C&/>."The decision of the >irector of 0ublic 2or+s, affirmed b the Secretar of Commerce and Communications, containing as it does the technical findings of officers especiall #ualified in irrigation engineering, should invariabl be made a part of the $udicial record because @:A the determination of these officials would be most useful to the courts, and @=A the exact date of the decision is of moment since it decides whether the appeal was ta+en in time. ?campo vs 4S 23! 4S % d. >istinguished from legislative power or rule"ma+ing &upangco vs CA 60 SCRA $!$ -acts. 0rofessional /egulation Commission @0/CA issued /esolution 3o. :GI as part of its 'Additional Instructions to *xaminees to all those appl ing for admission to ta+e the licensure examinations in accountanc . The resolution embodied the following pertinent provisions. issue for this purpose subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum. @Secs. N, D:.A Certificates signed b the Secretar of Commerce and Communications are then granted each appropriator. @Secs. C, :N.A 'Appeal' lies from the 'decision' of the >irector of 0ublic 2or+s, as approved b the Secretar of Commerce and Communications, to the Court of -irst Instance of the province in which the propert is situated. Such action must be brought within ninet da s of the date of the publication of the approved list of priorities. @Sec. :G.A
46 | P a g e

that the 3ational Kousing Authorit shall have exclusive authorit to regulate the real estate trade and business.
Issue. 2&3 the /esolution is unconstitutional Keld. The /esolution is null and void. The enforcement of /esolution 3o. :GI is not a guarantee that the alleged lea+ages in the licensure examinations will be eradicated or at least minimized. ;a+ing the examinees suffer b depriving them of legitimate means of review or preparation on those last three precious da s"when the should be refreshing themselves with all that the have learned in the review classes and preparing their mental and ps chological ma+e"up for the examination da itself"would be li+e uprooting the tree to get ride of a rotten branch. 2hat is needed to be done b the respondent is to find out the source of such lea+ages and stop it right there. If corrupt officials or personnel should be terminated from their loss, then so be it. -ixers or swindlers should be flushed out. Strict guidelines to be observed b examiners should be set up and if violations are committed, then licenses should be suspended or revo+ed. These are all within the powers of the respondent commission as provided for in 0residential >ecree 3o. ==E. 1ut b all means the right and freedom of the examinees to avail of all legitimate means to prepare for the examinations should not be curtailed. e. /ationale for vesting administrative agencies with #uasi" $udicial power C.#. #orres +nterprises) Inc. vs -ibionada % SCRA 26$ -acts . The petitioner as agent of private respondent 0leasantville >evelopment Corporation sold a subdivision lot on installment to private respondent *fren >iongon. The installment pa ments having been completed, >iongon demanded the deliver of the certificate of title to the sub$ect land. 2hen neither the petitioner nor 0leasantville complied, he filed a complaint against them for specific performance and damages in the /egional Trial Court of 3egros &ccidental. The case was set for initial hearing. It was then that C.T. Torres *nterprises filed a motion to dismiss for lac+ of $urisdiction, contending that the competent bod to hear and decide the case was the Kousing and 6and 5se /egulator 1oard. The motion to dismiss was denied b the court contending that it had $urisdiction over the matter. Issue . 2&3 the trial court have $urisdiction over the case. /atio . 0.>. 3o. CIF, promulgated Bul :=, :CFL and otherwise +nown as 'The Subdivision and Condominium 1u ers, 0rotective >ecree,' provides
0.>. 3o. :EDD, which was promulgated April =, :CFN, and empowered the 3ational Kousing Authorit to issue writs of execution in the enforcement of its decisions under 0.>. 3o. CIF, specified the #uasi"$udicial $urisdiction of the agenc as follows. S*CTI&3 :. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers provided for in 0residential >ecree 3o. CIF, the 3ational Kousing Authorit shall have e9clusive ;urisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature. A. 5nsound real estate business practices! 1. Claims involving refund and an other claims filed b subdivision lot or condominium unit bu er against the pro$ect owner developer, dealer, bro+er or salesman! and C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutor( obligations filed b( bu(ers of subdivision lots or condominium units against t0e o/ner) developer) dealer) bro@er or salesman. This departure from the traditional allocation of governmental powers is $ustified b expedienc , or the need of the government to respond swiftl and competentl to the pressing problems of the modem world.
f.
Scope of #uasi"$udicial powers of an administrative agenc :SIS vs CSC 202 SCRA ,%%
-acts . The 7overnment Service Insurance S stem @7SISA dismissed six @LA emplo ees as being 'notoriousl undesirable,' the having allegedl been found to be connected with irregularities in the canvass of supplies and materials. -ive of these six dismissed emplo ees appealed to the ;erit S stems 1oard. The 1oard found the dismissals to be illegal because affected without formal charges having been filed or an opportunit given to
47 | P a g e

the emplo ees to answer, and ordered the remand of the cases to the 7SIS for appropriate disciplinar proceedings. The 7SIS appealed to the Civil Service Commission. 1 /esolution, the Commission ruled that the dismissal of all five was indeed illegal. 7SIS appealed to the SC and affirmed the decision of the CSC with a modification that it eliminated the pa ment of bac+ salaries until the outcome of the investigation and reinstatement of onl E emplo ees since the other two had died. The heirs of the deceased sought execution of the order from the CSC which was granted. 7SIS opposed and came to the SC on certiorari contending that the CSC does not have an power to execute its resolution or $udgment. Issue . 2&3 the CSC had powers to execute its resolution or $udgment. /atio . The Civil Service Commission, li+e the Commission on *lections and the Commission on Audit, is a constitutional commission invested b the Constitution and relevant laws not onl with authorit to administer the civil service, but also with #uasi"$udicial powers. It has the authorit to hear and decide administrative disciplinar cases instituted directl with it or brought to it on appeal. The Civil Service Commission promulgated /esolution 3o. NC"FFC adopting, approving and putting into effect simplified rules of procedure on administrative disciplinar and protest cases, pursuant to the authorit granted b the constitutional and statutor provisions. The provisions are analogous and entirel consistent with the dut or responsibilit reposed in the Chairman b 0> NGF, sub$ect to policies and resolutions adopted b the Commission. In light of all the foregoing constitutional and statutor provisions, it would appear absurd to den to the Civil Service Commission the power or authorit to enforce or order execution of its decisions, resolutions or orders which, it should be stressed, it has been exercising through the ears. It would seem #uite obvious that the authorit to decide cases is inutile unless accompanied b the authorit to see that what has been decided is carried out. Kence, the grant to a tribunal or agenc of ad$udicator power, or the authorit to hear and ad$udge cases, should normall and logicall be deemed to include the grant of authorit to enforce or execute the $udgments it thus renders, unless the law otherwise provides. >eath, however, has alread sealed that outcome, foreclosing the initiation of disciplinar administrative proceedings, or the continuation of an then pending, against the deceased emplo ees. 2hatever ma be said of the binding force of the /esolution of Bul D, :CNN so far as, to all intents and purposes, it ma+es exoneration in the administrative proceedings a condition precedent to pa ment of bac+ salaries, it cannot exact an impossible performance or decree a useless exercise.
Angara vs. +lectoral Commission 63 .0il 3% -acts . This is an original action instituted in this court b the petitioner, Bose A. Angara, for the issuance of a writ of prohibition to restrain and prohibit the *lectoral Commission, one of the respondents, from ta+ing further cognizance of the protest filed b 0edro Onsua, another respondent, against the election of said petitioner as member of the 3ational Assembl for the first assembl district of the 0rovince of Ta abas. 0etitioner challenges the $urisdiction of the *lectoral Commission. Issue . Kas the said *lectoral Commission acted without or in excess of its $urisdiction in assuming to ta+e cognizance of the protest filed against the election of the herein petitioner notwithstanding the previous confirmation of such election b resolution of the 3ational Assembl 4 /atio . The creation of the *lectoral Commission carried with it ex necesitate rei the power regulative in character to limit the time within which protests intrusted to its cognizance should be filed. It is a settled rule of construction that where a general power is conferred or dut en$oined, ever particular power necessar for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also conferred @Coole , Constitutional 6imitations, eighth ed., vol. I, pp. :EN, :ECA. In the absence of an further constitutional provision relating to the procedure to be followed in filing protests before the *lectoral Commission, therefore, the incidental power to promulgate such rules necessar for the proper exercise of its exclusive powers to $udge all contests relating to the election, returns and #ualifications of members of the 3ational Assembl , must be deemed b necessar implication to have been lodged also in the *lectoral Commission. /esolution 3o. N of the 3ational Assembl confirming the election of members against whom no protests has been filed at the time of its passage on >ecember E, :CEI, can not be construed as a limitation upon the time for the initiation of election contests. 2hile there might have been good reason for the legislative practice of confirmation of members of the 6egislature at the time the power to decide election contests was still lodged in the 6egislature, confirmation alone b the 6egislature cannot be construed as depriving the *lectoral Commission of the authorit incidental to its constitutional power to be 'the sole $udge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and #ualifications of the members of the 3ational Assembl ', to fix the time for the filing of said election protests. Confirmation b the 3ational Assembl of the returns of its members against whose election no protests have been filed is, to all legal purposes, unnecessar .
48 | P a g e

Confirmation of the election of an member is not re#uired b Constitution before he can discharge his duties as such member. .rovident #ree "arms vs 'atario) *r. 23 SCRA !63 -acts . 0etitioner 0/&%I>*3T T/** -A/;S, I3C. @0T-IA, is a 0hilippine corporation engaged in industrial tree planting. It grows gubas trees in its plantations in Agusan and ;indoro which it supplies to a local match manufacturer solel for production of matches. In consonance with the state polic to encourage #ualified persons to engage in industrial tree plantation, Sec. EL, par. @:A, of the /evised -orestr Code : confers on entities li+e 0T-I a set of incentives among which is a #ualified ban against importation of wood and 'wood"derivated' products. 0rivate respondent A. B. International Corporation @ABICA imported four @DA containers of matches from Indonesia, which the 1ureau of Customs, and two @=A more containers of matches from Singapore. 5pon re#uest of 0T-I, Secretar -ulgencio S. -actoran, Br., of the >epartment of 3atural /esources and *nvironment issued a certification that 'there are enough available softwood suppl in the 0hilippines for the match industr at reasonable price.' 0T-I then filed with the /egional Court of ;anila a complaint for in$unction and damages with pra er for a temporar restraining order against respondents Commissioner of Customs and ABIC to en$oin the latter from importing matches and 'wood" derivative' products, and the Collector of Customs from allowing and releasing the importations. ABIC moved to dismiss the case asseverating that the enforcement of the import ban under Sec. EL, par. @:A, of the /evised -orestr Code is within the exclusive realm of the 1ureau of Customs, and direct recourse of petitioner to the /egional Trial Court to compel the Commissioner of Customs to enforce the ban is devoid of an legal basis. Issue . 2&3 the /TC has $urisdiction over the case. /uling . 0T-I,s correspondence with the 1ureau of Customs contesting the legalit of match importations ma alread ta+e the nature of an administrative proceeding the pendenc of which would preclude the court from interfering with it under the doctrine of primar $urisdiction. 5nder the sense"ma+ing and expeditious doctrine of primar $urisdiction . . . the courts cannot or will not determine a controvers involving a #uestion which is within the $urisdiction of an administrative tribunal, where the #uestion demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion re#uiring the special +nowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformit the of ruling is essential to compl with the purposes of the regulator statute administered @0ambu$an Sur 5nited ;ine 2or+ers v. Samar ;ining Co., Inc., CD 0hil. CE=, CD: (:CID).A. In this era of clogged court doc+ets, the need for specialized administrative boards or commissions with the special +nowledge, experience and capabilit to hear and determine promptl disputes on technical matters or essentiall factual matters, sub$ect to $udicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion, has become well nigh indispensable . . . ;oreover, however cleverl the complaint ma be worded, the ultimate relief sought b 0T-I is to compel the 1ureau of Customs to seize and forfeit the match importations of ABIC. Since the determination to seize or not to seize is discretionar upon the 1ureau of Customs, the same cannot be sub$ect of mandamus. 1ut this does not preclude recourse to the courts b wa of the extraordinar relief of certiorari under /ule LI of the /ules of Court if the 1ureau of Customs should gravel abuse the exercise of its $urisdiction. &therwise stated, the court cannot compel an agenc to do a particular act or to en$oin such act which is with its prerogative! except when in the excrcise of its authorit it clearl abuses or exceeds its $urisdiction. In the case at bench, we have no occassion to rule on the issue of grave abuse of discretion as excess of $urisdiction as it is not before us. #e;ada v. -omestead .ropert( Corporation ,$ SCRA 6! -acts . 0rivate respondent Taclin %. 1aVez offered to sell to petitioner *nri#ueto -. Te$ada a =GG s#uare meter lot owned b respondent corporation. 0rivate respondent suggested that petitioner pa a reservation fee of 0=G,GGG.GG, which would form part of the consideration in case the reach a final agreement of sale and which amount was to be returned to the petitioner should the parties fail to reach an agreement. After pa ing the reservation fee, the respondent corporation changed the terms of monthl amortization which resulted in the demand of the petitioner for the return of his reservation fee. /espondent refused to return the same and petitioner brought suit with the /TC for a collection of sum of mone . /espondents herein filed a motion to dismiss contesting the $urisdiction of the /TC to hear the case. The same was denied and respondents appealed to the CA who decided in their favor. 0etitioner argues that inasmuch as there is no perfected contract of sale between the parties, the claim for recover of the reservation fee properl falls within the $urisdiction of the regular courts and not that of the KS/C. Issue . 2&3 the /TC had $urisdiction over the recover of reservation fee.
49 | P a g e

/atio . 5nder 0residential >ecree 3o. :EDD, the 3KA has exclusive $urisdiction to hear and decide claims involving refund and other claims filed b a subdivision lot or condominium unit bu er against the pro$ect owner, etc. There is no such #ualification in said provision of law that ma+es a distinction between a perfected sale and one that has et to be perfected. The word 'bu er' in the law should be understood to be an one who purchases an thing for mone . 5nder the circumstances of this case, one who offers to bu is as much a bu er as one who bu s b virtue of a perfected contract of sale. Said powers have since been transferred to the K6/1. ;oreover, upon the promulgation of *xecutive &rder 3o. CG, it is therein provided that the K6/1 has exclusive $urisdiction over claims involving refund filed against pro$ect owners, developers, and dealers, among others. 2hen an administrative agenc or bod is conferred #uasi"$udicial functions, all controversies relating to the sub$ect matter pertaining to its specialization are deemed to be included within the $urisdiction of said administrative agenc or bod . Split $urisdiction is not favored. Since in this case the action for refund of reservation fee arose from a proposed purchase of a subdivision lot obviousl the K6/1 has exclusive $urisdiction over the case. CariEo vs. C-R 20! SCRA !$3 /uling . Kence it is that the Commission on Kuman /ights, having merel the power 'to investigate,' cannot and should not 'tr and resolve on the merits' @ad$udicateA the matters involved in Stri+ing Teachers K/C Case 3o. CG"FFI, as it has announced it means to do! and it cannot do so even if there be a claim that in the administrative disciplinar proceedings against the teachers in #uestion, initiated and conducted b the >*CS, their human rights, or civil or political rights had been transgressed. ;ore particularl , the Commission has no power to 'resolve on the merits' the #uestion of @aA whether or not the mass concerted actions engaged in b the teachers constitute a stri+e and are prohibited or otherwise restricted b law! @bA whether or not the act of carr ing on and ta+ing part in those actions, and the failure of the teachers to discontinue those actions and return to their classes despite the order to this effect b the Secretar of *ducation, constitute infractions of relevant rules and regulations warranting administrative disciplinar sanctions, or are $ustified b the grievances complained of b them! and @cA what where the particular acts done b each individual teacher and what sanctions, if an , ma properl be imposed for said acts or omissions.
These are matters undoubtedl and clearl within the original $urisdiction of the Secretar of *ducation, being within the scope of the disciplinar powers granted to him under the Civil Service 6aw, and also, within the appellate $urisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. g. Classification of ad$udicator powers =. >irecting powers. Illustrated b the corrective powers of public utilit commissions, powers of assessment under the revenue laws, reparations under public utilit laws and awards under! E. *nabling powers. The grant or denial of permit or authorization! :. >ispensing powers. The authorit to exempt from or relax a general prohibition, or authorit to relieve from affirmative dut . The licensing power sets or assumes a standard, while the dispensing power sanctions a deviation from a standard! =. Summar powers. To designate administrative power to appl compulsion or force against person or propert to effectuate a legal purpose without a $udicial warrant to authorize such action! E. *#uitable powers. An administrative tribunal having power to determine the law upon a particular state of facts has the right to and must consider and ma+e proper application of the rules of e#uit . %II. The 0ower to Issue Subpoena Carmelo vs Ramos 6 SCRA $36 Section 3 'oo@ 1II %$, Admin. Code Caamic vs :alaon 23, SCRA 3%0 -acts . /espondent ;TC $udge issued a subpoena against Caamic which re#uired her to appear before his sala under the penalt of law. Caamic was surprised for she was not aware of an case filed against her. 2hen she appeared at the date, time and place stated in the subpoena, she was berated b the respondent and demanded NQ from her. Said amount was the amount of the life insurance polic of one *dgardo Sandagan. Said
50 | P a g e

subpoena was issued upon re#uest b 7enerosa Sandagan who sought the help of respondent because she could not get a share of the proceeds of the life insurance polic of her dead husband whose beneficiar was Caamic. Issue . 0ropriet of the subpoena issued b the respondent $udge. /uling . /espondent should have +nown or ought to +now that under Section :, /ule =E of the /ules of Court, a subpoena 'is a process directed to a person re#uiring him to attend and to testif at the hearing or the trial of an action, or at an investigation conducted under the laws of the 0hilippines, or for ta+ing of his deposition.' Although the subpoena he caused to be issued purports to be in a form for criminal cases pending in his court, it was not, in fact, issued in connection with a criminal case or for an other pending case in his court nor for an investigation he was competent to conduct pursuant to law or b direction of this Court. It was designated for a specific purpose, viz., administrative conference. That purpose was, in no wa connected with or related to some of his administrative duties because he +new from the beginning that it was for a confrontation with the complainant as solicited b 7enerosa. Sandagan for the latter to get a share in the death benefits of *dgardo Sandagan which was received b the complainant. 7enerosa had not filed an action in respondent,s court for her claim! neither is there an case in respondent,s court concerning such death benefits. 2hat 7enerosa wanted was for respondent to act as mediator or conciliator to arrive at a possible compromise with the complainant, which was, obviousl , non" official and absolutel a private matter. 3ot being then directl or remotel related to his official functions and duties, accommodating the re#uest and using his official functions and office in connection therewith was, b an ardstic+, improper. In a suit for unfair competition, it is onl through the issuance of the #uestioned 'subpoena duces tecum ' that the complaining part is afforded his full rights of redress. 4niversal Rubber .roducts vs CA 30 SCRA 0! -acts . 0rivate respondents herein sued herein petitioner for unfair competition in the lower court. >uring the trial and after the presentation of some of private respondents? witnesses, the re#uested the court for a subpoena duces tecum as regards to the boo+s of herein petitioner. 0etitioner moved to #uash the subpoena on the ground that it can onl be regarded as a 8fishing bill9 to discover evidence against herein petitioner and that such is not applicable in a case for unfair competition. The trial court denied the same.
Issue . 2&3 the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum is proper in a case for unfair competition. /atio . A case for unfair competition is actuall a case for in$unction and damages. As a general rule, on obtaining an in$unction for infringement of a trademar+, complainant is entitled to an accounting and recover of defendant,s profits on the goods sold under that mar+, as incident to, and a part of, his propert right, and this rule applies in cases of unfair competition. In such case, the infringer or unfair trader is re#uired in e#uit to account for and ield up his gains on a principle analogous to that which charges as trustee with the profits ac#uired b the wrongful use of the propert of the cestui #ue trust, and defendant,s profits are regarded as an e#uitable measure of the compensation plaintiff should receive for the past harm suffered b him. In order to entitle a parr to the issuance of a 'subpoena duces tecum, ' it must appear. 1 clear and une#uivocal proof, that the boo+ or document sought to be produced contains evidence relevant and material to the issue before the court, and that the precise boo+, paper or document containing such evidence has been so designated or described that it ma be identified. A 'subpoena duces tecum' once issued b the court ma be #uashed upon motion if the issuance therof is unreasonable and oppressive, or the relevanc of the boo+s. documents or things does not appear, or if the persons in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the reasonable cost of production thereof. In the instant case in determining whether the boo+s sub$ect to the subpoena duces tecum are relevant and reasonable in relation to the complaint of private respondent for unfair competition. Masangca( vs C?M+&+C 6 SCRA 2, -acts . ;asangca was the provincial treasurer of A+lan who was charged with several others for C&3T*;0T b the C&;*6*C when it opened E boxes without the presence of the persons and/or parties indicated in its /esolution. After appearing and showing cause wh the should not be punished for contempt, the C&;*6*C sentenced ;asangca for imprisonment and imposing a fine. ;asangca filed a petition for review with the SC. Issue . 2&3 the C&;*6*C ma punish ;asangca for contempt for his acts.
51 | P a g e

/uling . The Commission on *lections has not onl the dut to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections, but also the power to tr , hear and decide an controvers that ma be submitted to it in connection with the elections. In this sense, we said, the Commission, although it cannot be classified as a court of $ustice within the meaning of the Constitution @Section EG, Article %IIIA, for it is merel an administrative bod , ma however exercise #uasi"$udicial functions insofar as controversies that b express provision of law come under its $urisdiction. 2hen the Commission exercises a ministerial function it cannot exercise the power to punish for contempt because such power is inherentl $udicial in nature. '. . . In proceeding on this matter, it onl discharged a ministerial dut ! it did not exercise an $udicial function. Such being the case, it could not exercise the power to punish for contempt as postulated in the law, for such power is inherentl $udicial in nature. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts! its existence is essential to the preservation of order in $udicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of $udgments, orders and mandates of courts, and, conse#uentl , in the, administration of $ustice. The exercise of this power has alwa s been regarded as a necessar incident and attribute of courts. Its exercise b administrative bodies has been invariabl limited to ma+ing effective the power to elicit testimon . And the exercise of that power b an administrative bod in furtherance of its administrative function has been held invalid.
IJ.
0ower to impose penalties Scot(Fs 5epartment Store v. Micaller %% .0il ,62
"acts: 3ena ;icaller was emplo ed as a salesgirl in the Scot ,s >epartment Store situated at L:I *scolta, ;anila. This store was owned and operated b Ou Qi 6am, /ichard Oang, Ou Si Qiao and Kelen Oang. 0ursuant to section I@bA of the Industrial 0eace Act, 3ena ;icaller filed charges of unfair labor practice against her above emplo ers alleging that she was dismissed b them because of her membership in the 3ational 6abor 5nion and that, prior to her separation, said emplo ers had been #uestioning their emplo ees regarding their membership in said union and had interfered with their right to organize under the law. The emplo ers denied the charge. The claimed that the complainant was dismissed from the service because of her misconduct and serious disrespect to the management and her co emplo ees so much so that several criminal charges were filed against her with the cit fiscal of ;anila who, after investigation, filed the corresponding information?s against her and the same are now pending trial in court. The Court of industrial relation ruled in favor of 3ina ;icaller. Issue. 2&3 the Court of Industrial /elations has $urisdiction to impose the penalties prescribed in section =I of /epublic Act 3o. NFI. /uling. In conclusion, our considered opinion is that the power to impose the penalties provided for in section =I of /epublic Act 3o. NFI is lodged in ordinar courts, and not in the Court of Industrial /elations, notwithstanding the definition of the word 'Court' contained in section = @aA of said Act. Kence, the decision of the industrial court in so far as it imposes a fine of 0:GG upon petitioners is illegal and should be nullified. The procedure laid down b law to be observed b the Court of Industrial /elations in dealing with unfair labor practice cases negates those constitutional guarantees to the accused. And this is so because, among other things, the law provides that 'the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or e#uit shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Act that the Court @of Industrial /elationsA and its members and Kearing *xaminers shall use ever and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedil and ob$ectivel and without regard to technicalities of law, or procedure.' It is li+ewise en$oined that 'the Court shall not be bound solel b the evidence presented during the hearing but ma avail itself of all other means such as @but not limited toA ocular inspections and #uestioning
%III.
The 0ower To 0unish -or Contempt
/uling. /ule LD applies onl to inferior and superior courts and does not comprehend contempt committed against administrative officials or bodies, unless said contempt is (clearl considered and expressl defined as contempt of court, as is done in paragraph = of Sec. ING of the revised administrative code. The refusal to compl with order of tenanc law, enforcement division is neither contempt nor a penalized offense. Camelo v. Ramos 6 .0il 22
52 | P a g e

of well"informed persons which results must be made a part of the record'. All"this means that an accused ma be tried without the right 'to meet the witnesses face to face' and ma be convicted merel on preponderance of evidence and not be ond reasonable doubt. This is against the due process guaranteed b our Constitution. It ma be contended that this gap ma be subserved b re#uiring the Court of Industrial /elations to observe strictl the rules applicable to criminal cases to meet the re#uirements of the Constitution, but this would be tantamount to amending the law which is not within the province of the $udicial branch of our 7overnment. CA' v. .A& 63 SCRA 22! J. 0ower in deportation and citizenship cases &ao :i v. Court of Appeals $0 SCRA ,26 A>;I3IST/ATI%* 0/&C**>I37S I. Burisdiction A. >efinition .eople vs Mariano , SCRA 600 the crime of abuse against chastit is not denominated rape, it is onl for the lac+ of the intention to lie, both crimes being identical in ever other respect, though of different degrees of gravit . 2e therefore conclude that the crime of abuse against chastit is included in the crime of rape mentioned in section = of Act 3o. :FFE and, conse#uentl , the marriage of the accused with the offended part in the present case has extinguished his criminal liabilit . 1. *xtent of $urisdiction of administrative agencies performing #uasi"$udicial acts C0in vs &'. 20 SCRA %0 #aule vs Santos 200 SCRA 2 2 -acts. The -ederation of Associations of 1aranga Councils @-A1CA of Catanduanes decided to hold the election of +atipunan despite the absence of five @IA of its members, the 0rovincial Treasurer and the 0rovincial *lection Supervisor wal+ed out. The 0resident elect " /uperto Taule %ice" 0resident" Allan A#uino Secretar " %icente Avila Treasurer" -idel Bacob Auditor" 6eo Sales. /espondent 6eandro 6 %erceles, 7overnor of Catanduanes sent a letter to respondent 6uis T. Santos, the Secretar of 6ocal 7overnment,PP protesting the election of the officers of the -A1C and see+ing its mullification in view of several flagrant irregularities in the manner it was conducted. /espondent Secretar issued a resolution nullif ing the election of the officers of the -A1C in Catanduanes held on Bune :N, :CNC and ordering a new one to be conducted as earl as possible to be presided b the /egional >irector of /egion % of the >epartment of 6ocal 7overnment. 0etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution but it was denied b respondent Secretar . In the petition for certiorari before 5s, petitioner see+s the reversal of the resolutions of respondent for being null and void. Issue. 2hether or not the respondent Secretar has $urisdiction to entertain an election protest involving the election of the officers of the -ederation of Association of 1aranga Councils, Assuming that the respondent Secretar has $urisdiction over the election protest, whether or not he committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac+ of $urisdiction in nullif ing the election4 /uling. The Secretar of 6ocal 7overnment is not vested with $urisdiction to entertain an protest involving the election of officers of the -A1C. There is no #uestion that he is vested with the power to promulgate rules and regulations as set forth in Section === of the 6ocal 7overnment Code. '@EA
-acts. The Accused was convicted of the crime of abused of chastit . Ke filed an appealed contending that he married the victim therefore his criminal liabilit should be extinguished. The Attorne "7eneral entered an opposition to said petition wherein, after discussing the scope of article DDN of the 0enal Code and Act 3o. :FFE of the 0hilippine 6egislature amending said article, he concluded that the marriage of the accused with the offended part cannot extinguish his liabilit as perpetrator of the crime of abuse against chastit . Issue. The #uestion is a purel legal one and sifts down to whether or not section = of Act 3o. :FFE includes the crime of abuse against chastit among those cases in which criminal liabilit is extinguished b the marriage of the accused with the offended part . /uling. The intention of our 6egislature in enacting said Act 3o. :FFE was that the marriage of the accused or convict with the offended part should extinguish the criminal liabilit in the cases of seduction, abduction and rape and those involving offenses included in said crimes, such as frustrated or attempted seduction, abduction or rape. This is clear and logical. If the liabilit for a crime is extinguished in the graver cases, it must be extinguished, and for a stronger reason, in the lesser crimes. 3ow then, if
53 | P a g e

0romulgate rules and regulations necessar to carr out department ob$ectives, policies, functions, plans, programs and pro$ects!' It is a well"settled principle of administrative law that unless expressl empowered, administrative agencies are bereft of $udicial powers.:C The $urisdiction of administrative authorities is dependent entirel upon the provisions of the statutes reposing power in them! the cannot confer it upon themselves.=G Such $urisdiction is essential to give validit to their determinations.' There is neither a statutor nor constitutional provision expressl or even b necessar implication conferring upon the Secretar of 6ocal 7overnment the power to assume $urisdiction over an election protect involving officers of the +atipunan ng mga baranga . Construing the constitutional limitation on the power of general supervision of the 0resident over local governments, 2e hold that respondent Secretar has no authorit to pass upon the validit or regularit of the election of the officers of the +atipunan. To allow respondent Secretar to do so will give him more power than the law or the Constitution grants. It will in effect give him control over local government officials for it will permit him to interfere in a purel democratic and non" partisan activit aimed at strengthening the baranga as the basic component of local governments so that the ultimate goal of fullest autonom ma be achieved. II. 0rocedure to be followed Sections A. and 2. 'oo@ 1II) %$, Administrative Code
Issue. 2&3 the said *lectoral Commission acted without or in excess of its $urisdiction in assuming to ta+e cognizance of the protest filed against the election of the herein petitioner notwithstanding the previous confirmation of such election b resolution of the 3ational Assembl 4 /uling. The grant of power to the *lectoral Commission to $udge all contests relating to the election, returns and #ualifications of members of the 3ational Assembl , is intended to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originall in the legislature. The express lodging of that power in the *lectoral Commission is an implied denial of the exercise of that power b the 3ational Assembl . And this is as effective a restriction upon the legislative power as an express prohibition in the Constitution. If we concede the power claimed in behalf of the 3ational Assembl that said bod ma regulate the proceedings of the *lectoral Commission and cut off the power of the commission to la down the period within which protests should be filed, the grant of power to the commission would be ineffective. The creation of the *lectoral Commission carried with it ex necesitate rei the power regulative in character to limit the time within which protests intrusted to its cognizance should be filed. It is a settled rule of construction that where a general power is conferred or dut en$oined, ever particular power necessar for the exercise of the one or the performance of the other is also included. The incidental power to promulgate such rules necessar for the proper exercise of its exclusive power to $udge all contests relating to the election, returns and #ualifications of members of the 3ational Assembl , must be deemed b necessar implication to have been lodged also in the *lectoral Commission. !. 6imitations on the power to promulgate rules of procedure "irst &epanto Ceramics vs CA 23 SCRA 30 C. Technical rules not applicable
Source of authorit to promulgate rules of procedure Section 2.2) Article 1III) Constitution Angara vs +lectoral Commission 63 .0il 3%
-acts. That in the elections of September :F, :CEI, the petitioner, Bose A. Angara won. The provincial board of canvassers, proclaimed the petitioner as member"elect of the 3ational Assembl for the said district, for having received the most number of votes, the petitioner too+ his oath of office. /espondent 0edro Onsua filed before the *lectoral Commission a ';otion of 0rotest' against the election of the herein petitioner, Bose A. Angara, and pra ing, among other things, that said respondent be declared elected member of the 3ational Assembl for the first district of Ta abas, or that the election of said position be nullified.
=anlaon Construction +nterprises vs 6&RC 2,% SCRA 33, -acts. This is a labor case involving Qanlaon for illegal termination of emplo ment of publics respondents. The arbitration?s decision is appealed to the 36/C. 0ublic respondents in their appeal #uestioned the validit of the 36/C?s decision on the ground that the 36/C erroneousl , patentl and unreasonabl interpreted the principle that the 36/C and its Arbitration 1ranch are not strictl bound b the rules of evidence.
54 | P a g e

In brief, it was alleged that the the decision is void for the following reasons. @:A there was no valid service of summons! @=A *ngineers *stacio and >ulatre and Att . Abundiente had no authorit to appear and represent petitioner at the hearings before the arbiters and on appeal to respondent Commission! @EA the decisions of the arbiters and respondent Commission are based on unsubstantiated and self"serving evidence and were rendered in violation of petitioner,s right to due process. Issue. 2&3 publics respondents? claim is tenable. Keld. The labor arbiters and the 36/C must not, at the expense of due process, be the first to arbitraril disregard specific provisions of the /ules which are precisel intended to assist the parties in obtaining the $ust, expeditious and inexpensive settlement of labor disputes. The decision of the 3ational 6abor /elations Commission, -ifth >ivision, is annulled and set aside and the case is remanded to the /egional Arbitration 1ranch, Iligan Cit for further proceedings. Ang #iba( vs CIR 6% .0il 632 /uling. The Court of Industrial /elations is not narrowl constrained b technical rules of procedure, and the Act re#uires it to 'act according to $ustice and e#uit and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound b an technical rules of legal evidence but ma inform its mind in such manner as it ma deem $ust and e#uitable.' @Section =G, Commonwealth Act 3o. :GE.A It shall not be restricted to the specific relief claimed or demands made b the parties to the industrial or agricultural dispute, but ma include in the award, order or decision an matter or determination which ma be deemed necessar or expedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or of preventing further industrial or agricultural disputes. @Section :E, ibid.A And in the light of this legislative polic , appeals to this Court have been especiall regulated b the rules recentl promulgated b this Court to carr into effect the avowed legislative purpose. The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial /elations ma be said to be free from the rigidit of certain procedural re#uirements does not mean that it can, in $usticiable cases coming before it, entirel ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential re#uirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. 0etitioner contends that the lower court erred in holding that respondent Simplicio C. Ibea was deprived of due process of law because the 0olice Commission decided Administrative Case 3o. DN even without stenographic notes ta+en of the proceedings of the case. /uling. /espondent court,s ruling against petitioner,s decision as falling short of the legal re#uirements of due process, because it decided the sub$ect administrative case without stenographic notes @which were not ta+en b the 1oard of InvestigatorsA of the proceedings of the case, was in error. /ep. Act 3o. DNLD does not provide that the 1oard of Investigators shall be a 'board of record,' and as such it does not provide for office personnel such as cler+s and stenographers who ma be emplo ed to ta+e note of the proceedings of the board. The proceeding provided for is merel administrative and summar in character, in line with the principle that 'administrative rules of procedure should be construed liberall in order to promote their ob$ect and to assist the parties in obtaining $ust, speed and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and defenses.' The formalities usuall attendant in court hearings need not be present in an administrative investigation, provided that the parties are heard and gven the opportunit to adduce their respective evidence. D. Busticiable controvers and forum shopping S+C vs CA 2!6 SCRA ,3$ -acts. The petition before this Court relates to the exercise b the S*C of its powers in a case involving a stoc+bro+er @C5A6&0I37A and a stoc+ transfer agenc @-I>*6ITOA. The Commission has brought the case to this Court in the instant petition for review on certiorari, contending that the appellate court erred in setting aside the decision of the S*C which had @aA ordered the replacement of the certificates of stoc+ of 0hilex and @bA imposed fines on both -I>*6ITO and C5A6&0I37. -acts. 0etitioner 0olice Commission see+s the setting aside of the decision of the defunct Court of -irst Instance @respondent courtA of /izal, 1ranch %I, which declared null and void its decision in Administrative Case 3o. DN dismissing private respondent Simplicio C. Ibea and instead ordered then ;unicipal ;a or 1raulio Sto. >omingo of San Buan, /izal to reinstate said respondent to his former position as policeman of the same municipalit with bac+ salaries from the date of his suspension up to the date of his actual reinstatement.
.olice Commission vs &ood 2, SCRA ,2,
55 | P a g e

Keld. The Securities and *xchange Commission @'S*C'A has both regulator and ad$udicative functions. 5nder its regulator responsibilities, the S*C ma pass upon applications for, or ma suspend or revo+e @after due notice and hearingA, certificates of registration of corporations, partnerships and associations @excluding cooperatives, homeowners, associations, and labor unionsA! compel legal and regulator compliances! conduct inspections! and impose fines or other penalties for violations of the /evised Securities Act, as well as implementing rules and directives of the S*C, such as ma be warranted. The S*C decision which orders the two stoc+ transfer agencies to '$ointl replace the sub$ect shares and for -I>*6ITO to cause the transfer thereof in the names of the bu ers' clearl calls for an exercise of S*C,s ad$udicative $urisdiction. The stoc+holders who have been deprived of their certificates of stoc+ or the persons to whom the forged certificates have ultimatel been transferred b the supposed indorsee thereof are et to initiate, if minded, an appropriate adversarial action. A $usticiable controvers such as can occasion an exercise of S*C,s exclusive $urisdiction would re#uire an assertion of a right b a proper part against another who, in turn, contests it. The proper parties that can bring the controvers and can cause an exercise b the S*C of its original and exclusive $urisdiction would be all or an of those who are adversel affected b the transfer of the pilfered certificates of stoc+. An peremptor $udgment b the S*C, without such proceedings having initiated, would be precipitat. The #uestion on the legal propriet of the imposition b the S*C of a 0IG,GGG fine on each of -I>*6ITO and C5A6&0I37, is an entirel different matter. This time, it is the regulator power of the S*C which is involved. 2hen, on appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter set aside the fines imposed b the the S*C, the latter, in its instant petition, can no longer be deemed $ust a nominal part but a real part in interest sufficient to pursuant appeals to this Court. Section 2.2 'oo@ 1II %$, Admin Code Santiago) *r. vs 'autista 32 SCRA $$ 1illanueva vs Adre ,2 SCRA $,6 C0emp0il +9port B Import Corp. vs CA 22 SCRA 22, "irst .0il. IntFl 'an@ vs CA 222 SCRA 22% R. #ransport Corp. vs &aguesma 22, SCRA $26 :alongco vs CA 2$3 SCRA !%3 E. Institution of proceedings! ac#uisition of $urisdiction Section 2) Rule , %%, Rules of Civil .rocedure Santos vs 6&RC 22! SCRA 6,2 Matangui0and vs #engo) 2,2 SCRA ,0! F. 0re"trial conference! default Section 0 'oo@ 1II %$, Admin. Code Au(ong vs C#A 2% SCRA 0 G. Kearing Secretar( of *ustice vs &antion 322 SCRA 60 Section . 'oo@ 1II %$, Admin. Code Medenilla vs CSC %! SCRA 2,$ Simpao vs CSC % SCRA 3%6 Ale;andro vs CA % SCRA ,00 :. *vidence Section 2.3 'oo@ 1II %$, Admin Code State .rosecutor vs Muro 236 SCRA 202 :. 0roof be ond reasonable doubt .eople vs 'acalzo %2 SCRA 22, =. Clear and convincing evidence 'lac@Fs &a/ 5ictionar( 2t0 ed. .. 22, E. 0reponderance of evidence 6e/ #estament C0urc0 of :od vs CA 2!6 SCRA 266 D. Substantial evidence 1elasAuez vs 6er( 2 SCRA 2$ Malonzo ns C?M+&+C 26% SCRA 3$0 I. >ecision Section 2.$) ! 'oo@ 1II %$, Admin Code Marcelino vs Cruz 2 SCRA 2 Romualdez>Marcos vs C?M+&+C 2!$ SCRA 300 :. -orm of decision Mangca vs C?M+&+C 2 SCRA 2,3 Malinao vs Re(es 222 SCRA 6 6 Sections 2. 3 and 2. 2 'oo@ 1II %$, Admin Code =. 0ublication of decisions Section 6. .2 'oo@ 1II %$, Admin Code E. -inalit , promulgation and notice of decision Section 2 'oo@ 1II %$, Admin Code Robert 5ollar Compan( vs #uvera 23 SCRA 32! &indo vs C?M+&+C %! SCRA 22 *amil vs C?M+&+C 2$3 SCRA 3!% Section ! 'oo@ 1II %$, Admin Code Goleta vs 5rilon 66 SCRA 2!$ D. Collegiate decision, re#uirement to be valid Mison vs C?A $, SCRA !!2 AAuino>Sarmiento vs Morato 203 SCRA 2 2 I. -inalit of decisions Section 2 C0apter III 'oo@ 1II Admin Code of %$, Administrative ?rder 6o. $ Section ,
56 | P a g e

4( vs C?A 32$ SCRA 60, Camarines 6orte +lectric Cooperative vs #orres 2$6 SCRA 666 L. Application of the doctrine of res $udicata Republic vs 6eri 2 3 SCRA $ 2 'rillantes v Castro %% .0il !%, Ipe@d;ian Merc0andising vs C#A) &> 2!30) 30 Sept. %63 #eodoro vs Carague 206 SCRA !2% 5. Administrative appeal in contested cases Section %) 20) 2 ) 22 'oo@ 1II %$, Admin Code Mendez vs CSC 20! SCRA %62 .CI' vs CA 22% SCRA 260 5iamonon vs 5?&+ 32, SCRA 2$3 5e &eon vs -eirs of :regorio Re(es 22 SCRA 2$! 1da de .ineda vs .ena $, SCRA 22 Re(es vs Gamora %0 SCRA %2 Section 23 'oo@ 1II %$, Admin Code Gambales C0romite Mining Co. v. Court of Appeals %! SCRA 26 Dsmael v. 5ep +9ec Sec %0 SCRA 6,3 ;. *xecution 5ivinagracia vs C"I 3 SCRA ,,2 :SIS vs CSC 202 SCRA ,%% 1ital>:ozon vs CA 2 2 SCRA 232 III. >ue process of law in administrative ad$udication -acts. 0etitioner Santiago was charged with violation of Arts. &f 2ar CL and CF. Ke was arraigned though without summons and subpoena afforded to him. -rom the proven facts and the admission li+ewise of the respondents, the court martial which tried his case was not properl convened. There was no special order published b the head#uarters 0hilippine Constabular creating or directing the 7eneral Court ;artial composed of the respondents to arraign and tr however was alread an existing court tr ing another case. The validit of the court martial proceeding was challenged b the petitioner at the regular court on the ground of due process. Issue. 2&3 failure to compl with law on conve ing a valid court martial amount to denial of due process Keld. -AI65/* T& C&;06O 2ITK A006ICA16* 6A2 A >*3IA6 &0/&C*>5/A6 >5* 0/&C*SS." The failure to compl with the dictates of the applicable law insofar as convening a valid court martial is concerned, amounts to a denial of due process. There is such a denial not onl under the broad standard which delimits the scope and reach of the due process re#uirement, but also under one of the specific elements of procedural due process. 6ACQ &- A5TK&/ITO &- C&5/T";A/TIA6 T& T/O 0*TITI&3*/." 3or is such a reliance on the broad reach of due process the sole ground on which the lac+ of $urisdiction of die court"martial convened in this case could be predicated. /ecentl , stress was laid anew b us on the first re#uirement of procedural due process, namel , the existence of the court or tribunal clothed with $udicial, or #uasi"$udicial power to hear and determine the matter before it. This is a re#uirement that goes bac+ to 1anco *spaVol -ilipino vs. 0alanca, a decision rendered half a centur ago. There is the express admission in the statement of facts that respondents, as a court martial, were not convened to tr petitioner but someone else, the action ta+en against petitioner being induced solel b a desire to avoid the effects of prescription! it would follow then that the absence of a competent court or tribunal is most mar+ed and undeniable. Such a denial of due process is therefore fatal to its assumed authorit to tr petitioner. The writ of certiorari and prohibition should have been granted and the lower court, to repeat, ought not to have dismissed his petition summaril . The significance of such an insistence on a faithful compliance with the regular Secretar( of *ustice vs &antion 322 SCRA 60
A. Substantive and procedural due process, defined >5* 0/&C*SS contemplates notice and opportunit to be heard before $udgment is rendered, affecting one?s person or propert . It is designed to secure $ustice as a living realit ! not to sacrifice it b pa ing undue homage to formalit . -or substance must prevail over form. 0/&C*>5/A6 >5* 0/&C*SS Consists of the = basic rights of notice and hearing, as well as the guarantee of being heard b an impartial and competent tribunal 1 procedural due process is meant a law which hears before it condemns! which proceeds upon in#uir , and renders $udgment onl after trial The constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life, libert and propert without due process of law, which clause optimizes the principle of $ustice which hears before it condemns which upon in#uir and renders $udgment onl after trial. Santiago vs Ali@pala 22 SCRA 326
57 | P a g e

-acts. 0resident ;arcos issued 0> 3o. :GLC '0rescribing the 0rocedure for the *xtradition of 0ersons 2ho Kave Committed Crimes in a -oreign Countr '. The >ecree is founded on. the doctrine of incorporation under the Constitution! the mutual concern for the suppression of crime both in the state where it was committed and the state where the criminal ma have escaped! the extradition treat with the /epublic of Indonesia and the intention of the 0hilippines to enter into similar treaties with other interested countries! and the need for rules to guide the executive department and the courts in the proper implementation of said treaties. The >epartment of Bustice received from the >epartment of -oreign Affairs 5. S. 3ote %erbale 3o. GI== containing a re#uest for the extradition of private respondent ;ar+ Bimenez to the 5nited States. private respondent, through counsel, wrote a letter dated Bul :, :CCC addressed to petitioner re#uesting copies of the official extradition re#uest from the 5. S. 7overnment, as well as all documents and papers submitted therewith! and that he be given ample time to comment on the re#uest after he shall have received copies of the re#uested papers. 0etitioner refused because it is not included in the procedure of the /0"5S Treat . Issue. 2&3 private respondent,s entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the 0hilippine 7overnment under the /0"*xtradition Treat 4 Assuming the answer is in the affirmative, is there reall a conflict between the treat and the due process clause in the Constitution4 Keld. 0etition is >IS;ISS*> for lac+ of merit. 0etitioner is ordered to furnish private respondent copies of the extradition re#uest and its supporting papers, and to grant him a reasonable period within which to file his comment with supporting evidence. -rom the procedures earlier abstracted, after the filing of the extradition petition and during the $udicial determination of the propriet of extradition, the rights of notice and hearing are clearl granted to the prospective extraditee. Kowever, prior thereto, the law is silent as to these rights. /eference to the 5.S. extradition procedures also manifests this silence. In administrative law, a #uasi"$udicial proceeding involves. @aA ta+ing and evaluation of evidence! @bA determining facts based upon the evidence presented! and @cA rendering an order or decision supported b the facts proved @>e 6eon, Administrative 6aw. Text and Cases, :CCE ed., p. :CN, citing ;organ vs. 5nited States, EGD 5.S. :A. In#uisitorial power, which is also +nown as examining or investigator power, is one of the determinative powers of an administrative bod which better enables it to exercise its #uasi"$udicial authorit @Cruz, 0hil. Administrative 6aw, :CCL ed., p. =LA. This power allows the administrative bod to inspect the records and premises, and investigate the activities, of persons or entities coming under its $urisdiction @Ibid., p. =FA, or to re#uire disclosure of information b means of accounts, records, reports, testimon of witnesses, production of documents, or otherwise @>e 6eon, op. cit., p. LDA. The power of investigation consists in gathering, organizing, and anal zing evidence, which is a useful aid or tool in an administrative agenc ,s performance of its rule"ma+ing or #uasi"$udicial functions. 3otabl , investigation is indispensable to prosecution. Albert vs C"I of Manila 23 SCRA %!$ -acts. 0laintiff Albert sued 5niversit 0ublishing Compan , Inc. for breach of contract. Albert died before the case proceeded to trial, and Busto /. Albert, his estate,s administrator, was substituted. -inall , defendant,s liabilit was determined b this Court in 6":I=FI. 0laintiff was to recover 0:I,GGG.GG with legal interest from $udicial demand. -rom the inception of the suit below up to the time the $udgment in 6":I=FI was to be executed, the corporate existence of 5niversit 0ublishing Compan , Inc. appears to have been ta+en for granted, and was not then put in issue. Kowever, when the Court of -irst Instance of ;anila issued on Bul ==, :CL: an order of execution against 5niversit 0ublishing Compan , Inc., a new problem cropped up. 1 virtue of this writ, plaintiff,s counsel and the Sheriff of the Cit of ;anila went to see Bose ;. Aruego who signed the contract with plaintiff on behalf and as 0resident of 5niversit 0ublishing Compan , Inc. The then discovered that no such entit exists. A verification made at the Securities and *xchange Commission confirmed this fact. &n Bul E:, :CL:, said Commission issued a certification 'that the records of this Commission do not show the registration of 53I%*/SITO 0516ISKI37 C&., I3C., either as a corporation or partnership.'= This triggered a verified petition in the court below on August :G, :CL: for the issuance of a writ of execution ordering the Sheriff of ;anila to cause the satisfaction of the $udgment against the assets and properties of Bose ;. Aruego as the real defendant in the case. All along, Bose ;. Aruego and his law firm were counsel for the 5niversit 0ublishing Compan , Inc. Instead of informing the lower court that it had in its possession copies of its certificate of registration, its article of incorporation, its b "laws and all other papers material to its disputed corporate existence, 5niversit 0ublishing Compan , Inc. chose to remain silent. &n August ::, :CL:, 5niversit 0ublishing Compan , Inc., b counsel Aruego, ;amaril and Associates @the law firm of Bose ;. Aruego aforesaidA
58 | P a g e

merel countered plaintiff,s petition for execution as against Aruego with an unsworn manifestation in court that 'said Bose ;. Aruego is not a part to this case,' and, therefore, plaintiff,s petition should be denied. Issue. 2&3 Aruego is a part to this case Keld. 'The evidence is patentl clear that Bose ;. Aruego, acting as representative of a non"existent principal, was the real part to the contract sued upon! that he was the one who reaped the benefits resulting from it, so much so that partial pa ment of the consideration were made b him! that he violated its terms, thereb precipitating the suit in #uestion! and that in the litigation he was the real defendant. 0erforce, in line with the ends of $ustice, responsibilit under the $udgment falls on him. '1 ,due process of law, we mean ,a law which hears before it condemns! which proceeds upon in#uir , and renders $udgment onl after trial. . . ., @D 2heaton, 5.S. I:N, IN:A! or, as this Court has said, ,>ue process of law, contemplates notice and opportunit to be heard before $udgment is rendered, affecting one,s person or propert ., @6opez vs. >irector of 6ands, DF 0hil. =E, E=A., @Sicat vs. /e es, :GG 0hil., IGI! ID &ff. 7az. (:F)DCDI.A And it ma not be amiss to mention here also that the ,due process, clause of the Constitution is designed to secure $ustice as a living realit ! not to sacrifice it b pa ing undue homage to formalit . -or substance must prevail over form. It ma now be trite, but none the less apt, to #uote what long ago we said in Alonso vs. %illamor, :L 0hil. E:I, E=:"E==. ,A litigation is not a game of technicalities in which one, more deepl schooled and s+illed in the subtle art of movement and position, entraps and destro s the other. It is, rather, a contest in which each contending part full and fairl la s before the court the facts in issue and then, brushing aside as wholl trivial and indecisive all imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure, as+s that $ustice be done upon the merits. 6aws uits, unli+e duels, are not to be won b a rapier,s thrust. Technicalit , when it deserts its proper office as an aid to $ustice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enem , deserves scant consideration from courts. There should he no vested rights in technicalities. !. :. =. E. D. Cardinal primar re#uirements of due process I. L. F. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing The tribunal or bod of an $udges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controvers The board or bod should in all controversial #uestions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can +now the various issues involves and reason for the decision rendered The officer or tribunal conducting the investigation must be vested with competent $urisdiction A violation of an of the cardinal re#uirements of due process in administrative proceedings renders an $udgment or order issued therein null and void and can be attac+ed in an appropriate proceeding Ang #iba( vs CIR 6% .0il 632 -acts. The respondent 3ational 6abor 5nion, Inc., on the other hand, pra s for the vacation of the $udgment rendered b the ma$orit of this Court and the remanding of the case to the Court of Industrial /elations for a new trial. The petitioner, Ang Tiba , has filed an opposition both to the motion for reconsideration of the respondent Court of Industrial /elations and to the motion for new trial of the respondent 3ational 6abor 5uion, Inc. Issue. 2hat are the cardinal primar rights4 Keld. CA/>I3A6 0/I;A/O /I7KTS."There are cardinal primar rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character. The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the part interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. 3ot onl must the part be given an opportunit to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. 2hile the dut to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does impl a necessit which cannot be disregarded, namel , that of having something to support its decision. 3ot onl must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. The Court of Industrial /elations or an of its $udges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controvers , and not simpl accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. The Court of Industrial /elations should, in all controversial #uestions, render its
N.
The right to a hearing which includes the right to present one?s case and submit evidence The tribunal must consider the evidence presented The decision must have something to support itself The evidence must be substantial
59 | P a g e

decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can +now 6in. various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. The performance of this dut is inseparable from the authorit conferred upon it. The Court of Industrial /elations is a special court whose functions are specificall stated in the law of its creation @Commonwealth Act 3o. :GEA. It is more an administrative board than a part of the integrated $udicial s stem of the nation. It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the 7overnment. 5nli+e a court of $ustice which is essentiall passive, acting onl when its $urisdiction is invo+ed and deciding onl cases that are presented to it b the parties litigant, the function of the Court of Industrial /elations, as will appear from perusal of its organic law, is more active, affirmative and d namic. It not onl exercises $udicial or #uasi"$udicial functions in the determination of disputes between emplo ers and emplo ees but its functions are far more comprehensive and extensive. It has $urisdiction over the entire 0hilippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle an #uestion, matter controvers or dispute arising between, and/or affecting, emplo ers and emplo ees or laborers, and landlords and tenants or farm"laborers, and regulate the relations between them, sub$ect to, and in accordance with, the provisions of Commonwealth Act 3o. :GE @section :A. "abella vs CA 2$2 SCRA 226 -acts. The petitioner herein, successor <in"interest in the case of the former >*CS Secretar against the public school teachers who were illegall dismissed for staging a mass action and failure to heed to the return"to"wor+ order, filed a petition for the $udgment of the trial court holding that said public school teachers were denied of due process in the proceedings. It was held that the proceedings contravened /A DLFG which re#uired that administrative charges against a teacher shall be heard initiall b a committee composed of the corresponding school superintendent of the >ivision or a dul authorized representative who at least have the ran+ of a supervisor, where the teachers belong, as chairman, a representative of the local or, in its absence, an existing provincial or national teacher?s organization and supervisor of the >ivision, the last = to be designated b the >irector of 0ublic Schools. 0etitioner argued that >*CS complied with /A DLFG because all the teachers who were members of the various committee are members of either the HC Teachers -ederation or the HC *lementar teachers -ederation and are deemed representatives of teacher?s organization. Issue. 2&3 there was denial of due process Keld. The Court held that there was indeed a denial of due process. ;ere membership of said teachers in their respective organizations does not ipso facto ma+e them authorized representatives of the organizations. 5nder the law, the teacher?s organization possess the right to indicate its choice of representatives. Such right cannot be usurped b the Secretar of *ducation or the >irector of 0ublic Schools or their underlings. The teachers appointed b the >*CS as members of its investigating committee was ever designated or authorized b a teachers organization as its representatives in said committee. Kence the failure to compl with the re#uirement vested no $urisdiction to the committee to hear the case. /espondent teachers were denied of due process.
Air Manila vs 'alatbat 3$ SCRA !$% -acts. 0A6,s proposal to introduce new ;ercur night flights had been referred to a hearing examiner for economic $ustification, 0A6 submitted a so"called consolidated schedule of flights that included the same ;ercur night flights and this was allowed b 1oard /esolution 3o. :EC@LNA. The 1oard,s action was impelled b the authorizations of certain flight schedules previousl allowed but were incorporated were about to expire! thus, the consolidated schedule had to be approved temporaril if the operations of the flights referred to were not to be suspended. In short, the temporar permit was issued to prevent the stoppage or cessation of services in the affected areas. The 1oard, considering the report of the hearing examiner, passed /esolution 3o. :CG @LNA approving, for a period of EG da s starting E: Bul :CLN, onl three or four fre#uencies of the seven proposed new flights. There is no proof, not even allegation, that in all those hearings petitioner was not notified or give opportunit to adduce evidence in support of its opposition. Issue. 2&3 0A6 violated the re#uisites of administrative due process Keld. O*S. It was precisel prescribed that 'all schedules under the >TS"EI for which no previous approval has been granted b the 1oard, are hereb
60 | P a g e

referred to a hearing examiner for reception of evidence on its economic $ustification.' It has been correctl said that administrative proceedings are not exempt from the operation of certain basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the due process re#uirements in investigations and trials @Asprec vs. Itchon. :L SC/A C=:A. And this administrative due process is recognized to include @aA the right to noticeP, be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the proceedings that ma affect a person s legal rights! @bA reasonable opportunit to appear and defend his rightsP, introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his favor. @cA a tribunal so constitutedP as to give him reasonable assurance of honest and impartialit , and one of competent $urisdiction. and @dA a finding or decision b that tribunal supported b substantial evidenceP presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the records or disclosed to the parties affected A>;I3IST/ATI%* >5* 0/&C*SS Issue. 2&3 the revocation of the #uota is valid C. 3ecessit for notice and hearing Keld. 'The summar revocation of the export #uotas and export authorizations issued in favor of the petitioner without hearing violates not onl the above"mentioned provisions of the /aise and /egulations of the respondent board but also the ,due proem of law, clause of the Constitution of the 0hilippines to the effect that ,no person shall be deprived of life, libert , or propert without due process of law, nor shall an person be denied e#ual protection of the laws.,@Article T%, Sec. :. 3ew ConstitutionA. According to >aniel 2ebster in the >artmouth College case. due proem is the e#uivalent of the law! a law which hears before it condemns. which proceeds upon in#uir and renders $udgment onl after trial. The meaning is that ever citizen shall hold his life, libert , propert , and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern societ ., @cited in 0hilippine Constitutional 6aw, p. :LN b 3eptali 7onzales, :CFI ed.A 'Administrative due process re#uires that there be an impartial tribunal constituted to determine the right involved! that due notice and opportunit to be heard be given! that the procedure at the hearing be consistent with the essentials of a fair trial! and that the proceedings be conducted in such a wa that there will be opportunit for a court to determine whether the applicable rules of low and procedure were observed., @D= Arm Bur. p. DI:, cited b 3eptali 7onzales, p. :NE, 0hilippine Constitutional 6awA. ' .rivileges t0at 0ad long been en;o(ed transforms and becomes in t0e c0aracter of oneFs propert(. In administrative cases, the general rule is that prior notice and hearing are necessar onl where the law so re#uires. The in#uir should therefore be into the enabling statute which clothes an administrative agenc or officer with certain duties and responsibilities in the discharge of which some persons ma adversel affected. .0ilippine Movie .ictures <o@ersF Association vs .remiere .roductions) Inc.) :.R. 6o. &>262 ) 22 Marc0 %23 -acts. The Court of Industrial /elations authorized la off of wor+ers solel on the basis of an ocular inspection. Issue. 2&3 the Court of Industrial /elations authorize the la off of wor+ers on the basis of an ocular inspections without receiving full evidence to determine the cause or motive of such a la off Keld. 3o. The re#uired process has not been followed. The court of #uo merel acted on the strength of the ocular inspection it conducted in the premises of the respondent compan was incurring financial losses. The allegations cannot be established b a mere inspection of the place of labor speciall when conducted at the re#uest of the interested. Mabu0a( #e9tile Mills vs ?ngpin ! SCRA !3,
-acts. 0etitioner ;abuha Textile ;ills Corporation @;abuba A is a corporation engaged in the garments and textile import business for the last twent "seven ears. Among the government re#uirements for engaging in this t pe of business are the export #uota allocations issued b the respondent 7arments and Textile *xport 1oard. Sometime in :CN=, the 1oard granted export #uota allocations for :CNE to the petitioner. These export #uotas have been granted annuall to the 0etitioner since :CFL. The are automaticall renewed ever ear provided the grantee has utilized its #uotas during the previous ears. &n ;arch =, :CNE, the petitioner received a letter from the 1oard informing it that its :CNE export #uota allocations were revo+ed effective -ebruar :CNE. -urthermore, its ma$or stoc+holders and officers were also distinguished from engaging in business activities involving garment and textile exports.
61 | P a g e

A>;I3IST/ATI%* 0/&C**>I37S! S5;;A/O >IS;ISSA6 1&A/>! 1ASIS &- >*CISI&3, 3&T 0/&0*/." 2hat the summar dismissal board appears to have done in this case was simpl to receive the report on two raids allegedl conducted on petitioner,s house in the course of which what were believed were gambling paraphernalia were allegedl found and two witnesses allegedl admitted the were collectors of petitioner and his brother 6olito 7o. 1ut the report is not in the record of this case which the 3A0&6C&; transmitted to the Court. 3or does the decision of the summar dismissal board disclose on what the supposed report was based. This is in violation of the rule that in administrative proceedings 'the decision must be rendered on the evidence contained in the record and disclosed to the part affected.' In all probabilit , said report was not in writing and the supposed testimonies of the two witnesses were not ta+en down. This is evident from the decision of the board which refers to the result of an "investigation." The facts found b the board were not the result of an investigation conducted b it but b some other group. D. Cold neutralit of a $udge
:o vs 6A.?&C?M 2, SCRA !!, -acts. This special civil action of certiorari to set aside the decision of the 3A0&6C&;. The fact that the Bai alai boo+ies were operating in the house being occupied b herein respondent"appellant, the apprehension of his wife and brother in two @=A successive raids effected b law enforcement authorit and his intercession for the dismissal of the case filed in conse#uence thereof, are tangible proofs that he was, indeed, an accessor " if not a principal " in said gambling operation. 0etitioner maintains that he was not served written charges and informed of the nature of such charges! that no hearing had actuall been held b the summar dismissal board. and that at an rate he was not heard. Issue. 2&3 the contention of petitioner is with merit Keld. O*S. 2e conclude that petitioner was denied the due process of law and that not even the fact that the charge against him is serious and evidence of his guilt is " in the opinion of his superiors " strong can compensate for the procedural shortcut evident in the record of this case. It is precisel in cases such as this that the utmost care be exercised lest in the drive to clean up the ran+s of the police those who are innocent are denied $ustice or, through blunder, those who are guilt are allowed to escape punishment. 1I66 &- /I7KTS! >5* 0/&C*SS! &1S*/%A3C* TK*/*&/*H5I/*> I3 S5;;A/O >IS;ISSA6." 0etitioner,s case was decided under 0.>. 3o. CF:, as amended b 0.>. 3o. :FGF. 2hile Sec. N"A of the >ecree authorizes summar dismissals 'without the necessit of a formal investigation' of members of the I30 'when the charge is serious and the evidence is strong,' the >ecree and the implementing rules nonetheless give the respondent the right to be furnished a cop of the complaint and to file an answer within three @EA da s. The filing of charges and the allowance of reasonable opportunit to respondent to answer the charges constitute the minimum re#uirements of due process. In summar dismissal proceedings it is mandator that charges be specified in writing and that the affidavits in support thereof be attached to the complaint because these are the onl wa s b which evidence against the respondent can be brought to his +nowledge. The formal investigation, which is dispensed with, refers to the presentation of witnesses b their direct examination and not to the re#uirement that the respondent be notified of the charges and given the chance to defend himself.
A reviewing official or bod tas+ed to resolve an appeal must refrain from participating in reviewing an decision rendered or concurred b him in another official capacit . The reviewing officer must be other than the officer whose decision is under review, otherwise there would be no different views or there could be no real review of the case, in violation of due process of law.
Gamboanga C0romite Mining Co. vs CA %! SCRA 26 -acts. >irector 7ozon issued an order dated &ctober I, :CLG wherein he dismissed the case filed b the petitioners or protestants @Sambales Chromite ;ining Co., Inc. or the group of 7onzalo 0. 3avaA. In that case, the sought to be declared the rightful and prior locators and possessors of sixt "nine mining claims located in Santa Cruz, Sambales. &n the basis of petitioners, evidence, >irector 7ozon found that the petitioners did not discover an mineral nor sta+ed and located mining claims in accordance with law. The petitioners appealed from that order to the Secretar of Agriculture and 3atural /esources. 2hile the appeal was pending. >irector 7ozon was appointed Secretar of Agriculture and 3atural /esources. Instead of inhibiting himself, he decided the appeal, as if he was ad$udicating the case
62 | P a g e

for the first time. Thus, Secretar 7ozon exercised appellate $urisdiction over a case which he had decided as >irector of ;ines. Ke acted as reviewing authorit in the appeal from his own decision. &r, to use another analog , he acted as trial $udge and appellate $udge in the same case. 2e hold that Secretar 7ozon acted with grave abuse of discretion in reviewing his decision as >irector of ;ines. The palpabl flagrant anomal of a Secretar of Agriculture and 3atural /esources reviewing his own decision as >irector of ;ines is a moc+er of administrative $ustice.The ;ining 6aw, Commonwealth Act 3o. :EF, provides. 'S*C. L:. Conflicts and disputes arising out of mining locations shall be submitted to the >irector of ;ines for decision. '0rovided, That the decision or order of the >irector of ;ines ma be appealed to the Secretar of Agriculture and 3atural /esources within thirt da s from the date of its receipt. Issue. 2&3 0etitioners"appellant were deprived of due process when 7ozon reviewed his own decision Keld. 0etitioners"appellants were deprived of due process, meaning fundamental fairness, when Secretar 7ozon reviewed his own decision as >irector of ;ines. In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might not turn out to be a farce, the reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review! otherwise, there could be no different view or there would be no real review of the case. The decision of the reviewing officer would be a biased view! inevitabl , it would be the same view since being human, he would not admit that he was mista+en in his first view of the case. E. 0rior notice and hearing, essential elements of procedural due process In administrative cases, the general rule is that prior notice and hearing are necessar onl where the law so re#uires. The in#uir should therefore be into the enabling statute which clothes an administrative agenc or officer with certain duties and responsibilities in the discharge of which some persons ma adversel affected. *ssential elements of due process. a. An impartial tribunal b. c. d. e. >ue notice and opportunit to be heard be given The procedure at the hearing be consistent with the essentials of a fair trial The proceedings ma be conducted in such a wa that there will be opportunit for the court to determine whether the applicable rules of law and procedure That the decision or ruling be supported b substantial evidence
In administrative proceedings, due process has been recognized to include the following a. The right to actual or constructive noticeY b. A real opportunit to be heardY c. A tribunal vested with competent $urisdictionY d. A finding b said tribunal which is supported b substantial evidence 1illa vs &azaro $% SCRA 3! -acts. Anita %illa was granted a building permit issued b the Cit *ngineer to contrcust a funeral parlor. -ollowing adverse $udgment to the court in his suit to en$oin the construction of the funeral parlor, %eneracion, instead of appealing the $udgment, lodged a complaint with the KSC/ on substantiall the same ground litigated in the action < relative parlors? distance from hospitals whether public or private. %illa received a telegram from the KS/C through Commissioner >izon re#uesting 8transmittal of proof of location clearance granted b this &ffice.9 %illa sent a repl telegram reading. 86ocational Clearance based on certification of Cit 0lanning and >evelopment Coordinator and Kuman Settlement &fficer, copies mail.9 Subse#uentl , %illa received from >izon an 8&rder to 0resent 0roof of 6ocational Clearance. 8 Since she had alread sent the re#uired locational clearance, %illa made no response. Then %illa received a 8show cause9 &rder, re#uiring her to show cause wh a fine should not be imposed on her or a cease"and desist order issued against her for her failure to show proof of locational clearance. In spite of her communication that she had alread mailed all re#uired documents, she received an &rder imposing on her a fine of 0:G,GGG and re#uiring her to cease operations, and later, a writ of execution in implementation of the order. A motion for reconsideration to which she attached copies of the Commission 0roper was also denied on account of the finalit of the &rder. An appeal to the office of the 0residential Assistant for 6egal Affairs, and so was the motion for reconsideration. 3oteworth are the following. neither %eneracion nor the Commision, ever made +nown the complaint of %eneracion to %illa until much later, after the Commission has rendered several adverse rulings
63 | P a g e

against her! the orders of the Commission made no reference whatever to the documents %illa had alread sent b registered mail! and the resolutions of the 0residential Assistant 6azaro li+ewise omitted to refer to the telegrams and documents sent b %eneracion Issue. 2&3 %illa was denied due process against which the defense of failure of %illa to ta+e timel appeal will not avail. Keld. Oes. These facts present a picture of official incompetence or gross negligence and abdication of dut , if not active bias and partialit that is most reprehensible. The result has been to subvert and put to naught the $udgment rendered in a suit regularl tried and decided b a court of $ustice, to deprive one part of rights confirmed and secured thereb and to accord her adversar , b resorting to the prescribed practice of forum"shopping, the relief he had sought and had been denied in said case. The mischief done b the commissioner >izon?s baffling failure even to ac+nowledge the existence of the documents furnished b petitioner was perpetuated b the 8Commissioner proper9 and respondent 6azaro, who threw out petitioner?s appeals with no reference that would have been decisive. There was absolutel no excuse for initiating what is held out as an administrative proceeding against %illa without informing her of the complaint which initiated the case! for conducting that in#uir in the most informal manner b means onl of communication re#uiring submission of certain documents, which left the impression that compliance was all that was expected of her and with which directives she promptl and religiousl complied. The court finds no merit in the proposition that relief is foreclosed to %illa because her motion for reconsideration of 3ov. ==, :CN= was filed out of time. The ver informal character of the so"called administrative proceedings, an informalit for which Com. >izon himself was responsible and which he never sought to rectif , militates against imposing strict observance of the limiting periods applicable to proceedings otherwise properl initiated and regularl conducted. RCA Communications vs .&5# 0 .0il !20 'olastig vs Sandiganba(an 232 SCRA 03 -acts. 0etitioner Antonio ;. 1olastig is governor of Samar. information was filed against him and two others for alleged overpricing of :GG reams of the agreement was for five ears and 'shall thereafter continue in force until terminated b either part giving the other =D calendar months previous notice in writing.' &n Banuar E, :CIL, 06>TC& sent /CA a notice of termination of its arrangements with the latter, the same to be effective not later than -ebruar =, :CIN, and three months later, filed an application with the Secretar of 0ublic 2or+s and Communications, through the /adio Control 1oard, for authorit to construct and operate a radio"telephonic station of its own at ;arilao, 1ulacan, and for the assignment to It of appropriate radio fre#uencies. /CA filed a petition for prohibitionA with the Court of -irst Instance of ;anila to prevent the Secretar of 0ublic 2or+s and Communications and the /adio Control 1oard from proceeding further on 06>TC&,s pending application. The complaint alleged that the approval b the Secretar of 0ublic 2or+s and Communications of the construction permit in favor of 06>TC& without previous hearing and opportunit to plaintiff /CA to present evidence in support of its opposition was without due process of law. Issue. 2hether or not /CA was denied of hearing and opportunit present case. Keld. 3o, that in administrative proceedings, hearing is onl necessar in those cases where the statute so re#uires. A cursor reading of the /adio Control 6aw @Act 3o. ENDL, as amendedA shows that, unli+e in other proceedings or instances specified in section E, paragraphs d and :, of the said law, no, hearing is re#uired in the consideration b the Secretar of 0ublic 2or+s and Communications of an application for the installation, establishment, or operation of a radio station @paragraph +A. At an rate, even assuming that a hearing is re#uired, /CA must be considered to have waived its right thereto, its counsel having addressed a letter to the /adio Control 1oard sa ing that 'little would be gained b arguing the matter both before ourselves and before the 0ublic Service Commission.' Section -acts 06>TC& entered into an agreement with the American Telephone and Telegraph Compan , wherein both companies agreed to establish telephone services between the 0hilippines and the 5nited States. As it lac+ed the necessar e#uipment and facilities, 06>TC& on the same date entered into another agreement with /CA whereb the latter constituted itself a carrier of 06>TC&,s telephone messages to and from the 5nited States. The term of 'oo@ 1II %$, Admin Code
64 | P a g e

onion s+in paper in violation of the Anti"7raft and Corrupt 0ractices Act @/epublic Act 3o. EG:CA. That he and others wilfull and unlawfull enter into a purchase contract with /*O3A6>& *S0A/A75*//A, a private citizen, for the purchase of certain office supplies, namel . one hundred @:GGA reams of &nion S+in size ::' x :F' at a unit prim of -ive Kundred -ift pesos @0IIG.GGA or a total price of -ift "-ive Thousand 0esos @0II,GGG.GGA, which contract was manifestl and grossl disadvantageous to the government as the prevailing unit price for said item was onl -ift "-ive 0ews @0II.GGA or a total price of -ive Thousand -ive Kundred 0ews @0I,IGG.GGA, thereb causing undue in$ur to the government in the total amount of -ort "3ineThousand -ive Kundred 0esos @0DC,IGG.GGA C&3T/A/O T& 6A2. 0etitioner was arraigned on Banuar I, :CCE, whereupon he entered a plea of 'not guilt .' &n Banuar =I, :CCE, Special 0rosecution &fficer III 2ilfredo &rencia moved for petitioner,s suspension, citing see. :E of /epublic Act 3o. EG:C which provides in part. Sec. :E. Suspension and loss of benefits."An incumbent public officer against whom an criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under Title F, 1oo+ :: of the /evised 0enal Code or for an offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or propert , whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. 0etitioner opposed the motion alleging that preventive suspension should therefore be ordered onl when the legislative purpose is achieved, that is, when 'the suspension order x x x prevent@sA the accused from using his office to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which ma be vital in the prosecution of the case against him.' Corollaril , when the legislative purpose is not achieved, preventive suspension is improper and should not be decreed Issue. 2hether or not preventive suspension was proper. Keld. Oes, It is now settled that sec. :E of /epublic Act 3o. EG:C ma+es it mandator for the Sandiganba an to suspend an public officer against whom a valid information charging violation of that law, 1oo+ II, Title F of the /evised 0enal Code, or an offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or propert is filed.I The court tr ing a case has neither discretion nor dut to determine whether preventive suspension is re#uired to prevent the accused from using his office to intimidate witnesses or frustrate his prosecution or continue committing malfeasance in office. The presumption is that unIess the accused is suspended he ma frustrate his prosecution or commit further acts of malfeasance or do both, in the same wa that upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probabl guilt thereof, the law re#uires the $udge to issue a warrant fur the arrest of the accused. The law does not re#uire the court to determine whether the accused is li+el to escape or evade the $urisdiction of the court.
F.
3otice and hearing, when dispensed with :. 2here there is an urgent need for immediate action, li+e the summar abatement of a nuisance per se, the preventive suspension of public servant facing administrative charges! Central 'an@ vs CA 220 SCRA 236
-acts. ;onetar 1oard @;1Aissued /esolution 3o. ICL ordering the closure of Triumph Savings 1an+ @TS1A, forbidding it from doing business in the 0hilippines, placing it under receivership, and appointing /amon %. Tiao#ui as receiver. TS1 filed a complaint with the /egional Trial Court of Huezon Cit against Central 1an+ and /amon %. Tiao#ui to annul ;1 /esolution 3o. ICL, with pra er for in$unction, challenging in the process the constitutionalit of Sec. =C of /.A. =LC, otherwise +nown as ,The Central 1an+ Act,' as amended, insofar as it authorizes the Central 1an+ to ta+e over a ban+ing institution even if it is not charged with violation of an few or regulation, much less found guilt thereof. The trial court granted the relief sought and denied the application of TS1 for in$unction. Thereafter, Triumph Savings under the receivership of the officials of the Central 1an+ was done without prior hearing, that is, without first hearing the side of the ban+. The further admit that said resolution can be the sub$ect of $udicial review and ma be set aside should it be found that the same was issued with arbitrariness and in bad faith. Issue. 2hether or not summar closure was 'arbitrar and in bad faith' and a denial of 'due process. Keld.
65 | P a g e

/uling. 3o, Sec. =C does not contemplate prior notice and hearing before a ban+ ma be directed to stop operations and placed under receivership. 2hen par. D @now par. I, as amended b *.&. =NCA provides for the filing of a case within ten @:GA da s after the receiver ta+es charge of the assets of the ban+, it is unmista+able that the assailed actions should precede the filing of the case. 0lainl , the legislature could not have intended to authorize 'no prior notice and hearing' in the closure of the ban+ and at the same time allow a suit to annul it on the basis of absence thereof. In the earl case of /ural 1an+ of 6ucena, Inc. v Arca (:CLI),:F It was held that a hearing is nowhere re#uired in Sec. =C nor does the constitutional re#uirement of due process demand that the correctness of the. ;onetar 1oard, s resolution to stop operation and proceed to li#uidation be first ad$udged before ma+ing the resolution effective, It is enough that a subse#uent $udicial review be provided. +state of :regoria "rancisco vs CA %% SCRA 2%2 &astimosa vs 1asAuez 2!3 SCRA !%, -acts The 0hilippine 0orts Authorit @0ort of SamboangaA issued to Tan 7in San, surviving spouse of 7regoria -rancisco, a permit to occup the lot where the building stands for a period of one @:A ear, to expire on E: >ecember :CNC. The permittee was using the Huonset @hutA for the storage of copra. /espondent ;a or, through respondent ;unicipal Action &fficer, notified Tan 7in San b mail to remove or relocate its #uonset building, citing Soning &rdinance 3o. :DF of the municipalit ! noting its anti#uated and dilapidated structure! and. stressing the 'clean"up campaign on illegal s#uatters and unsanitar surroundings along Strong 1oulevard. Since the notifications remained unheeded b petitioner, /espondent ;a or ordered the demolition. Issue. 2hether or not /espondent ;a or could summaril , without $udicial process, order the demolition of petitioner,s Huonset building. /uling. 3o, 0etitioner was in lawful possession of the lot and #uonset building b virtue of a permit from the 0hilippine 0orts Authorit @0ort of SamboangaA when demolition was effected. It was not s#uatting on public land. Its propert was not of trifling value. It was entitled to an impartial hearing before a tribunal authorized to decide whether the #uonset building did constitute a nuisance in law. There was no compelling necessit for precipitate action. It follows then that respondent public officials of the ;unicipalit of Isabela, 1asilan, transcended their authorit in abating -acts. 0etitioner 7loria 7. 6astimosa is -irst Assistant 0rovincial 0rosecutor of Cebu. 1ecause she and the 0rovincial 0rosecutor refused, or at an rate failed, to file a criminal charge of attempted rape to the ;unicipal ;a or of Santa -e, /ogelio Ilustrisimo as ordered b the &mbudsman, an administrative complaint for grave misconduct, insubordination, gross neglect of dut and maliciousl refraining from prosecuting crime was filed against her and the 0rovincial 0rosecutor and a charge for indirect contempt was brought against them, both in the &ffice of the &mbudsman and were placed under preventive suspension. It appears that petitioner conducted a preliminar investigation on the basis of which she found that onl acts of lasciviousness had been committed. Issues. :. 2hether the &ffice of the &mbudsman has the power to call on the 0rovincial 0rosecutor to assist it in the prosecution of the case for attempted rape against ;a or Ilustrisimo. =. 2hether or not the preventive suspension is invalid as it denied them opportunit to refute the charges against them summaril petitioner,s #uonset building. The had deprived petitioner of its propert without due process of law. The fact that petitioner filed a suit for prohibition and was subse#uentl heard thereon will not cure the defect, as opined b the Court of Appeals, the demolition having been a fait accompli prior to hearing and the authorit to demolish without a $udicial order being a pre$udicial issue. Sitc0on vs AAuino %$ .0il !2$ =. 2here there is tentativeness of administrative action! where the respondent is not precluded from en$o ing the right to notice and hearing at a later time without pre$udice to the person affected, such as the summar distraint and lev of the propert of a delin#uent taxpa er and the replacement of a temporar appointee!
/uling. :. Oes, The office of the &mbudsman has the power to 'investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint b an person, an act or
66 | P a g e

omission of an public officer or emplo ee, office or agenc , when such act or omission appears to be illegal, un$ust, improper or inefficient.' :D This power has been held to include the investigation and prosecution of an crime committed b a public official regardless of whether the acts or omissions complained of are related to, or connected with, or arise from, the performance of his official dut :I It is enough that the act or omission was committed b a public official. Kence, the crime of rape, when committed b a public official li+e a municipal ma or, is within the power of the &mbudsman to investigate and prosecute. 3o, 0rior notice and hearing is a not re#uired, such suspension not being a penalt but onl a preliminar step in an administrative investigation. As held in 3era v. 7arcia. In connection with the suspension of petitioner before he could file his answer to the administrative complaint, suffice it to sa that the suspension was not a punishment or penalt for the acts of dishonest and misconduct in office, but onl as a preventive measure. Suspension is a preliminar step in an administrative investigation. If after such investigation, the charges are established and the person investigated is found guilt of acts warranting his removal, then he is removed or dismissed. This is the penalt . There is, therefore, nothing improper in suspending an officer pending his investigation and before the opportunit to prove his innocence. E. 2here the twin rights have previousl been offered but the right to exercise them had not been claimed. 2here the law is silent on prior notice and hearing as a re#uirement before an agenc action, which refers to the whole or part of ever agenc rule, order, license, sanction, relief or its e#uivalent or denial thereof, can be done, compliance with the re#uirement of prior notice and hearing depends upon the nature of the power to be exercised or the end to be achieved. 0rior notice and hearing is not re#uired in the exercise of police power 0rior notice and hearing is not re#uired in granting provisional reliefs Asprec vs Itc0on 6 SCRA %2 -acts. /espondent Bacinto Kernandez lodged with the 1oard of *xaminers for Surve ors administrative complaint= for unprofessional conduct against petitioner Cleto Asprec. Ke re#uested Asprec to underta+e surve on his lot in 0ort Bunction, /aga , Camarines Sur. That no surve was conducted and that it was a mere cop of one >amian Alham. that Asprec was guilt of deceit and thus violated the Code of *thics for surve ors. The 1oard,s unanimous decision of &ctober =F, :CIC revo+ed, and re#uired surrender of, Asprec,s certificate of registration as a private land surve or. A complaint was but was absent in the hearing. Issue. 2hether or not petitioner was denied his right to present his case. /uling. 3o, petitioner has had more than ample opportunit to defend himsel f before the 1oard. As he and counsel did not appear at the last and stipulat ed date of bearing, he cannot loo+ to the law or to a $udicial tribunal to whips aw the 1oard into giving him a new one. Ke cannot raise his voice in protest against the act of the 1oard in proceeding in his and his counsel,s absence. And this because without cause or reason, without an excuse at all, counse l and client have chosen to sh awa from the trial. 0resence of a part at a t rial, petitioner concedes, is not alwa s of the essence of due process. /eall , all that the law re#uires to satisf adherence to this constitutional precept i s that the parties be given notice of the trial, an opportunit to be heard. 0etit ioner had notice of the trial of ;a ::th. ;ore than this, that date of trial @;a ::A had been previousl agreed upon b the parties and their counsel. 0eti tioner cannot now charge that he received less"than"a"fair"treatment. Ke has forfeited his right to be heard in his defense.L 0etitioner insists that the proceeding before the 1oard are #uasi"cri minal in nature. -rom this he proceeds to draw the conclusion that no valid tr ial could proceed even if he absented himself therefrom. 2e do not see e e to e e with this view. It is best answered b a reference to the opinion of the court below, thus The rule applies even to #uasi"criminal or criminal proceedi ngs. So, where the respondent in a petition for contempt failed to appear on t he date set for the hearing, of which he was previousl notified, it was held t hat he was not deprived of his da in court when the $udge ordered him arres ted unless he pa the support he was ad$udged to give, he having been give n an opportunit to be heard 'anco "ilipino vs Central 'an@ 20! SCRA ,6,
=.
67 | P a g e

order had been issued without notice and hearing! and that, accordingl , petitioner had been denied due process. Issue. 2&3 the twin notice of hearing is re#uired in rate fixing4 /ulig. The hold that the determination of the issue involved in the order complained of parta+es of the nature of a #uasi"$udicial function and that, having been issued without previous notice and hearing, said order is clearl violative of the due process clause, and, hence, null and void. 2hether notice and a hearing is proceedings before a public service commission are necessar depends chiefl upon statutor or constitutional provisions applicable to such proceedings, which ma+e notice and hearing, prere#uisite to action b the commission, and upon the nature and ob$ect of such proceedings, that is, whether the proceedings, are on the one hand, legislative and rule"ma+ing in character @S51B*CT T& STAT5T&/O /*H5I/*;*3TS, &3 >5* 0/&C*SSA, or are, on the other hand, determinative and $udicial or #uasi"$udicial @I3 A66 I3STA3C*S, >5* 0/&C*SS IS /*H5I/*>A, affecting the rights and propert of private or specific persons. As a general rule, a public utilit must be afforded some opportunit to be heard as to the propriet and reasonableness of rates fixed for its services b a public service commission. :. The finding that the %igan *lectric 6ight Co., Inc. is ma+ing a net operating profit in excess of the allowable return of :=R on its invested capital, we believe that it is in the public interest and in consonance with Section E of /epublic Act 3o. EGDE that reduction of its rates to the extent of its excess revenue be put into effect immediatel . %igan *lectric 6ight Co., Inc. is hereb ordered to reduce the present meter rates for its electric service effective upon the billing for the month of Bune, :CL= 0etitioner herein instituted the present action for certiorari to annul said order of ;a :F, :CL=, upon the ground that, latter had not furnished the former a 'cop of the alleged letter"petition of Congressman Crisologo and others. /espondent then expressed the view that there was no necessit of serving cop of said letter to petitioner, because respondent was merel holding informal conferences to ascertain whether petitioner would consent to the reduction of its rates. That petitioner had not even been served a cop of the auditor,s report upon which the order complained of is based, that such ;otion for reconsideration as a cure
G.
3otice and hearing in rate"fixing
As a general rule, a public utilit must be afforded some opportunit to be heard as to the propriet and reasonableness of rates fixed for its services b a public service commission
1igan +lectric &ig0t vs .SC 0 SCRA !6 -acts. /epublic Act 3o. E:L, granted petitioner %igan *lectric 6ight Compan , Inc., a franchise to construct, maintain and operate an electric light heat and/or power plant for the purpose of generating and distributing light, heat and/or power, for sale within the limits of several ;unicipalities of the province of Ilocos Sur. 0etitioner received a letter of respondent informing the former of an alleged letter"petition of 'Congressman -loro Crisologo and :GF alleged residents of %igan, Ilocos, Sur', charging the following. The sale of =,GGG *6*CT/IC ;*T*/S in blac+mar+et b the %igan *lectric 6ight Compan to Avegon Co., as anomalous and illegal and also report that the electric meters in %igan used b the consumers had been installed in bad faith and the register excessive rates much more than the actual consumption.
The rule that the filling of a ;/ of the decision /ruling against a part cures the defect in the lac+ of prior notice and hearing as to preclude the part from claiming denial of due process assumes that the other re#uirements of due process have been complied with. Kowever such opportunit is nothing and he is still denied due process, where the decision against him has nothing to support itself, one of the cardinal re#uirements of due process being that the decision or ruling of an administrative bod must be supported b substantial evidence. Medenilla vs CSC %! SCRA 2,$ -acts. 0etitioner ;edenilla is a contractual emplo ee of >02K as 0ublic &fficer II. 6ater on, she was detailed as Technical Assistant in the office of the assistant secretar for the admin. and manpower management. &n Ban. =, :CNC, petitioner was appointed to the contested position of Supervising
68 | P a g e

Kuman /esource >evelopment &fficer. /espondents Zbeing the next"in" ran+"emplo ees[ $ointl lodged a protest before the >02K tas+ force re" organization contesting the appointment of petitioner. The tas+ force dismissed the protest of the respondents thereb appealing before the Civil Service Commission. The Commission disapproved the appointment of the petitioner reversing the ruling of tas+ force. 0etitioner filed a \motion for reconsideration9 before the CSC but to no avail, hence , the petition then was filed before the Supreme Court. Issue. 2&3 CSC is correct in disapproving the appointment of petitioner and that 2&3 the petitioner was denied of due process of law in the absence of notice4 /uling. The Supreme Court ruled that CSC is incorrect in disapproving the appointment of petitioner. The CSC is limited onl to determine whether the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibilit and not whether another is more #ualified than the petitioner. 0etitioner was not notified of the appeal before the Commission. The essence of due process is the opportunit to be heard. 2hat the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence and lac+ of opportunit to be heard. An defect ma be cured b the filing of motion of reconsideration. i. /ight to counsel, not a due process re#uirement There is nothing in the Constitution that sa s that a part in a non" criminal proceeding is entitled to be represented b counsel and that, without such representation, he shall not be bound b such proceedings &umiAued vs +9evea 2$2 SCRA 22 -acts. Arsenio 0. 6umi#ued was the /egional >irector of the >epartment of Agrarian /eform " Cordillera Autonomous /egion @>A/"CA/A until 0resident -idel %. /amos dismissed him from that position pursuant to Administrative &rder 3o. I= dated ;a :=, :CCE. In view of 6umi#ued,s death on ;a :C, :CCD, his heirs instituted this petition for certiorari and mandamus, #uestioning such order. The dismissal was the aftermath of three complaints filed b >A/"CA/ /egional Cashier and private respondent Beannette &bar"Samudio with the 1oard of >iscipline of the >A/. The first affidavit"complaint dated 3ovember :L, :CNC,: charged 6umi#ued with malversation through falsification of official documents. -rom ;a to September :CNC, 6umi#ued allegedl committed at least CE counts of falsification b padding gasoline receipts. -ollowing the conclusion of the hearings, the investigating committee rendered a report dated Bul E:, :CC=, finding 6umi#ued liable for all the charges against him. The investigating committee recommended 6umi#ued,s dismissal or removal from office, without pre$udice to the filing of the appropriate criminal charges against him. This instant petition for certiorari and mandamus pra ing for the reversal of the /eport and /ecommendation of the Investigating Committee, the &ctober ==, :CC=, ;emorandum of then Bustice Secretar >rilon, A.&. 3o. I= issued b 0resident /amos, and the orders of Secretar Huisumbingit pra s for the 'pa ment of retirement benefits and other benefits accorded to deceased Arsenio 6umi#ued b law, pa able to his heirs! and the bac+wages from the period he was dismissed from service up to the time of his death on ;a :C, :CCD. ISS5*. 2&3 the due process clause encompass the right to be assisted b counsel during an administrative in#uir 4 /56I37. 2hile investigations conducted b an administrative bod ma at times be a+in to a criminal proceeding, the fact remains that under existing laws, a part in an administrative in#uir ma or ma not be assisted b counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent,s capacit to represent himself and no dut rests in such a bod to furnish the person being investigated with counsel,=N In an administrative proceeding such as the one that transpired below, a respondent @such as 6umi#uedA has the option of engaging the services of counsel or not. *xcerpts from the transcript of stenographic notes of hearings attended b 6umigued clearl show that he was confident of his capacit and so opted he represent himself. The hearing conducted b the investigating committee was not part of a criminal prosecution. This was even made more pronounced when, after finding 6umi#ued administrativel liable, it hinted at the filing of a criminal case for malversation through falsification of public documents in its report and recommendation. I%. >octrine of 0rimar Burisdiction
69 | P a g e

assailed is the validit or constitutionalit of a rule or regulation issued b the administrative agenc in the performance of its #uasi"legislative function, the regular courts have $urisdiction to pass upon the same. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued b an administrative agenc contravenes the law or the constitution is within the $urisdiction of the regular courts. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of $udicial review or the power to declare a law, treat , international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts.=I This is within the scope of $udicial power, which includes the authorit of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validit of the acts of the political departments.=L Budicial power includes the dut of the courts of $ustice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legall demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac+ or excess of $urisdiction on the part of an branch or instrumentalit of the 7overnment. !. >istinguished from administrative remedies the doctrine of exhaustion of
A.
>efinition and ob$ective
The doctrine of primar $urisdiction re#uires that a plaintiff should first see+ relief in an administrative proceeding before he see+s a remed in court, even though the matter is properl presented to the court, which is within its $urisdiction. The court will not determine a controvers . :. =. E. 2here the #uestion demands administrative determination re#uiring special +nowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal 2here the #uestion re#uires determination of technical and intricate issues of fact 2here uniformit of ruling is essential to compl with the purposes of the regulator statute administered. Industrial +nterprises vs CA) $! SCRA !26 Smart Communications vs 6#C :.R. 6o. 2 %0$ 2 August 2003 -acts. 0etitioners Isla Communications Co., Inc. and 0ilipino Telephone Corporation filed against the 3ational Telecommunications Commission, Commissioner Boseph A. Santiago, >eput Commissioner Aurelio ;. 5mali and >eput Commissioner 3estor C. >acana , an action for declaration of nullit of 3TC ;emorandum Circular 3o. :E"L"=GGG @the 1illing CircularA. 0etitioners allege that the 3TC has no $urisdiction to regulate the sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since such $urisdiction belongs to the >epartment of Trade and Industr under the Consumer Act of the 0hilippines! that the 1illing Circular is oppressive, confiscator and violative of the constitutional prohibition against deprivation of propert without due process of law! that the Circular will result in the impairment of the viabilit of the prepaid cellular service b undul prolonging the validit and expiration of the prepaid SI; and call cards! and that the re#uirements of identification of prepaid card bu ers and call balance announcement are unreasonable. Kence, the pra ed that the 1illing Circular be declared null and void ab initio. Issue .2&3 the /TC has $urisdiction of the case Keld. 0etitions are granted. The issuance b the 3TC of ;emorandum Circular 3o. :E"L"=GGG and its ;emorandum dated &ctober L, =GGG was pursuant to its #uasi"legislative or rule"ma+ing power. As such, petitioners were $ustified in invo+ing the $udicial power of the /egional Trial Court to assail the constitutionalit and validit of the said issuances. 2hat is
>&CT/I3* &- *JKA5STI&3 &- A>;I3IST/ATI%* /*;*>I*S applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance b an administrative agenc ! $udicial intervention is withheld until the administrative process has run its course. 0/I;A/O B5/IS>ICTI&3 applies where a claim is originall cognizable in the courts, and comes into pla whenever enforcement of claim re#uires the resolution of issues which, under a regulator scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative bod ! in such a case the $udicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative bod for its views "elizardo vs CA 233 SCRA 220 C. *ffect of doctrine 1illaflor vs CA 2$0 SCRA 32, -ACT. This is petition for review on certiorari see+ing the reversal of the >ecision: of the Court of Appeals, affirming the dismissal b the trial court of 0etitioner %icente %illaflor complaint against 0rivate /espondent 3asipit 6umber Co., Inc.
70 | P a g e

%illaflor in a 6ease Agreement leased to 3asipit 6umber Co., Inc. a parcel of land. %illaflor claimed having discovered that after the execution of the lease agreement, that 3asipit 6umber ,in bad faith surreptitiousl grabbed and occupied a big portion of plaintiff,s propert . %illaflor executed a document, denominated as a ,>eed of /elin#uishment of /ights, in favor of 3asipit 6umber. The >irector of 6ands issued an ,&rder of Award in favor of 3asipit 6umber Compan , Inc. %illaflor filed with the 1ureau of 6ands, he protested the Sales Application of 3asipit 6umber, claiming that the compan has not paid him 0I,GGG.GG as provided in the >eed of /elin#uishment of /ights. The >irector of 6ands found that the pa ment of the amount of 0I,GGG.GG in the >eed xxx and the consideration in the Agreement to Sell were dul proven, and ordered the dismissal of %illaflor,s protest and gave due course to the Sales Application of 3asipit 6umber. ISS5*. 2&3 the director of land has primar $urisdiction over the case4 /56I37. 0rimar Burisdiction of the >irector of 6ands and -inalit of -actual -indings of the Court of Appeals 5nderl ing the rulings of the trial and appellate courts is the doctrine of primar Burisdiction! courts cannot and will not resolve a controvers involving a #uestion which is within the Burisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especiall where the #uestion demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion re#uiring the special +nowledge, experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact. The rationale underl ing the doctrine of primar $urisdiction finds application in this case, since the #uestions on the identit of the land in dispute and the factual #ualification of private respondent as an awardee of a sales application re#uire a technical determination b the 1ureau of 6ands as the administrative agenc with the expertise to determine such matters. 1ecause these issues preclude prior $udicial determination, it behooves the courts to stand aside even when the apparentl have statutor power to proceed, in recognition of the primar Burisdiction of the administrative agenc . Mac0ete vs CA 220 SCRA ,6
-acts. Celestino %illalon filed a complaint for collection of bac+ rentals and damages before the /egional Trial Court of Tagbilaran Cit against petitioners 6ope ;achete and :: others. The complaint alleged that the parties entered into a leasehold agreement with respect to %illanon?s landholdings at 0oblacion 3orte, Carmen, 1ohol, under which ;achete et al. were to pa private respondent a certain amount or percentage of their harvests. Kowever, despite repeated demands and with no valid reason, ;achete et al. failed to pa their respective rentals. 0rivate respondent thus pra ed that petitioners be ordered to pa him bac+ rentals and damages. ;achete et al. moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lac+ of $urisdiction of the trial court over the sub$ect matter. The contended that the case arose out of or was connected with agrarian relations, hence, the sub$ect matter of the complaint fell s#uarel within the $urisdiction of the >epartment of Agrarian /eform @>A/A in the exercise of its #uasi"$udicial powers under the /evised /ules of the >epartment of Agrarian /eform Ad$udication 1oard @>A/A1A. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and later denied the motion for reconsideration. &n appeal, the petitioners maintain that the alleged cause of action of private respondent arose from an agrarian relation and that respondent appellate court failed to consider that the agreement involved is an agricultural leasehold contract, hence, the dispute is agrarian in nature. The laws governing its execution and the rights and obligations of the parries thereto are necessaril /.A. ENDD, /.A. LLIFF and other pertinent agrarian laws. Considering that the application, implementation, enforcement or interpretation of said laws are matters which have been vested in the >A/, this case is outside the $urisdiction of the trial court. The CA found the petition to be impressed with merit. *.&. ==CN vested the >A/ with #uasi" $udicial powers to determine and ad$udicate agrarian reform matters as well as exclusive original $urisdiction over all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform except those failing under the exclusive original $urisdiction of the >epartment of Agriculture and the >epartment of *nvironment and 3atural /esources in accordance with law, hence, this case. Issue. 2&3 the CA?s decision is correct. /uling. There exists an agrarian dispute in the case at bench which is exclusivel cognizable b the >A/A1. The failure of petitioners to pa bac+ rentals pursuant to the leasehold contract with private respondent is an issue which is clearl be ond the legal competence of the trial court to resolve. The doctrine of primar $urisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authorit to resolve a controvers the $urisdiction over which is
71 | P a g e

initiall lodged with an administrative bod of special competence. Thus, respondent appellate court erred in directing the trial court to assume $urisdiction over this case. At an rate, the present legal battle is 'not altogether lost' on the part of private respondent because as this Court was #uite emphatic in Huismundo v. Court o Appeals,the resolution b the >A/ is to the best advantage of the parties since it is in a better position to resolve agrarian disputes, being the administrative agenc presumabl possessing the necessar expertise on the matter. -urther, the proceedings therein are summar in nature and the department is not bound b the technical rules of procedure and evidence, to the end that agrarian reform disputes and other issues will be ad$udicated in a $ust, expeditious and inexpensive proceeding. The decision of respondent Court of Appeals as well as its resolution den ing reconsideration is /*%*/S*> and S*T ASI>*. The orders of the /egional Trial Court of Tagbilaran Cit dated == August and =N September :CNC are /*I3STAT*>. 5irector of &ands vs CA %! SCRA 22! compel the Commissioner of Customs to enforce the ban is devoid of an legal basis. Issue . 2&3 the /TC has $urisdiction over the case. /uling . 0T-I,s correspondence with the 1ureau of Customs contesting the legalit of match importations ma alread ta+e the nature of an administrative proceeding the pendenc of which would preclude the court from interfering with it under the doctrine of primar $urisdiction. 5nder the sense"ma+ing and expeditious doctrine of primar $urisdiction . . . the courts cannot or will not determine a controvers involving a #uestion which is within the $urisdiction of an administrative tribunal, where the #uestion demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion re#uiring the special +nowledge, experience, and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact, and a uniformit of ruling is essential to compl with the purposes of the regulator statute administered @0ambu$an Sur 5nited ;ine 2or+ers v. Samar ;ining Co., Inc., CD 0hil. CE=, CD: (:CID).A. In this era of clogged court doc+ets, the need for specialized administrative boards or commissions with the special +nowledge, experience and capabilit to hear and determine promptl disputes on technical matters or essentiall factual matters, sub$ect to $udicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion, has become well nigh indispensable . . . ;oreover, however cleverl the complaint ma be worded, the ultimate relief sought b 0T-I is to compel the 1ureau of Customs to seize and forfeit the match importations of ABIC. Since the determination to seize or not to seize is discretionar upon the 1ureau of Customs, the same cannot be sub$ect of mandamus. 1ut this does not preclude recourse to the courts b wa of the extraordinar relief of certiorari under /ule LI of the /ules of Court if the 1ureau of Customs should gravel abuse the exercise of its $urisdiction. &therwise stated, the court cannot compel an agenc to do a particular act or to en$oin such act which is with its prerogative! except when in the excrcise of its authorit it claerl abuses or exceeds its $urisdiction. In the case at bench, we have no occassion to rule on the issue of grave abuse of discretion as excess of $urisdiction as it is not before us. .0ilippine 1eterans 'an@ vs CA 322 SCRA 3% -acts. 0hilippine %eterans 1an+ owned four parcels of land in Tagum, >avao, which are covered b Transfer Certificates. The lands were ta+en b
.rovident #ree "arms vs 'atario 23 SCRA !63 -acts . 0*TITI&3*/ 0/&%I>*3T T/** -A/;S, I3C. @0T-IA, is a 0hilippine corporation engaged in industrial tree planting. It grows gubas trees in its plantations in Agusan and ;indoro which it supplies to a local match manufacturer solel for production of matches. In consonance with the state polic to encourage #ualified persons to engage in industrial tree plantation, Sec. EL, par. @:A, of the /evised -orestr Code : confers on entities li+e 0T-I a set of incentives among which is a #ualified ban against importation of wood and 'wood"derivated' products. 0rivate respondent A. B. International Corporation @ABICA imported four @DA containers of matches from Indonesia, which the 1ureau of Customs, and two @=A more containers of matches from Singapore. 5pon re#uest of 0T-I, Secretar -ulgencio S. -actoran, Br., of the >epartment of 3atural /esources and *nvironment issued a certification that 'there are enough available softwood suppl in the 0hilippines for the match industr at reasonable price.' 0T-I then filed with the /egional Court of ;anila a complaint for in$unction and damages with pra er for a temporar restraining order against respondents Commissioner of Customs and ABIC to en$oin the latter from importing matches and 'wood" derivative' products, and the Collector of Customs from allowing and releasing the importations. ABIC moved to dismiss the case asseverating that the enforcement of the import ban under Sec. EL, par. @:A, of the /evised -orestr Code is within the exclusive realm of the 1ureau of Customs, and direct recourse of petitioner to the /egional Trial Court to
72 | P a g e

the >epartment of Agrarian /eform for distribution to landless farmers pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian /eform 6aw @/.A. 3o. LLIFA. >issatisfied with the valuation of the land made b respondents 6and 1an+ of the 0hilippines and the >epartment of Agrarian /eform Ad$udication 1oard @>A/A1A, petitioner filed a petition for a determination of the $ust compensation for its propert . The petition was filed with the /egional Trial Court, 1ranch =, Tagum, >avao, which dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed be ond the :I"da reglementar period for filing appeals from the orders of the >A/A1. Since this case was filed onl on Banuar =L, :CCD, the fifteen"da period provided for under Section I: of /epublic Act LLIF which is the Comprehensive Agrarian /eform 6aw within which to appeal, alread lapsed. &n appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision was affirmed. It was held that. Burisdiction over land valuation cases is lodged in the >epartment of Agrarian /eform Ad$udication 1oard, as is plainl provided under /ule II of the >A/A1 /evised /ules of 0rocedure. 0etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but its motion was li+ewise denied. Kence, this petition for review. 0etitioner argues that >A/ ad$udicators have no $urisdiction to determine the $ust compensation for the ta+ing of lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian /eform 0rogram, because such $urisdiction is vested in /egional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts and, therefore, a petition for the fixing of $ust compensation can be filed be ond the :I"da period of appeal provided from the decision of the >A/ ad$udicator.&n the other hand, respondents argue that actions for the fixing of $ust compensation must be filed in the appropriate courts within :I da s from receipt of the decision of the >A/ ad$udicator, otherwise such decision becomes final and executor , pursuant to ]I: of /.A. 3o. LLIF. Issue. 2hich contention is meritorious4 /uling. 0etitioner,s contention has no merit. /.A. 3o. LLIF provides. The >A/ is hereb vested with primar $urisdiction to determine and ad$udicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original $urisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive $urisdiction of the >epartment of Agriculture @>AA and the >epartment of *nvironment and 3atural /esources @>*3/A . . . .The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive $urisdiction over all petitions for the determination of $ust compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. The /ules of Court shall appl to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified b this Act. The Special Agrarian Courts shall decide all appropriate cases under their special $urisdiction within thirt @EGA da s from submission of the case for decision. D. 2hen doctrine does not appl
2here the administrative agenc has no $urisdiction, the doctrine does not appl . It does not appl in an of the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. &agua vs Cusi 60 SCRA 260 -acts . This petition for mandamus originated from a complaint for damages which was instituted b the petitioners against the private respondents for closing a logging road without authorit . -rom the facts, petitioners were hauling logs to be loaded on a vessel. 0rivate respondent *astCoast ordered the closure of the road, a national highwa , through their securit force, to prevent passage of the truc+s hauling the logs for the Bapanese vessel. 0rivate respondent claim that the were the onl authorized timber licensee to use the road. 0etitioners filed a case before the trial court, which was dismissed on lac+ of $urisdiction, the court a #uo holding that the issue is within the realm of the 1ureau of -orestr which should have heard the case before filing t case in court. Issue . 2&3 the $urisdiction of the 1ureau of -orestr applies. Keld . The petitioners maintain that since their action is for damages, the regular courts have $urisdiction over the same. According to them, the respondent court had no basis for holding that the 1ureau of -orestr >evelopment must first determine that the closure of a logging road is illegal before an action for damages can be instituted. 0.>. 3o. FGI upon which the respondent court based its order does not vast an power in the 1ureau of -orest >evelopment to determine whether or not the closure of a logging road is legal or illegal and to ma+e such determination a pre"re#uisite before an action for damages ma be maintained. ;oreover, the complaint instituted b the petitioners is clearl for damages based on the alleged illegal closure of the logging road. 2hether or not such closure was illegal is a matter to be established on the part of the petitioners and a matter to be disproved b the private respondents. This should appropriatel be threshed out in a $udicial proceeding. It is be ond the power and authorit of the 1ureau of -orest >evelopment to determine the unlawful closure of a passage wa , much less award or den the
73 | P a g e

pa ment of damages based on such closure. 3ot ever activit inside a forest area is sub$ect to the $urisdiction of the 1ureau of -orest >evelopment. %. >octrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies A. >efinition and purpose municipalit of 6ambunao, Iloilo. 6ambunao Kigh School was later converted into a /egional %ocational Kigh School under the name of Iloilo %ocational Kigh School. 7onzales then received a letter from the Secretar of *ducation appointing him as Kead of the /elated Sub$ects >epartment of the 1ureau of 0ublic School. Ke also received a cop of a letter of the >irector of 0ublic Schools addressed to respondent Alfredo 0ineda, at the time 0rincipal of the Samar Trade School, appointing him as 0rincipal of the Iloilo %ocational School. 2hen 0ineda came to assume the office of 0rincipal of the latter school, 7onzales refused to ield the same to him, and sent a written protest against 0ineda,s appointment as well as against his own appointment as Kead of the /elated Sub$ects >epartment, addressed to the Superintendent of the Iloilo School of Arts and Trades, who forwarded it without undue dela to the >irector of 0ublic Schools b a second indorsement. 2ithout waiting for an action on his protest"in fact even before said protest could be forwarded and submitted to the >irector of 0ublic Schools"7onzales, filed the present petition for prohibition with preliminar in$unction in the Court of -irst Instance of Iloilo to restrain the Secretar of *ducation and the >irector of 0ublic Schools from giving effect to the appointment of Alfredo 0ineda as 0rincipal of the Iloilo %ocational School, and to recover damages. After due trial, the lower court rendered the appealed $udgment. Appellants claimed that the lower court erred in not holding that the present action was instituted prematurel . Issue. 2&3 the appellee initiated the appropriate administrative proceeding. /uling. The facts of this case disclose that appellee initiated appropriate administrative procedures to obtain relief from the orders that he considered pre$udicial to his rights b means of his first, addressed to the Superintendent of the Iloilo School of Arts and Trades. This protest was forwarded b the latter to the >irector of 0ublic Schools, but even before this date appellee instituted the present action. It is, therefore, clear that he did not give his superior officers an opportunit to reconsider the #uestioned orders before see+ing $udicial intervention. The rule of exhaustion of appropriate remedies before resorting to the courts to see+ relief appears to be of stronger application to the present case where, according to the record, appellant 0ineda and the superior officers of appellee did not appear to have exerted an undue pressure upon him to compel him to ield and give up the position in #uestion. The decision appealed from is reserved, with the result that the present action is dismissed. Carale vs Abarintos 26% SCRA 32 -acts. Bose 6. 7onzales, a senior teacher civil service eligible, was appointed 0rincipal of the 6ambunao Kigh School established in the
As a general rule, recourse through court action cannot prosper until all the remedies have been exhausted at the administrative level. Rosales vs CA 62 SCRA 3!! /uling . 5nder the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, recourse through court action, as a general rule, cannot prosper until all the remedies have been exhausted at the administrative level. 2hen an ade#uate remed ma be had within the *xecutive >epartment of the government, but nevertheless, a 6itigant fails or refuses to avail himself of the same, the $udiciar shall decline to interfere. This traditional attitude of the courts is based not onl on convenience but li+ewise on respect! convenience of the part litigants and respect for a co"e#ual office in the government. If a remed is available within the administrative machiner , this should be resorted to before resort can be made to @theA court.' 0etitioners however, claim that the were denied due process, obviousl to show that their case falls within one of the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Such contention is however untenable, because in the first place, the were made to avail in the same administrative agenc , the opportunit or right to oppose, which in fact the did, when the filed a motion for reconsideration and later when the motion was denied, the appealed to the Secretar of *ducation and Culture. 0recisel , a motion for reconsideration or appeal is curative in character on the issue of alleged denial of due process. :onzales vs Secretar( of +ducation 2 SCRA 62,
74 | P a g e

-acts. 0rivate respondent 0onte$os was issued a permanent appointment as 6abor Arbitration Associate b herein petitioner Carale who is the 36/C Chairman. Carale, pursuant to his exercise of admin. authorit and supervision over all 36/C officials , issued an admin. &rder detailing and re"assigning private respondent to 36/C Dth division in Cebu. In this regard, private respondent filed a case before the /TC of Cebu against petitioner for Illegal Transfer tantamount to removal without cause in violation of the securit of tenure under the Constitution. 0etitioner moved for a motion to dismiss the case but /TC denied the petitioner. 0etitioner #uestioned the court?s $urisdiction to tr the case without first resorting to exhaustion of administrative remed to the Civil Service Commission. Issue. 2&3 private respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies available to him4 /uling. 0rivate respondent did not exhaust the administrative remedies available to him. /espondent 0onte$os is sub$ect to civil service laws and regulations pursuant to the Constitution as 6abor Arbitration Associate. /espondent?s grievances must be first raised before the Civil Service Commission before resorting to $udicial intervention. Therefore the instant case is premature and that respondent should exhaust all the available remedies to his grievances before resorting to courts. The petition was granted and that respondent court Z/TC[ was ordered to dismiss the case filed b 0onte$os. The exceptions under the 8>octrine of *xahaustion of Administrative /emedies9 mentioned in this case are the following! :A where the #uestion is purel legal, @=A where $udicial intervention is urgent, @EA when its application ma cause great and irreparable damage, @DA where the controverted acts violate due process, @IA failure of a high government official from whom relief is sought to act on the matter, and @LA when the issue of non"exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot. !. *ffect of failure to exhaust remedies administrative remedies is a ground for motion to dismiss or is a defense which ma be raised in the answer. 5e los Santos vs &imbaga ! SCRA 22! -acts. This is an appeal from an order of the Court of -irst Instance of 1asilan Cit dismissing a petition for mandamus to compel 6imbaga, the engineer of that cit , to authorize de los Santos to construct a residential house on the land described in the petition. It is alleged the respondent without an lawful cause refused to grant said permit! and that in view of this refusal, petitioner suffered damages. In his answer, the respondent, represented b the Cit -iscal of 1asilan, denied the allegations of the petition and interposed the following affirmative defenses. that after a fire which occurred in 6amitan that raged down a ma$or portion of the mar+et site therein, the cit government approved the purchase of an additional area to enlarge the said site and that, incidentall , the lot claimed b the petitioner was included in the area! that b virtue thereof, expropriation proceedings had been instituted thereon, hence, the denial of the permit applied for b petitioner. The cit fiscal moved to dismiss the petition on the following grounds. that mandamus will not lie since the issuance of the permit applied for was a discretionar and not a ministerial dut on the part of the cit engineer to which the trial court agreed. Issue. 2&3 the case will prosper and 2&3 there is compliance with the >*A/. /uling. ;andamus cannot prosper in this case for the simple reason that, as the record shows, the land in #uestion is alread the sub$ect matter of expropriation proceeding instituted b 1asilan Cit pursuant to a resolution approved b the Cit Council, which proceeding is now pending in the Court of -irst Instance of 1asilan. ;oreover, herein petitioner has failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him. 0etitioner should have first brought the matter to the >irector of 0ublic 2or+s who, under the law, exercise supervision and control over cit engineers of chartered cities @see Commonwealth Act 3o. D=DA, and if he was not satisfied with the >irector,s decision he should have appealed to the Secretar of 0ublic 2or+s and Communications. The principle is fundamental that a part aggrieved b a decision of an administrative official should. before coming to court, appl for review of such decision b higher administrative authorit . This principle rests on the presumption that the administrative agenc if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter.
It does not affect the $urisdiction of the court. The onl effect of non" compliance with the rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is ground for a motion to dismiss. 3on"exhaustion of
75 | P a g e

Ang #uan =ai vs Import Control Commission &>!!2,) 2 April %22 -acts. The petitioner, a dul registered partnership of ;anila, alleges in substance @:A that it had placed orders for textiles amounting to about 0EDG,GGG with foreign suppliers which orders were accepted before Bul E:, :CDC! @=A that in 3ovember :CIG it re#uested the respondent to allow importation of the textiles against its #uota for :CDC pursuant to circular 3o. := and @EA but that respondent with grave abuse of authorit and discretion has denied the re#uest and instead ordered that said orders of Ang Tuan Qai X Co., be charged against the firm,s :CI: #uota and exchange allocations in pursuant to the order issued previousl b the same board. Kence this case. Issue. 2&3 the petitioner has cause of action in the herein case before the court. /uling. Special civil actions of certiorari and mandamus against the Import Control Commission do not lie if the petitioner has a plain and ade#uate remed b an appeal to the 0resident. Certiorari or mandamus against administrative officers should not be entertained if superior administrative officers can grant relief. Thus, the petition is denied. D. *xceptions to the doctrine 2hen there is a violation of due process 2hen the issue involved is purel a legal #uestion 2hen the administrative agenc is patentl illegal amounting to lac+ or excess of $urisdiction 2hen there is estoppels on the part of the administrative agenc concerned 2hen there is irreparable in#uir 2hen the respondent is a department secretar whose acts as an alter ego of the 0resident hears the implied and assumed approval of the latter 2hen to re#uire exhaustion of administrative remedies would be unreasonable 2hen it would amount to a nullification of a claim 2hen the sub$ect matter is private land in land cases proceedings 2hen the rule does not provide a plain speed and ade#uate remed There are circumstances indicating the urgenc of $udicial intervention @0aat vs. CAA Sunville #imber .roducts vs Abad 206 SCRA !$2 -acts. The petitioner was granted a Timber 6icense Agreement @T6AA, authorizing it to cut, remove and utilize timber within the concession area covering =C,IGG hectares of forest land in Samboanga del Sur, for a period of ten ears expiring on September E:, :CC=. &n Bul E:, :CNF, the herein private respondents filed a petition with the >epartment of *nvironment and 3atural /esources for the cancellation of the T6A, on the ground of serious violations of its conditions and the provisions of forestr laws and regulations. The same charges were subse#uentl made, also b the herein private respondents, in a complaint for in$unction with damages against the petitioner, which was doc+eted as Civil Case 3o. =FE= in the /egional Trial Court of 0agadian Cit . The petitioner moved to dismiss this case on three grounds, to wit. :A the court had no $urisdiction over the complaint! =A the plaintiffs had not et exhausted administrative remedies! and EA the in$unction sought was expressl prohibited b Section I of 0> LGI. Budge Alfonso 7. Abad denied the motion to dismiss on >ecember ::, :CNF,: and the motion for reconsideration on -ebruar :I,:CNN.= The petitioner then elevated the matter to the respondent Court of Appeals, which sustained the trial court in a decision dated Bul D, :CNN,E and in its resolution of September =F, :CNN, den ing the motion for reconsideration.
Republic vs Sandiganba(an 222 SCRA !3$ "actora) *r. vs CA 320 SCRA 230 C. 2hen applied
The rule re#uiring exhaustion of administrative remedies applies onl where the agenc exercise $udicial or #uasi"$udicial function. It does not appl in the exercise of its rule"ma+ing power or legislative power.
76 | P a g e

Issue. 2hether or not the lower court correctl exhaustion of administrative remedies. applied the doctrine of and corn b 'the /ice and Corn Administration or an other government agenc ! that petitioner has no other plain, speed and ade#uate remed in the ordinar course of law! and that a prelinainar in$unction is necessar for the preservation of the rights of the parties during the pendenc of this case and to prevent the $udgment therein from becoming ineffectual. /espondent, among others, countered that the petitioner did not exhaust all administrative remedies available to him before coming to court. Issue . 2&3 the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable in this case. /uling . The principle re#uiring the previous exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable 'where the #uestion in dispute is purel a legal one9, or where the controverted act is 'patentl illegal' or was performed without $urisdiction or in excess of $urisdiction, or where the respondent is a department secretar , whose acts as an alter"ego of the 0resident bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless actuall disapproved b him, or where there are circumstances indicating the urgenc of $udicial intervention. The case at bar falls under each one of the foregoing exceptions to the general rule. /espondents, contention is, therefore, untenable. .aat vs CA 266 SCRA 6, -acts. The controvers on hand had its incipienc on ;a :C, :CNC when the truc+ of private respondent %ictoria de 7uzman while on its wa to 1ulacan from San Bose, 1aggao, Caga an, was seized b the >epartment of *nvironment and 3atural /esources @>*3/, for brevit A personnel in Aritao, 3ueva %izca a because the driver could not produce the re#uired documents for the forest products found concealed in the truc+. 0etitioner Bovito 6a ugan, the Communit *nvironment and 3atural /esources &fficer @C*3/&A in Aritao, Caga an, issued on ;a =E, :CNC an order of confiscation of the truc+ and gave the owner thereof fifteen, @:IA da s within which to submit an explanation wh the truc+ should not be forfeited. 0rivate respondents, however, failed to submit the re#uired explanation. &n Bune ==, :CNC, : /egional *xecutive >irector /ogelio 1agga an of >*3/ sustained petitioner 6a ugan,s action of confiscation and ordered the forfeiture of the truc+ invo+ing Section LN"A of 0residential >ecree 3o.of temporar restraining order of petitioners was granted b this court. Invo+ing the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, petitioners aver that the trial court could not legall entertain the suit for replevin because the buc+ was under administrative seizure proceedings pursuant to Section LN"A of 0.>. FGI, as amended b *.&. =FF. 0rivate respondents, on the other hand, would see+ to avoid the operation of this principle asserting that the
/uling. The lower court erred in misappl ing the doctrine. &ne of the reasons for the doctrine of exhaustion is the separation of powers, which en$oins upon the Budiciar a becoming polic of noninterference with matters coming primaril @albeit not exclusivel A within the competence of the other departments. The theor is that the administrative authorities are in a better position to resolve #uestions addressed to their particular expertise and that errors committed b subordinates in their resolution ma be rectified b their superiors if given a chance to do so. The argument that the #uestions raised in the petition are purel legal is also not acceptable. The private respondents have charged, both in the administrative case before the >*3/ and in the civil case before the /egional Trial Court of 0agethan Cit , that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the T6A and the provisions of forestr laws and regulations.=: The charge involves factual issues calling for the presentation of supporting evidence. Such evidence is best evaluated first b the administrative authorities, emplo ing their specialized +nowledge of the agreement and the rules allegedl violated, before the courts ma step in to exercise their powers of review. here is no #uestion that Civil Case 3o. =FE= comes within the $urisdiction of the respondent court. 3evertheless, as the wrong alleged in the complaint was supposedl committed as a result of the unlawful logging activities of the petitioner, it will be necessar first to determine whether or not the T6A and the forestr laws and regulations had indeed been violated. To repeat for emphasis, determination of this #uestion is the primar responsibilit of the -orest ;anagement 1ureau of the >*3/. The application of the expertise of the administrative agenc in the resolution of the issue raised is a condition precedent for the eventual examination, if still necessar , of the same #uestion b a court of $ustice. :onzales vs -ec0anova) 60 ?: $02 -acts . /espondent executive secretar authorized the importation of several tons of foreign rice to be purchased from private sources, and created a rice procurement committee composed of the other respondents herein for the implementation of said proposed importation. 0etitioner is the president of the Iloilo 0ala and Corn 0lanters Association engaged in the production of rice and corn, filed the petition herein, averring that, in ma+ing or attempting to ma+e said importation of foreign rice, the aforementioned respondents 'are, acting without $urisdiction or in excess of $urisdiction', because /epublic Act 3o. EDI= which allegedl repeals or amends /epublic Act 3o. ==GF, explicitl prohibits the importation of rice
77 | P a g e

instant case falls within the exception of the doctrine upon the $ustification that @:A due process was violated because the were not given the chance to be heard, and @=A the seizure and forfeiture was unlawful on the grounds. @aA that the Secretar of >*3/ and his representatives have no authorit to confiscate and forfeit conve ances utilized in transporting illegal forest products, and @bA that the truc+ as admitted b petitioners was not used in the commission of the crime. /uling. This Court in a long line of cases has consistentl held that before a part is allowed to see+ the intervention of the court, it is a pre"condition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Kence, if a remed within the administrative machiner can still be resorted to b giving the administrative officer concerned ever opportunit to decide on a matter that comes within his $urisdiction then such remed should be exhausted first before court,s $udicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of court,s intervention is fatal to one,s cause of action. Accordingl , absent an finding of waiver or estoppel the case is susceptible of dismissal for lac+ of cause of action. This doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not without its practical and legal reasons, for one thing, availment of administrative remed entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. It is no less true to state that the courts of $ustice for reasons of comit and convenience will sh awa from a dispute until the s stem of administrative redress has been completed and complied with so as to give the administrative agenc concerned ever opportunit to correct its error and to dispose of the case. Kowever, we are not amiss to reiterate that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies as tested b a batter of cases is not an ironclad rule. This doctrine is a relative one and its flexibilit is called upon b the peculiarit and uni#ueness of the factual and circumstantial settings of a case. Thus, while the administration grapples with the complex and multifarious problems caused b unbriddled exploitation of these resources, the $udiciar will stand clear. A long line of cases establish the basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under the special technical +nowledge and training of such agencies.' To sustain the claim of private respondents would in effect bring the instant controvers be ond the pale of the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies and fall within the ambit of excepted cases heretofore stated. Corpus vs Cuaderno &> ,$60 30 Marc0 %62 -acts. 2hile petitioner"appellant was holding the position of Special Assistant to the 7overnor of the Central 1an+ of the 0hilippines, he was charged in an administrative case, for alleged dishonest , incompetence, neglect of dut and/or abuse of authorit , oppression, misconduct, etc., preferred against him b emplo ees of the 1an+, resulting in his suspension b the ;onetar 1oard of the 1an+ and the creation of a E"man committee to investigate him. The committee was composed of representatives of the 1an+, 1ureau of Civil Service and the &ffice of the Cit -iscal of ;anila. After receiving the answer of the respondent therein, the committee heard the case, receiving testimonies of witnesses on both sides. &n ;a I, :CIC, the committee submitted its -inal /eport, the pertinent conclusion and recommendation therein reading as follows. '@:A In view of the foregoing, the Committee finds that there is no basis upon which to recommend disciplinar action against respondent and therefore respectfull recommends that he be immediatel reinstated.' 5nable to agree with the committee report, the ;onetar 1oard adopted /esolution 3o. CIF on Bul =G, :CIC which considered 'the respondent, /. ;arino Corpus, resigned as of the date of his suspension.' The pertinent portion of the resolution reads thus. 'After an exhaustive and mature deliberation of the report of the aforesaid fact finding committee, in con$unction with the entire records of the case and representations of both complainants and respondent, through their respective counsel! and, further, after a thorough review of the service record of the respondent, particularl the various cases presented against him, ob$ect of ;onetar 1oard /esolution 3o. :I=F dated August EG, :CII, which all involves fitness, discipline, etc. of respondent, and moreover, upon formal statement of the 7overnor that he has lost confidence in the respondent as Special Assistant to the 7overnor and In"Charge of the *xport >epartment @such position being primaril confidential and highl technical in natureA, the ;onetar 1oard finds that the continuance of the respondent in the service of the Central 1an+ would be pre$udicial to be best interests of the Central 1an+, and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section :D of the 1an+ Charter, considers the respondent, ;r. /. ;arino Corpus, resigned as of the .date of his suspension.' Three da s after, the ;onetar 1oard adopted /esolution 3o. CCI, dated Bul =E, :CIC, approving the appointment of herein respondent ;ario ;arcos to the position involved in place of petitioner /. ;arino Corpus. The lower court was of the opinion that petitionerappellant should have exhausted all administrative remedies available to him, such as an appeal to the Commissioner of Civil Service, under /epublic Act ==LG, or the 0resident of the 0hilippines who under the Constitution and the law is the head of all the executive departments of the government including its agencies and instrumentalities. This is the main issue disputed in this appeal.
78 | P a g e

resorted to, no one is compelled or bound to do so! and as said remedies neither are prere#uisite to nor bar the institution of #uo warranto proceedings it follows that he who claims the right to hold a public office allegedl usurped b another and who desires to see+ redress in the courts, should file the proper $udicial action within the reglementar period. As emphasized in 1autista vs. -a$ardo, EN 0hil. L=:, and Tumula+ vs. *ga , N= 0hil., N=N! DL &ff. 7az., ELNE, public interest re#uires that the right to a public office should be determined as speedil as practicable.'
/uling. True, the appellant did not elevate his case for review either b the 0resident or the Civil Service Commission. Kowever, it is our opinion that a resort to these administrative appeals is voluntar or permissive, ta+ing into account the facts obtaining in this case. @:A There is no law re#uiring an appeal to the 0resident in a case li+e the one at bar. The fact that the 0resident had, in two instances cited in the orders appealed from, acted on appeals from decisions of the ;onetar 1oard of the Central 1an+, should not be regarded as precedents, but at most ma be viewed as acts of condescension on the part of the Chief *xecutive. @=A 2hile there are provisions in the Civil Service 6aw regarding appeals to the Commissioner of Civil Service and the Civil Service 1oard of Appeals, 2e believe the petitioner is not bound to observe them, considering his status and the Charter of the Central 1an+. In Castillo vs,. 1a ona, et al., :GL 0hil., ::=:, 2e said that Section :D, /epublic Act =LI, creating the Central 1an+ of the 0hilippines, particularl paragraph @cA thereof, 'is sufficientl broad to vest the ;onetar 1oard with the power of investigation and removal of its officials, except the 7overnor thereof. In other words, the Civil Service 6aw is the general legal provision for the investigation, suspension or removal of civil service emplo ees, whereas Section :D is a special provision of law which must govern the investigation, suspension or removal of emplo ees of the Central 1an+", though the ma be sub$ect to the Civil Service 6aw and /egulations in other respects.' In this case, the respondent ;onetar 1oard considered petitioner resigned from the office to which he has been legall appointed as of the date of his suspension, after he has been dul indicted and tried before a committee created b the 1oard for the purpose. An appeal to the Civil Service Commission would thereb be an act of supererogation, re#uiring the presentation of practicall the same witnesses and documents produced in the investigation conducted at the instance of the ;onetar 1oard. ;oreover, Section :L@iA of the Civil Service 6aw provides that 'except as otherwise provided b law,' the Commissioner of Civil Service shall have 'final authorit to pass upon the removal, separation and suspension of all permanent officials and emplo ees in the competetive or classified service and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline, and efficienc of such officials and emplo ees! P P P.' Considering again the fact that the Charter of the Central 1an+ provides for its own power, through the ;onetar 1oard, relative to the investigation, suspension or removal of its own emplo ees except the 7overnor, coupled with the fact that 0etitioner has admitted that he belongs to the non"competetive or unclassified service, it is evident that an appeal b petitioner to the Commissioner of Civil Service is not re#uired or at most is permissive and voluntar . 'The reason is obvious. 2hile it ma be desirable that administrative remedies be first
Smart Communications vs 6#C :.R. 6o. 2 %0$ 2 August 2003 -acts. petitioners Isla Communications Co., Inc. and 0ilipino Telephone Corporation filed against the 3ational Telecommunications Commission, Commissioner Boseph A. Santiago, >eput Commissioner Aurelio ;. 5mali and >eput Commissioner 3estor C. >acana , an action for declaration of nullit of 3TC ;emorandum Circular 3o. :E"L"=GGG @the 1illing CircularA. 0etitioners allege that the 3TC has no $urisdiction to regulate the sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since such $urisdiction belongs to the >epartment of Trade and Industr under the Consumer Act of the 0hilippines! that the 1illing Circular is oppressive, confiscator and violative of the constitutional prohibition against deprivation of propert without due process of law! that the Circular will result in the impairment of the viabilit of the prepaid cellular service b undul prolonging the validit and expiration of the prepaid SI; and call cards! and that the re#uirements of identification of prepaid card bu ers and call balance announcement are unreasonable. Kence, the pra ed that the 1illing Circular be declared null and void ab initio. Issue .2&3 the /TC has $urisdiction of the case Keld. 0etitions are granted. The issuance b the 3TC of ;emorandum Circular 3o. :E"L"=GGG and its ;emorandum dated &ctober L, =GGG was pursuant to its #uasi"legislative or rule"ma+ing power. As such, petitioners were $ustified in invo+ing the $udicial power of the /egional Trial Court to assail the constitutionalit and validit of the said issuances. 2hat is assailed is the validit or constitutionalit of a rule or regulation issued b the administrative agenc in the performance of its #uasi"legislative function, the regular courts have $urisdiction to pass upon the same. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued b an administrative agenc contravenes the law or the constitution is within the $urisdiction of the regular courts. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of $udicial review or the
79 | P a g e

power to declare a law, treat , international or executive agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts.=I This is within the scope of $udicial power, which includes the authorit of the courts to determine in an appropriate action the validit of the acts of the political departments.=L Budicial power includes the dut of the courts of $ustice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legall demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac+ or excess of $urisdiction on the part of an branch or instrumentalit of the 7overnment. the basis on which the extraordinar writ of certiorari, as pra ed for b petitioner, ma be issued. The absence of an express provision in /epublic Act 3o. =GIL for an appeal to the 0resident from the decision of the Secretar , considered together with the peremptor character of the periods therein prescribed, shows that such an appeal"assuming that it ma be ta+en in view of the 0resident,s constitutional power of executive control" would not affect the inexorable re#uirement that those periods be observeX the onl exception being in favor of 2or+s and Communications the Secretar , if there is $ustifiable or valid reason for his failure or dela to terminate and decide a case or effect the removal of the illegal construction such as, for Instance, an in$unction issued b a court. 2e are of the opinion that an appeal to the 0resident from the order of respondent Secretar would not have been expeditious enough for petitioner,s purposes and hence the latter did not have to resort to it before see+ing $udicial relief. In an event, we believe the facts of this case place it within the rule enunciated in >imaisip vs. Court of Appeals, :GL 0hil., =EF, as follows. 'Such failure @to appeal from the decision of the Secretar of Agriculture and 3atural /esources to the 0residentA cannot preclude the plaintiffs from ta+ing court action in view of the theor that the Secretar of a >epartment is merel an alter"ego of the 0resident! the assumption is that the action of the Secretar bears the implied sanction of the 0resident, unless the same is disapproved b the latter.' 'ueno vs .atanao % SCRA ,%! -acts. &n April =C, :CIN, 0edro 1. 0atanao commenced Special Civil Case 3o. DN with the Court of -irst Instance of Agusan, against %aleriano, C. 1ueno and one Buanito ;erin, for in$unction and damages. In his amended petition, 0atanao alleged that on ;arch :G, :CIN the respondents therein disturbed him in his, possession of his timber concession b illegall entering the same and cutting and hauling logs therein! that when he went to the area to stop said respondents and their laborers, truc+ers and loggers from cutting and hauling logs 'he was met with riot guns, pistols and other firearms'! and that defendants were able to cut no less than one million board feet of exportable logs worth not less than MLD,GGG.GG and would be able to cut and haul even a bigger amount in the space of one month as the had allegedl concentrated all their logging machineries and e#uipment with the apparent intention of illegall denuding the forest area covered b his license. 0atanao thus urged the court below to issue a writ of preliminar in$unction so as to en$oin the respondents, their agents, laborers and law ers, from entering the area and cutting and hauling logs therein pending trial and, after trial, to ma+e the in$unction final and permanent, and to
MarinduAue Iron Mines v. Sec. of .ublic <or@s $ SCRA ,% -acts. It appears from the allegations of the petition that the petitioner was denounced before the 0ort and Karbor 1oard, ;anila for ma+ing certain constructions near the mouth of Calat"an Cree+ in Sipala , 3egros &ccidental! that on September ::, :CIN, petitioner was served with cop of the charges filed against it b two investigators of respondent Secretar of 0ublic 2or+s and Communications who conducted an investigation of said charges! that on the basis of this investigation, respondent Secretar rendered a decision dated Banuar :L, :CIC ordering the petitioner herein to remove the causewa illegall constructed at the mouth of the Calat"an /iver and restore the bed of said river to its original condition within thirt da s from receipt of cop of the decision, otherwise, the removal shall be effected b the government at the expense of herein petitioner. 2ithout appealing the decision of the respondent Secretar to the 0resident, herein petitioner has filed with this Court the present petition for certiorari see+ing that the decision of respondent be annulled.' /uling. 3owhere in the foregoing provisions, or in an other part of /epublic Act 3o. =GIL, is it re#uired that appeal to the 0resident should precede recourse to the courts. The silence of the statute, to be sure, does not mean that the 0resident ma not review the action of the Secretar . Kis power to do so is implicit in his constitutional power of control of all the executive departments @Section :G, 2or+s and Communications par. :, Art. %II of the ConstitutionA. This, however, does not resolve the issue, which is not whether petitioner could have appealed to the 0resident but whether he should have done so before see+ing $udicial relief. The answer depends, in turn, upon whether an appeal to the 0resident would have been sufficientl effective, ade#uate and expeditious, a negative finding in this respect being
80 | P a g e

condemn said respondents liable in an amount of not less than 0:FI,GGG. GG as actual and moral damages, attorne ,s fees and costs. /uling. At first glance, petitioner,s argument appears to be tenable. True, the common boundar of the parties was verified b the 1ureau of -orestr wa bac+ in ;arch :CII. It seems, however, that while petitioner 1ueno had endeavored to respect the verification report, respondent 0atanao had refused to conform thereto, so much so that the conflict was brought anew to the attention of the >irector of -orestr who has formall ta+en a hand therein. &n or about April N, :CIN, before 0atanao instituted Civil Case 3o. DN with the respondent court, he was officiall re#uested to designate a representative to accompan -orestr officials in the verification of the common boundar line between him and petitioner @*xhibit N, letter addressed to 0atanao b Anastacio 7. Sison, officer"incharge, *speranza -orest Station, Agusan, p. I! &pposition to 5rgent ;otion to >issolve 2rit of 0reliminar In$unction, dated, Bul =E, :CIN.A That said boundar dispute is still pending in the 1ureau of -orestr at the filing of this petition is shown b the letter of the >istrict -orester of Agusan, now in the record as Annex A" &pposition. The record also discloses that 0atanao,s application for renewal and consolidation of his timber licenses for :CIF"IN had not et been approved b the Secretar of Agriculture and 3atural /esources. Its renewal depends upon the consideration of the >irector of -orestr . The granting of timber licenses, their renewal or cancellation, and the determination of conflicting claims or boundar lines involving forest zones, such as those presentl occupied b the parties hereto, are all vested b law primaril upon the >irector of -orestr and ultimatel upon his >epartment head. Continental Marble Corp. vs 6&RC 6 SCRA 2 -acts. In his complaint before the 36/C, herein private respondent /odito 3asa ao claimed that sometime in ;a :CFD, he was appointed plant manager of the petitioner corporation, with an alleged compensation of 0E,GGG.GG, a month, or =IR of the monthl net income of the compan , whichever is greater, and when the compan failed to pa his salar for the months of ;a , Bune, and Bul :CFD, /odito 3asa ao filed a complaint with the 3ational 6abor /elations Commission, 1ranch I%, for the recover of said unpaid salaries. The case was doc+eted therein as 36/C Case 3o. 6/L:I:. Answering, the herein petitioners denied that /odito 3asa ao was emplo ed in the compan as plant manager with a fixed monthl salar of 0E,GGG.GG. The claimed that the underta+ing agreed upon b the parties was a $oint venture, a sort of partnership, wherein /odito 3asa ao was to +eep the machiner in good wor+ing condition and, in return, he would get the contracts from end"users for the installation of marble products, in which the compan would not interfere. In addition, private respondent 3asa ao was to receive an amount e#uivalent to =IR of the net profits that the petitioner corporation would realize, should there be an . 0etitioners alleged that since there had been no profits during said period, private respondent was not entitled to an amount. The case was submitted for voluntar arbitration and the parties selected the herein respondent Bose T. Collado as voluntar arbitrator. In the course of the proceedings, however, the herein petitioners challenged the arbitrator,s capacit to tr and decide the case fairl and $udiciousl and as+ed him to desist from farther hearing the case. 1ut, the respondent arbitrator refused. In due time, or on =C >ecember :CFI, he rendered $udgment in favor of the complainant, ordering the herein petitioners to pa /odito 3asa ao the amount of 0C,GGG.GG, within :G da s from notice. 5pon receipt of the decision, the herein petitioners appealed to the 3ational 6abor /elations Commission on grounds that the labor arbiter gravel abused his discretion in persisting to hear and decide the case notwithstanding petitioners, re#uest for him to desist therefrom. and that the appealed decision is not supported b evidence. &n :N ;arch :CFL, /odito 3asa ao filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the decision of the voluntar arbitrator is final, appealable, and immediatel executor !E and, on =E ;arch :CFL, he filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution. Acting on the motions, the respondent Commission, in a resolution dated F ;a :CFL, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the decision appealed from is final, unappealable and immediatel executor , and ordered the herein petitioners to compl with the decision of the voluntar arbitrator within :G da s from receipt of the resolution.I The petitioners are before the Court in the present recourse. As pra ed for, the Court issued a temporar restraining order, restraining herein respondents from enforcing and/or carr ing out the #uestioned decision and resolution. Issue. 2hether or not the contention of the private respondent that the petitioner failed to follow the doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies is tenable. /uling. The contention is without merit. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies cannot be invo+ed in this case, as contended. In the recent case of Bohn Clement Consultants, Inc. versus 3ational 6abor /elations Commission, the Court said. 'As is well +nown, no law provides for an appeal from decisions of the 3ational 6abor /elations Commission! hence, there can be no review and reversal on appeal b higher authorit of its factual or legal conclusions. 2hen, however, it decides a case without or in excess of its $urisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, the part thereb adversel affected ma obtain a review and nullification of that decision b this Court through the extraordinar writ of certiorari. Since, in
81 | P a g e

this case, it appears that the Commission has indeed acted without $urisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in ta+ing cognizance of a belated appeal sought to be ta+en from a decision of 6abor Arbiter and thereafter reversing it, the writ of certiorari will issue to undo those acts, and do $ustice to the aggrieved part .' =ilusang 'a(an vs 5ominguez 202 SCRA %2 -acts. &n = September :CNI, the ;unicipal 7overnment of ;untinlupa @hereinafter, ;unicipalit A, ;etro ;anila, thru its then ;a or Santiago Carlos, Br., entered into a contract with the QI65SA37 1AOA3 SA 0A76I6I37Q&> 37 ;CA ;A7TITI3>A SA 1A7&37 0A;I6IKA37 1AOA3 37 ;53TI36650A, I3C. @Q1;10;A represented b its 7eneral ;anager, Amado 0erez, for the latter,s management and operation of the new ;untinlupa public mar+et. The contract provides for a twent "five @=IA ear term commencing on = September :CNI, renewable for a li+e period, unless sooner terminated and/or rescinded b mutual agreement of the parties, at a monthl consideration of Thirt "-ive Thousand 0esos @0EI,GGGA to be paid b the Q1;10; within the first five @IA da s of each month which shall, however, be increased b ten percent @:GRA each ear during the first five @IA ears onl . -ollowing his assumption into office as the new ma or succeeding Santiago Carlos, Br., petitioner Ignacio 1un e, claiming to be particularl scandalized b the 'virtual IG" ear term of the agreement, contrar to the provision of Section :DE, paragraph E of 1atas 0ambansa 1lg. EEF,' and the 'patentl ine#uitable rental,' directed a review of the aforesaid contract.E Ke sought opinions from both the Commission on Audit and the ;etro ;anila Commission @;;CA on the validit of the in strument. In separate letters, these agencies urged that appropriate legal steps be ta+en towards its rescission. The letter of Kon. *lfren Cruz of the ;;C even granted the ;unicipalit authorit 'to ta+e the necessar legal steps for the cancellation. rescission of the above cited contract and ma+e representations with Q1;10; for the immediate transfer/ta+eover of the possession, management and operation of the 3ew ;untinlupa ;ar+et to the ;unicipal 7overnment of ;untinlupa.' Conse#uentl , upon representations made b 1un e with the ;unicipal Council, the latter approved on : August :CNN /esolution 3o. DI abrogating the contract. To implement this resolution, 1un e, together with his co"petitioners and elements of the Capital Command of the 0hilippine Constabular , proceeded, on :C August :CNL, to the public mar+et and announced to the general public and the stallholders thereat that the ;unicipalit was ta+ing over the management and operation of the facilit , and that the stallholders should thenceforth pa their mar+et fees to the ;unicipalit , thru the ;ar+et Commission, and no longer to the Q1;10;.
Issue. 2hether or not the petitioners in the first case failed to follow the doctrine of exhaustion of admin remedies. /uling. As to failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the rule is well" settled that this re#uirement does not appl where the respondent is a department secretar whose acts, as an alter ego of the 0resident, bear the implied approval of the latter, unless actuall disapproved b him.LC This doctrine of #ualified political agenc ensures speed access to the courts when most needed. There was no need then to appeal the decision to the office of the 0resident! recourse to the courts could be had immediatel . ;oreover, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies also ields to other exceptions, such as when the #uestion involved is purel legal, as in the instant case, or where the #uestioned act is patentl illegal, arbitrar or oppressive. Such is the claim of petitioners which, as hereinafter shown, is correct. Almine vs CA ,, SCRA ,%6 -acts. &n >ecember =I, :CFI, petitioner filed a sworn application for retention of her riceland or for exemption thereof from the &peration 6and Transfer 0rogram with the then ;inistr of Agrarian /eform @;A/A, /egional &ffice in Tobaco, Alba . After due hearing, Att . Cidarminda Arresgado of the said office filed an investigation report dated Bune =L, :CNG for the cancellation of the Certificate of 6and Transfer @C6TA of private respondent who appears to be petitioner,s tenant over her riceland. 5pon failure of the ;inistr to ta+e the necessar action, petitioner reiterated her application sometime in :CFC":CNI alleging that her tenant deliberatel failed and refused to deliver her landowner,s share from :CFI up to the time of the ;ing of the said application and, that the latter had distributed his landholding to his children. A reinvestigation was conducted this time b Att . Seth *vasco who on &ctober E:, :CNI filed his report recommending the cancellation of private respondent,s C6T. Said report was elevated to the ;A/. In an endorsement dated 3ovember =I, :CNI, /egional >irector Salvador 0e$o manifested his concurrence with the report of Att . *vasco holding that the properties of the petitioner consist of D.EINC hectares as evidenced b Transfer Certificates of Title 3os. =F:LF, =F:LN and =FEDD and hence not covered b the &peration 6and Transfer 0rogram. Buanito 6. 6orena, the &fficer"in"Charge of ;A/ li+ewise concurred therewith. Kowever, in the order dated -ebruar :E, :CNL, then ;inister Conrado *strella denied petitioner,s application for retention. &n April :F, :CNL, petitioner appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court @IACA. The case was entitled Kilda /alla Almine vs. ;A/ and doc+eted as AC"7./. S0 3o.
82 | P a g e

GNIIG. 0rivate respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Kowever, it was denied in an order dated ;a =N, :CNL. A motion for reconsideration thereof was li+ewise denied. After the parties filed their respective pleadings, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision dated Bune =C, :CNF: dismissing the appeal on the ground of lac+ of $urisdiction holding that #uestions as to whether a landowner should or should not be allowed to retain his land holdings, if administrativel decided b the ;inister of Agrarian /eform, are appealable and could be reviewed onl b the Court of Agrarian /elations and now b the /egional Trial Courts pursuant to 1atas 0ambansa 1lg. :=C, otherwise +nown as the Budiciar /eorganization Act of :CNG.= 0etitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied in a resolution dated &ctober ==, :CNF. Issue. 2hether or not the contention of the CA is tenable. /uling. A perusal of the provision above cited reveals that #uestions as to whether a landowner should or should not be allowed to retain his landholdings are exclusivel cognizable b the ;inister @now Secretar A of Agrarian /eform whose decision ma be appealed to the &ffice of the 0resident and not to the Court of Agrarian /elations. These cases are thus excluded from those cognizable b the then CA/, now the /egional Trial Courts. There is no appeal from a decision of the 0resident. Kowever, the said decision ma be reviewed b the courts through a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, as the case ma be under /ule LI of the /ules of Court. Thus, the respondent appellate court erred in holding that it has no $urisdiction over the petition for review b wa of certiorari brought before it of a decision of the ;inister of Agrarian /eform allegedl made in grave abuse of his discretion and in holding that this is a matter within the competence of the Court of Agrarian /eform. The Court of Appeals has concurrent $urisdiction with this Court and the /egional Trial Court over petitions see+ing the extraordinar remed of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus. The failure to appeal to the &ffice of the 0resident from the decision of the ;inister of Agrarian /eform in this case is not a violation of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies as the latter is the alter ego of the 0resident. #apales vs .resident of 4. , SCRA 223 -acts. /amon Tapales was dul appointed >irector of the Conservator ;usic in 50 as recommended b the 0resident of the 5niversit of the 0hilippines after compliance of the re#uired #ualifications under the Charter of the same. Conse#uentl , the 1oard of /egents of the said 5niversit issued a resolution fixing the terms of the office of the >ean and >irectors thereof allegedl in pursuant to same charter. Thereafter, the 5niversit 0resident issued a memorandum reminding the >eans and >irectors whose terms are about to expire that unless the are recommended b the same for reappointment, their assumption to their respective office is deemed terminated. Tapales was in$ured b the said resolution and memorandum as such filed before the court a #uestion on the validit of the said resolution and memorandum. The respondent on the other hand alleged that the petitioner failed to exhaust the re#uired administrative remedies available. Issue. 2hether or not the petitioner failed to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. /uling. It is contended in this connection, that the appellee failed to exhaust his administrative remedies b not as+ing the 1oard of /egents to reconsider the challenged resolution before bringing the matter to court. An administrative review is not a condition precedent to $udicial relief against a statute or ordinance which is claimed to be unconstitutional and void @FE C.B.S. EIFA, or where the #uestion in dispute is purel a legal one, and nothing of an administrative nature is to be or can be done @FE C.B.S. EIDA. Kere, appellee impugned the constitutionalit and validit of the /esolution of &ctober =, :CIC, and appellee,s ob$ection thereto is a purel legal one. Huintos v. 6ational Stud "arm 2! SCRA 2 0 -acts. Huintos is the legitimate owner of a racehorse which was dul and officiall registered with 3S- and for which he is issued a certificate of registration, thereb entitling it to participate in horse races and sweepsta+es draws in legall authorized racing clubs or trac+s. In line with the S&0 and usual racing practices for horse owners, Huintos applied for inclusion of his horse in a particular race E da s before the date of the race which application was dul approved b 0hil /acing Club, Inc. &n the ver da when Huintos? race"horse was scheduled to participate in race no. :I, the 0/C announced thru the 0A s stem before the start of race no. :E that his horse was being excluded from ta+ing part in race no. :I. It was then alleged that the cancellation of the certificate of registration of his horse was arbitrar and oppressive, due process being denied him in the absence of a formal investigation or in#uir prior thereto. The trial court dismissed the complaint primaril on the ground of lac+ of *A/ < that the admin remed of Huintos was to as+ the 1oard of Trustees of 3S- to reconsider its resolution cancelling the certificate of registration, and in case of denial of appeal to the 7ames and Amusement 1oard or to the &ffice of the 0resident. The CA certified the case to the SC since it found that a purel legal #uestion was
83 | P a g e

involved, to wit. 2&3 the trial court correctl dismissed the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Issue. >oes Huintos have a valid cause for complaint4 /uling. 3one. Huintos prematurel instituted a suit for damages. The reason for this short"circuiting of administrative processes is not explained b Huintos. Kis gives no reason for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Indeed, there is none. The order of dismissal, therefore, certainl cannot be considered as being in derogation of the due process guarantee. The $udicial forum sought b Huintos was in effect an unwarranted disregard of the concept of primar $urisdiction. In the traditional language of administrative law, the stage of ripeness for $udicial review had not been reached. Huintos ignored factors not predetermined b formula but b seasoned balancing for and against the assumption of $urisdiction. All that had been said so far would seem to indicate that under such a test, the lower court?s insistence of the fundamental re#uirement of exhausting administrative remedies is more than $ustified. Soto v. *areno !! SCRA 6 The trial court originall granted the motion and ordered the change pra ed for, but later it reconsidered its decision and held itself without $urisdiction to act on the matter. Its reason was that there was no observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Issue. >oes the trial court have $urisdiction to order an amendment of a certificate of title without previous exhaustion of administrative remedies4 Keld. -ailure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the $urisdiction of the court. 2e have repeatedl stressed this in a long line of decisions. The onl effect of non"compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invo+ed at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can then ta+e cognizance of the case and tr it. ;oreover, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not applicable to private lands, as also settled in a number of decisions rendered b this Court. &nce registered, the homestead granted to Sergio Serfino ceased to have the character of public land and so was removed from the operation of the said doctrine. 1ut notwithstanding the above principles, the petition will still have to be dismissed because the change sought is not authorized under Section ::= of Act DCL, as interpreted b this Court.
-acts. This is ;&TI&3 T& C&//*CT &/I7I3A6 C*/TI-ICAT* &- TIT6* 3&. 0"LF= C&%*/I37 6&T 3&. DILC CA5AOA3 CA>. -/A3CISCA S&T&. Specificall , the change sought is in the civil status of the registered owner, whom the petitioner wants to be described in the certificate of title as married to her rather than as a widower. The said registered owner was Sergio Serfino, who was married in Banuar :CEE to the petitioner. In :CEC, he filed an application for a homestead patent, describing himself as 'married to -rancisca Soto,' but in :CIE, when the original certificate over the homestead was issued, it was in favor of 'Sergio Serfino, widower.' Serfino died in :CLI, and soon thereafter the petitioner filed a motion with the Court of -irst Instance of 3egros &ccidental pra ing that his description as a 'widower' be changed to 'married to -rancisca Soto.' Two daughters of the couple opposed the motion. 2hile conceding that their parents were married in :CEE, the oppositors nonetheless pointed out that their mother had abandoned them in :CD= to live with another man. 6ater, the said, she had adulterous relations with still a second man b whom she begot eleven children. According to these oppositors, it was their father himself who had described himself as a widower in :CIE because he had not heard from the petitioner since :CD=. Their purpose, obviousl , was to prevent the land from being considered con$ugal and therefore e#uall owned b the spouses.
Sunga v. 6&RC ,3 SCRA 33$ -acts. Sunga, et al. filed before the 36/C a complaint against AC> Computer Services and Cabel for illegal dismissal and non"pa ment of certain benefits. The labor arbiter rendered a decision sustaining the petitioners, position. The labor arbiter, then, upon motion of the petitioners, issued a writ of execution to enforce said decision. The following da , the sheriff served a notice of garnishment to the Commercial 1an+ of ;anila after which the total amount of 0:I,GE:.NI was garnished. This amount has alread been turned over to the petitioners. A lev on execution was made upon the properties found in the respondents, office premises. AC> 7roup Inc., an American firm based in California, 5.S.A., through its Chairman, >ula filed a third"part claim in the 36/C case on the ground that it is the real owner of the computers levied upon and scheduled for auction. This third"part claim was denied. AC> Computer Services and Cabel filed before the 36/C a petition for relief from $udgment in 36/C"3C/ Case 3o. L"=D=E"NL with pra er for the issuance of writ of preliminar in$unction and/or restraining order. The 36/C then issued the #uestioned resolutions incidental to In$unction Case. The
84 | P a g e

petitioners filed before the 36/C a motion to dismiss and/or answer to the petition on the ground that a petition for relief is not a remed granted under the 6abor Code and 36/C /ules. 2ithout waiting for the 36/C,s resolution on their motion to dismiss, the petitioners filed the present petition. This petition see+s to annul the three 36/C resolutions, to prohibit the 36/C from ta+ing further proceedings in In$unction Case and to direct the 36/C to dismiss said in$unction case and to order the full execution of the decision. The Solicitor 7eneral recommends that the petition be dismissed for being premature, appl ing the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Ke further stressed the $urisdiction of the 36/C and its exercise of sound discretion. Issue. 2&3 the Soc 7en?s position is tenable. /uling. The Court gave due course to this petition on a finding, among others, that the instant case falls under the exceptions to the general rule. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an inflexible rule. In fact, it ields to man accepted exceptions. As we have noted in a number of cases, exhaustion is not necessar where inter alia there is estoppel on the part of the part invo+ing the doctrine! where the challenged administrative act is patentl illegal, amounting to lac+ of $urisdiction! where there is unreasonable dela or official action that will irretrievabl pre$udice the complainant. where the amount involved is relativel small so as to ma+e the rule impractical and oppressive! where the #uestion involved is purel legal and will ultimatel have to be decided an wa b the courts of $ustice. At least two of these exceptions are present in the instant case on exhaustion of administrative remedies. There had been no action on the challenge to the petition for relief from $udgment for almost a ear. This is considerabl long considering that the labor arbiter,s decision had alread become final and in fact has been partiall executed. The main case had been filed as earl as Bune =G, :CNL. ;oreover, this case involving the propriet of a remed and the suspension of an execution would onl be further dela ed if we remand it to the 36/C, onl to have an decision raised again before this Court. due to the fact that the students could hardl pa for their monthl tuition few. Since at that time also, the 0resident of the 0hilippines who was earnestl campaigning was giving aid in the amount of 0=,GGG.GG for each barrio, the barrio council through proper resolutions alloted the amount of 0NDG.GG to cover up for the salaries of the high school teachers, with the honest thought in mind that the barrio high school was a barrio pro$ect and as such therefore, was entitled to its share of the /IC> fund in #uestion. The onl part that the herein petitioner pla ed was his being authorized b the said barrio council to withdraw the above amount and which was subse#uentl deposited in the Cit Treasurer,s &ffice in the name of the Talisa 1arrio Kigh School. That was a grave error on the part of the herein petitioner as it involves the ver intricacies in the disbursement of government funds and of its technicalities. Thus, the herein petitioner, together with the barrio captain, were charged of the violation of /epublic Act EG:C, and both were convicted to suffer a sentence of one ear and dis#ualification to hold public office. The herein petitioner appealed his case to the Court of Appeals, ;anila. The Court of Appeals modified the decision b eliminating the subsidiar imprisonment in case of insolvenc in the pa ment of one"half of the amount being involved. The herein petitioner, being financiall battered, could no longer hire a law er to proceed to the highest court of the land. -inall , Sabello was granted an A1S&65T* 0A/>&3 b the 0resident of the /epublic of the 0hilippines, restoring him to full civil and political rights. 2ith this instrument on hand, the herein petitioner applied for reinstatement to the government service, onl to be reinstated to the wrong position of a mere classroom teacher and not to his former position as *lementar School 0rincipal I. Issue. 2&3 petitioner Sabello should be reappointed to his position. /uling. The #uestion of whether or not petitioner should be reappointed to his former position is a matter of discretion of the appointing authorit , but under the circumstances of this case, if the petitioner had been unfairl deprived of what is rightfull his, the discretion is #ualified b the re#uirements of giving $ustice to the petitioner. It is no longer a matter of discretion on the part of the appointing power, but discretion tempered with fairness and $ustice. As to the argument that the >epartment of *ducation, Culture and Sports cannot be sued, the onl answer is that its officials can be sued for alleged grave errors in their official acts. Again, 2e ignore technicalit b considering this a suit against the officials of this government agenc . Ta+ing into consideration that this petition is filed b a nonlaw er, who claims that povert denies him the services of a law er, the Court set aside
Sabello v. 5+CS 00 SCRA 623 -acts. 0etitioner Sabello, was the *lementar School 0rincipal of Talisa and also the Assistant 0rincipal of the Talisa 1aranga Kigh School of the >ivision of 7ingoog Cit . The baranga high school was in deficit at that time
85 | P a g e

the re#uirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies and resolved to go direct to the merits of the petition. The petition is 7/A3T*> in that the Secretar of the >epartment of *ducation, Culture and Sports and/or his dul authorized representative is hereb directed to appoint petitioner to the position of *lementar School 0rincipal I or its e#uivalent Montes v. Civil Service 'oard of Appeals 0 .0il !%0 -acts. ;ontes was charged with negligence in the performance of dut @>redge 3o. L under him bad sun+ because of water in the bilge, which he did not pump out while under his careA. the Commissioner of Civil Service exonerated him, on the basis of findings made b a committee. 1ut the Civil Service 1oard of Appeals modified the decision, finding petitioner guilt of contributor negligence in not pumping, the water from the bilge, and ordered that he be considered resigned effective his last da of dut with pa , without pre$udice to reinstatement at the discretion of the appointing officer. ;ontes then filed an action in the Court of -irst Instance of ;anila to review the decision, but the said court dismissed the action on a motion to dismiss, on the ground that petitioner had not exhausted all his administrative remedies before he instituted the action. The law which was applied b the lower court is Section = of Commonwealth Act 3o. ICN, which provides. The Civil Service 1oard of Appeals shall have the power and authorit to hear and decide all administrative cases brought before it on appeal, and its decisions in such cases shall be final, unless revised or modified b the 0resident of the 0hilippines. Issue. 2&3 the lower court erred in appl ing Sec = of Commonwealth Act 3o. ICN in the instant case. /uling. There is no dut imposed on a part against whom a decision has been rendered b the Civil Service 1oard of Appeals to appeal to the 0resident, and that the tendenc of courts has been not to sub$ect the decision of the 0resident to $udicial review. It is further argued that if decisions of the Auditor 7eneral ma be appealed to the courts, those of the Civil Service 1oard of Appeals need not be acted upon b the 0resident also, before recourse ma be had to the courts. It is also argued that if a case is appealed to the 0resident, his action should be final and not reviewable b the courts because such a course of action would be derogator to the high office of the 0resident. The $udgment appealed from is thus affirmed.
86 | P a g e

Jose Rizal Memorial State University - College of Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Jose Rizal Memorial State University - College of Law

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

Jose Rizal Memorial State University - College of Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jose Rizal Memorial State University College of Law

Administrative Law Reviewer

INTRODUCTION I. Concept/definition of administrative law