P. 1
Admin Law Template[1]

Admin Law Template[1]

|Views: 82|Likes:
Published by Sui

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Sui on Jul 23, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

07/27/2011

pdf

text

original

RECOLETOS NOTES

CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Introduction: The study of Administrative Law pertains to the field of public law. In the Philippines this continues to bear the influence of principles introduces by the United States. In its broadest sense it refers to the entire organization and operation of government. It is in this sense that the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 was formulated. Its four books include provisions on the organization, powers and general administration of the executive, legislative and judicial departments of government, the organization and administration of departments of government, the organization and administration of bureaus and offices, of local governments as well as the laws governing public officers. According to Cuthbert W. Pound, this branch of legal system “includes the entire system of laws under which the machinery of the state works and by which the state performs all governmental acts, such as the administration of justice, the collection of taxes, duties, imposts and excises, the regulation of trade and commerce, the raising and supporting of armies and navies, the government of territories and foreign possessions, and the promotion of general welfare by regulative measures of all sorts. The entire field of political law as understood in this jurisdiction would thus be encompassed in this concept. In a less comprehensive sense, Administrative Law refers to that part of public law which fixes the organization and determines the competence of the administrative authorities, and indicates to the individual remedies for the violation of his rights. But in a technical sense Administrative Law covers a more limited field. Pound refers to it as that branch of modern law under which the executive department of government acting in a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacity, interferes with the conduct of the individual for the purpose of promoting the well-being of the community, as under laws regulating public corporations, business affected with a public interest, profession, trades and callings, rates and prices, laws for the protection of public health and safety and the promotion of public convenience and advantage. It is the law governing regulatory agencies but it is concerned not only with rule-making, the settlement of contested matters and the distribution of benefits but also indicates the remedies available to those aggrieved by administrative action.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

1

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

SEPARATION OF POWERS Basic to the Philippine constitutional system is the principle that “sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them”. Explicit provisions separate the powers of government into executive, legislative and judicial and distribute them among three different branches. The 1935 Constitutional formulation was: Executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. Legislative powers shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines composed of a senate and a House of Representatives. Judicial powers shall be vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as may be established by law. Even before 1935 Constitution, the government established by American administrators observed the principle with some modifications, particularly during the early period when the Philippine Commission as a body performed legislative functions and the individual members headed the executive departments of government. The Governor-General was chairman. The 1935 Constitution introduced a more rigid separation of powers. Under it, a legislator could not hold any other office or employment in the government without forfeiting seat. The 1973 Constitution, adopting a form of parliamentary government introduced a fusion of legislative and executive powers by providing for the election by the National Assembly for the program of government. The provision that the National Assembly and the executive power shall be exercised by the Prime Minister with the assistance of the cabinet established no coordinate, separate and Independent executive branch. The President was reduced to a symbolic head of state, the real power in the government being the Prime Minister. But he and the Cabinet were responsible to the National Assembly. However, the scheme was never put into operation. Instead, by amendments to the constitution in 1976, the powers of the incumbent president were maintained and augmented. A modified form of presidential/parliamentary system was introduced in 1981, under which, the classification of governmental powers into executive, legislative and judicial is reiterated but separation of powers and its corollary rule of non-delegation of power was neither well defined nor strictly observed. Under the 1976 and 1981 amendments, the legislative power is still vested in the unicameral legislature, but the President is head of state and chief executive. Some features of the parliamentary system are retained. There is a Prime Minister who heads the Cabinet, a majority of whose are members of legislature. The president has control of the ministries while supervision over POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE them pertains to the Prime Minister. The legislature may withdraw its CHAIRMAN:fromJay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Lady the Prime Minister and the latter may seek to dissolve the confidence Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, legislature. These innovations can affect administrative law significantly. Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

2

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

Under the 1973 Constitution as amended, the President may exercise legislative functions by virtue of direct grant of authority to legislate by decree or under provisions authorizing the legislature to delegate legislative powers to him. The Constitution still clearly indicates the source of all government authority is the people and that through the Constitution as an expression of sovereign will, they have delegated their exercise to various arms of government indicating the conditions and limits of the powers to be performed. The separation between legislative and executive Powers is less marked because the President legislates and through the ministers subject to his control participates in the regular legislative work. These do not mean however, that the performance of legislative functions can now be transferred to administrative bodies without limit. Since the main branches of government are by constitutional fiat assigned definite functions, it follows that unless the constitution permits it, and they cannot abdicate these functions and escape responsibility for them by delegating them. According to the Supreme Court in an earlier case, the doctrine against non-delegation is based on the ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate by the instrumentality of his own judgment acting immediately upon the matter of legislation and not through the intervening mind of another. Hence, the test to determine permissible delegation continues to apply under the amended Constitution. Principle of Delegation of Powers: Administrative Agencies are delegated Quasi-legislative power, which pertains to the power to create, alter, modify, and promulgates rules and regulations but such power can be questioned as to: Whether the administrative agency is conferred with such power. To answer it, We must look at the law which created the administrative agency, “The powers and functions of administrative agencies are defined in the constitutional provisions or in the legislative enactments, whether national, regional autonomous or local, creating them.”

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

3

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

“The cases that follow inquire into the validity of the legislation of powers. They illustrate the factors taken into account by the courts and the tests applied in the determination of whether or not a particular delegation is lawful. What powers may be delegated or conferred? Was the statute complete when it left the legislature? Does the law provide sufficient standard to guide the delegate in the performance of the functions conferred? How is the existence of these standards determined? When are standards determined? What standards are considered sufficient? These and other questions come before the courts and the decisions, particularly of the Supreme Court are instructive.” Completeness test:
o

The law must be complete as there is nothing left for the administrative bodies to interpret it but to implement the law based on its completeness.

Case: CIA. GRAL DE TABACOS v Board of Public Utility 32 PHIL 136 1916 Facts: Section 16 of Act 2307 provides and gives the Board of Public Utility the power to require every public utility “to furnish annually a detailed report of finances and operations, in such a form and containing such matters as the Board may from time to time by orders prescribe.” Pursuant to this, the Board dictated an order to the company to present a detailed report. From this order the company appealed to the Supreme Court contending that said section of Act 2307 is invalid as an undue delegation of legislative power. Held: The provision conferring authority on the Board is very general. This section authorizes the Board to require detailed reports from public utilities, leaving the nature of the report, the contents thereof, and the principle upon which it will proceed to the exclusive discretion of the Board. There are no sufficient standards.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

4

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

The case of Interstate Commerce Com. V. Goodrich Transit Co., 224 US 194, is different because the case at bar, the provision does not “lay down the general rules of action under which the commission shall proceed.” Nor does it itself prescribe in detail what those reports shall contain. Practically, everything is left to the judgment and discretion of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners, which is unrestrained as to when it shall act, why it shall act, how it shall act, to what extent it shall act, or what it shall act upon. There is undue delegation of legislative power. Order set aside. Self standard:
o

The law must provide a standard to guide the delegate in the exercise of the power conferred to him. How these standards are determined, and what standard are deemed to sufficient.

Case: PANAMA REFINING CO. v. RYAN 293 U.S. 388 On July 11, 1933, the President, by the Executive Order, prohibited the transportation of interstate and foreign commerce and petroleum and the products produced thereof or withdrawn from storage in excess of the amount permitted to be produced or withdrawn from storage by any State Law or valid regulation or order prescribed thereunder, by any board, commission, officer, or other duly authorized agency of a state. This action was based on sec. 9 © of Title 1, Sec. 709 (c) That section provides: (c) The President is authorized to prohibit the transportation in interstate and foreign commerce of petroleum and the products thereof produced or withdrawn from storage by any state law or valid regulation or order prescribed thereunder, by any board, commission, officer, or other duly authorized agency of a state. Any violation of any order of the president issued under the provisions of this subsection shall be punishable by fine of not exceeding P1’00, or imprisonment, for not exceeding six months or both. On July 4, 1933, the president by Executive Order authorized the secretary of interior to exercise all powers vested in the President for purpose of enforcing POLITICALsaid act and said order. On July 15, 1933, Sec. 9 (c) of LAW COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS:out the president’s the Secretary of the Interior issued regulations to carry Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, orders of July 11 and 14, 1933. Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

5

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

Section 9 (c) is brief and unambiguous. It does not attempt to control the production of petroleum and petroleum products within a state. It does not seek to lay down rules for guidance of state legislatures or state officers. It leaves to the states and their constituted authorities the determination of what production shall be permitted. It does not qualify the president’s authority by reference to the basis, or extent of the state’s limitation of production. Section 9 (c) does not state whether, or in what circumstances or under what conditions, the president is to prohibit the transportation of the amount of the petroleum or petroleum products produced in excess of the state’s permission. It establishes no criterion to govern the President’s course. It does not require any finding by the president as a condition of his action. The Congress in Section 9(c) thus declares no policy as to the transportation of the excess production. So far as this section is concerned, it gives to the President an unlimited authority to determine the policy and to lay down the prohibition or not to lay it down, as he may see it. And disobedience to his Orders is made a crime punishable by fine or imprisonment. The Court has had frequent occasion to refer to these limitations and to review the course of congressional action. In every case in which the question has been raised, the Court has recognized that there are limits of delegation which there is no constitutional authority to transcend. We think Section 9(c) goes beyond these limits. As to the transportation of oil production in excess of state permission, the Congress has declared no policy, has established no standard, and has laid down no rule. There is no requirement, no definition of circumstances and conditions in which the transportation is to be allowed or prohibited.

Potestas Delegata, non delegare potest: What has been delegated cannot be further delegated. The Legislative branch delegates its power to create, alter and modify laws to the president eg. Executive Orders. The president cannot delegate such power to its subsidiary Exception to the rule: When such power are necessarily implied for the exercise of the express POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE power.
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

6

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

Publication: When required: 1. Rules and regulations which are penal in nature Penal regulations US Vs. Panlilio 28 Phil 608 Facts: On February 22, 1013, the carabaos of Panlilio having been exposed to rinderpest were, in accordance with an order of a duly authorized agent of the Director of Agriculture, duly quarantined in a corral and conducted from one place to another for the purpose of working them. Issues: 1) Whether Panlilio is liable under Act No. 1760. 2) Whether Panlilio is liable under Art. 581, par 2 of the Penal Code. Held: 1) The only sections of Act No. 1760 which prohibit acts pronounce them unlawful are 3,4 and 5. This case does not fall within any of them. Sec. 6 simply authorizes the Director Agriculture to do certain things, among them, par (c) to require that animals which are suffering or exposed thereto to be quarantined at such place and time as may be deemed by him necessary to prevent the spread of the disease. Nowhere in the law is the violation of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture neither prohibited or made unlawful, nor is there provided any punishment for a violation of such orders. The orders of the Bureau of Agriculture, while they may be possibly be said to have the force of law, are not statutes and a violation of such of such orders is not penal offense unless the statute itself somewhere makes a violation of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture made a penal offense, nor is such violation punished in any way therein

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

7

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

2) The fact that the information in its preamble charged a violation of Act No. 1760 does not prevent us from finding the accused guilty of a violation of an article of the Penal Code. The facts as recited in the complaint constitute a violation of Art. 581, par 2 of the Penal Code which penalizes any person who shall violate regulations issued with reference to any epidemic disease among animals.

Judgment modified. and affects the interest of the general public, must be published, except those which are internal in nature 2. Those which affects the rights of an individual granted by law Further illustration: Hilado Vs. Collector of Internal Revenue 100 Phil 288 Facts: Petitioner claimed in his 1951 income tax return the deduction of the portion of his war damage claim which has not been paid. He claims that said amount represents a business asset with the meaning of said Act which he is entitled to deduct as a loss in his return for 1951. Under sec. 338 of the National Revenue Code, the Secretary of Finance in the exercise of his administrative powers, caused the issuance of General Circular No. V-123 as an implementation or interpretative regulation of Sec. 30 of the same code, allowing such deduction. Such circular was later found to be wrong and was revoked by Circular No. V-123 of the same Secretary of Finance. Issue: Whether the secretary of Finance has the power to repeal or revoke Circular V-123 Held: It is contended that the power to pass upon the validity of General Circular No. V-123 is vested exclusively in our courts in view of the principle of separation of powers and therefore, the secretary of Finance acted without authority in revoking it and approving in lieu thereof General Circular No. V-123. It cannot be denied, however, that the Secretary of Finance is vested with authority to revoke, repeal or abrogate the act or previous rulings of his predecessors if thereafter the latter become satisfied that a different construction should be given.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

8

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
With regard to the contention that the General Circular V-123 cannot be given retroactive effect because it would affect or obliterate the vested right acquired by petitioner under the previous circular, suffice it to say that the Circular General V-123, having been issued on a wrong construction of law, cannot give rise to a vested right that can be invoked by a taxpayer. The reason is obvious: a vested right cannot spring from a wrong interpretation. It seems too clear for serious argument that an administrative officer cannot change a law enacted by congress. A regulation that is merely an interpretation of the statute when once determined to have been erroneous becomes a nullity. An erroneous construction of the law by the Treasury Department of the Collector of Internal revenue does not preclude or estop the government from collecting a tax which is legally due. Art 2254, - no vested or acquired right can arise from acts or omissions which are against the law or which infringe upon rights of others. (New Civil Code) However; , letters of instructions and those which are interpretative. Need not be published and those which affects the internal business of the administrative agency without affecting the rights of a private individual ( see article 2 administrative code) Section 3 . filing Every agency shall file with the UP law center three certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this code which are not filed within 3 months from the date shall not there after be the basis of any sanction against any party or persons Records officer of the agency or his equivalent functionary shall carry out the requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary action. A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and shall be open to public inspection. of the civil code and section 5 of the

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

9

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Section 4 Effectivity: In addition to other rule making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with the administrative code, each rule shall BECOME EFFECTIVE 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING AS ABOVE PROVIDED UNLESS A DIFFERENT DATE IS FIXEDBY LAW OR IN CERTAIN CASES OF IMMINENT DANGER TO:
o o o

Public health Safety, Welfare

The existence of which must be expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. The agency shall take appropriate measures to make emergency rules known to persons who may be affected. Illustrations: People vs. Que Po Lay 94 Phil 640 Facts: defendant was found guilty of violating C.B. Circular No. 20 which requires the sale of foreign exchange to the C.B. within one day following receipt of such foreign exchange. Appeal from the CFI claiming that said Circular 20 was not published in the Official Gazette prior to the act or omission imputed to the defendant. Held: It is true that Circular 20 of the C.B. is not a statute or law but being issued for the implementation of the law authorizing its issuance, it has the force and effect of law according to the settled jurisprudence. Moreover, as a rule, circulars like No. 20 of C.B. which prescribes a penalty for its violation should be published before becoming effective for the people to be officially informed. Before the public may be bound by its contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must be published and the people officially and specifically informed of said contents and its penalties. If as a matter of fact Circular No. 20 has not been published as required by law before its violation, then in the eyes of the law there was no such circular to be violated and consequently the accused committed no violation of the circular, and the trial court may be said to have no jurisdiction. This question may be raised at any stage of the proceeding whether or not raised in the court below. POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE In in the Official RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOLabout 3 months after Gazette until No. 1951, that is, OF LAW
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, this case, although Circular No. 20 was issued in 1949 it was not published Jaynee Dialola

10

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
appellant’s conviction of its violation. It has no effect before publication. Trial court has no jurisdiction. Quasi judicial powers: The administrative agency has the power to adjudicate cases falling in within their jurisdiction. Likewise, administrative bodies have the power to investigate a case. Such investigation must be given greater weights by all courts of the law by reason of its expertise and wisdom to handle the case. Decision Imposing Criminal Sanction ILLUSTRATIVE CASE Scoty’s Department Store Vs. Micaller 52 O.G. No. 11, 5119 99 Phil 762 1956 Facts: This is a petition for review of an order issued by Ho. Jose S. Bautista, Associate Judge, CIR, finding respondents, now petitioners, guilty of unfair labor practice imposing upon them a fine of P100, at the same time ordering them to reinstate petitioner, Nena Micaller, with pack pay from December 1, 1953 until her actual reinstatement, which was affirmed by the court en banc. Issue: Whether or not the Court is justified in imposing a fine and has the jurisdiction to impose penalties under Sec 25 of RA 875. Held: Said section provides; Sec. 25. Penalties – any person who violates the provision of section three of this act shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos, or by imprisonment of not less than one month nor more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. Any other violation of this Act is declared unlawful shall be punished by affine of not less than fifty pesos nor more than five hundred pesos in each offense.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

11

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law

The above provision does not specify the court that may act when the violation charges call for the imposition of the penalties therein provided. It merely states that they may be imposed in the discretion of the court. Does the word “court” employed therein refer to the CIR under sec.2(a) of the same Act which provides that “Court means the Court of Industrial Relations – unless another court shall be specified.” After mature deliberation, this court has reached the conclusion that, said provision notwithstanding, that word cannot refer to the CIR for to give that meaning would be violative of the safeguards guaranteed to every accused by our Constitution. We refer to those which postulate that “No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law” and that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf. The procedure laid down by law to be observed by the CIR in dealing with unfair labor practices cases negates these constitutional guarantees to the accused. And this is so because among other thins, the law provides that the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall be controlling and its spirit and intention of this act that the CIR and its members and Hearing Examiners shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily an objective and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure. It is likewise enjoined that the court shall not be bound solely by the evidence presented during the hearing but may avail itself of all other means such as but not limited to ocular inspection and questioning of well informed persons which results must be made part of the record. All these mean that an accused may be tried without the right to meet the witnesses face to face and may be convicted merely on preponderance of evidence and not beyond reasonable doubt. This is against the due process guaranteed by our Constitution. It may be contented that this gap may be subserved by requiring the CIR to observe strictly the rule applicable to criminal cases to meet the requirements of the Constitution but this would be tantamount to amending the law which is not within the province of the judicial branch of our government. A comparative study of the jurisdiction of the CIR and of the CAR created by RA 1267 is enlightening. Note that both Acts (nos. 857 and 1267) contain general provision prescribing, in one a penalty of fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment of not less than one month or more than one year, or both by such fine or POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE imprisonment, in the discretion of the Court.
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

12

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
And in another, a penalty of not exceeding two thousand pesos imprisonment not exceeding one year or both in the discretion of the Court upon whose person who violates any of the provisions therein specified. But while RA 1267, as effect the CAR provides that criminal proceedings should be prosecuted as an ordinary jurisdiction upon an administrative court. It expressly says so in an unmistakable language. Again Congress has made its intention clear when it amended that law by eliminating entirely this criminal jurisdiction originally conferred upon CAR. This was made manifest when the Congress enacted RA 1409 repealing those provisions affecting this criminal jurisdiction aforementioned. In conclusion, our considered opinion is that the power to impose the penalties provided for in section 25 of AR 875 lodged in ordinary courts, and not in CIR, notwithstanding the definition of the word “Court” contained in sec 2(a) of said Act. Hence, the decision of the CIR in so far as it imposed a fine of P100 upon petitioners is illegal and should be nullified. JURISDICTION Administrative agencies may only exercise such powers as are explicitly or necessary implication conferred on them by law. Such agencies can only adjudicate matters coming within their jurisdiction; otherwise their decision would be void. In a number of cases the Supreme Court has held that the Public Service Commission and its successor, the Board of Communications had no jurisdiction over cases and involving complaints for injury caused by the Radio Communications of the Philippines, Inc., to transmit telegrams and to impose fines such failure. The grant for the supervisory power to the agency did not include jurisdiction over claims based on breach of contract. They were for the courts of justice to decide. In the leading case of Scoty’s Department store Vs. Micaller the Supreme Court held that the CIR had no jurisdiction to impose penalty for violation of certain penal provisions of law for this violated the due process guarantee given to defendants in criminal cases. However, certain statutes authorize agencies other than the courts to impose administrative fines to ensure efficient enforcement of law. Thus, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue is authorized to impose surcharges as an administrative penalty for late filing of payment of taxes; the Commissioner of Immigration may collect a fine administratively for an alien certificate registration.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

13

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
A tribunal may have jurisdiction over a case before it, but where it acts in a spirit of hostility and unfairness, its decision will be set aside. In Bayani Vs. Collector of Customs, the Attorney-General recommended a new trial because he found that the appellant had not been given a fair and full hearing. The Board of Inquiry conducted its entire examination of witnesses in a spirit of hostility, intimidating ignorant witnesses. For that reason according to the court, the Board was rendered incapacitated to weigh and consider the evidence impartially Administrative agencies authorized to decide disputes coming from within their jurisdiction are not by law precluded from delegating the power to hold a hearing on the basis of which the decision of the agency will be made. In American Tobacco Co. Vs. Director of Patents the Supreme Court held that the rule requiring an officer to exercise his own judgment and discretion does not prevent him from utilizing, as a matter of a practical administrative procedure, that of the subordinate to investigate and report to him, the facts on the basis of which he makes his decision. It is sufficient that the judgment and discretion finally exercised are those of the officer authorized by law. Due process of law requirements of fair hearing do not require that testimony should be actually taken by the same officer who will make the decision. As long as a party is not deprived of his right to present his case and submit, there is no question that the requirements of due process and fair trial are fully met. In short, there is no abnegation of responsibility on the part of the officer concerned as the actual decisions remains with and is made by said officer. It is however, required that to give the substance of a hearing, which is for the purpose of making determinations must consider and appraise the evidence which justifies them. The hearing officer made preliminary rulings on the myriad question raised at the hearings, but the ultimate decision on the merits of all the issues and questions involved was left to the Director of Patents. Administrative due process: ILLUSTRATIVE CASE Ang Tibay Vs. CIR 69 Phil 635 1940 Facts: The Solicitor General on behalf of the CIR filed a motion for reconsideration while respondent National Labor Union, Inc. prayed for new trial, and vacting of the judgment of the majority of this Court. This concerns the laying of employees of Ang Tibay belonging to the NLU Inc.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

14

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Issue: Whether there was due process observed in the CIR Proceedings. Held: The CIR is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation. It is more an administrative board than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. It is narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure. However, this does not mean that it can entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due trials and investigations of an administrative character. There are primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character:
• • • • • •

Right to hearing; Tribunal must consider the evidence presented; Decision must be supported bys some evidence; Supporting evidence must be substantial; Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; The body of CIR or any of its judges must act on his own independent consideration of the law and facts, and not simply accepts the views of the subordinate in arriving at a decision; and Decide in such manner that parties can know the various issues involved and the reason for decision.

In light of the foregoing principles, we observe here that the record is barren and cannot support a conclusion of law. Motion for new trial is granted to receive all evidence to determine the main issue which is on the lay off the employees. Southech Development Corporation Vs. NLRC G.R NO. 149590; January 12, 2005 Facts: This is an appeal from the decision of the labor arbiter directing the NLRC to give due course on the respondent’s appeal. The facts are as follows: Respondents Rodrigo Lopez and Reynaldo Gamutan were employed as machine operators of petitioners SDC in 1990’s. On September 1999,

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

15

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
respondents were directed to submit their explanation why they had not be disciplinarily dealt with for insubordination unsatisfied with the reason petitioner suspended the Respondents for one month, but Respondents Refused to acknowledge the notice of suspension. Respondents were advised to consult SDC presidents, Ricardo Lu, but Respondents paid him no heed but continue to file a complaint for illegal dismissal. The labor Arbiter decided the case on the Negative for the Respondents were given the opportunity to explain their side yet, they denied by NLRC on September 29, 2000 because Respondents filed it beyond 10 calendar-day period. Thus, he filed petition for certiorari alleging that they were deprived of due process. Issue: Whether or Not Respondents were denied due process Whether or Not NLRC grave abused its administrative direction by denying administrative due process. Held: No. Court of appeal must yield to the technicality which aims to serve the broader interest of substantial justice. In administrative cases there are requisites that must be complied with citing the case of Surigao Del Norte Electric Cooperative Vs. NLRC that first, Right to a hearing, which Respondents here for was given but did not comply with the Reglementary Period of appeal second, tribunal must consider the evidence presented which NLRC did, Third, decision must have something to support itself, Fourth, Evidence must be substantial, Fifth, decision must be based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, or at least contained in the record. And disclosed to the parties, which The labor Arbiter and NLRC did, Sixth, The board must act on its own consideration of facts or independently arriving on its own decision, which NLRC did and Lastly, Decisions must be rendered in such a manner that the parties to the Controversy can know the various issues involved and reasons for the decision rendered. That the NLRC did but respondents did not comply within the 60 day period and 10 day period for appeal. As to the second issue, NLRC being an administrative agency charged with quasi judicial power complied with the requirements of administrative due process. Administrative agency’s findings of facts are given finality, if supported with substantial evidence which the technical rules and the reglementary period provided by law

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

16

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Negligence of the counsel Binds His client. Wherefore, the decision of NLRC is reinstated and court of appeal’s decision be set aside. Right to a Hearing does not mean a formal court hearing neither the necessity for a cross examination but it is enough that both parties concerned may air their side through position papers ( Ppl. Vs. Mutuc, supra) or through an answer with supporting papers. Augusto R. samalio Vs. Court of Appeals, CSC and Bureau of Immigration GR no. 140079 ; March 31, 2005 Facts: Samalio , Petitioner here in this case , is an intelligence officer charged for violation of CSMC 46 Rule 2 election 1, for dishonesty , oppression and misconduct . The fact are as follows on February 2, 1993 at NAIA , Ms. Weng Sai Qin was holding an Uruguayan passport and was waiting for her friend. Pajarillaga, an immigration officer noticed the said passport of Ms. Sai Qin was fake.Sai Qin, a Chinese National. Who do not even know how to speak other language. Was holding an Uruguay passport and enclosed there in that she is an Uruguay national. That gave Pajarillaga a queue that it was faked. Pajarillaga brought Sai Qin to samalio to have her investigated. Pajarillaga left the investigation room a minute after. On the investigation pad, Sai Qin gave Samalio 500 dollar bill in exchange for certification of authenticity of passport, Samalio returned her passport, but did not issue such certification Sai Qin left the area , on her way out , Sai Qin discovered that it did not hear an immigration arrival stamp, thus, Sai Qin filed a complaint against Samalio. On February 9, 1993, The bureau of immigration and deportation charging Samalio for violation of CSMC NO.46 , Rule 2 Section 1, for dishonesty , oppression , Misconduct disgraceful and immoral conduct Likewise , requiring Samalio to submit his answer to the charges with supporting statement and documents. As a consequence , Samalio was preventively suspended while the case was pending. Later on , Petitioner submitted an answer but unsatisfactory so the case was set for formal hearing he fore the board of discipline of BID. The case has always been suspended thus , he was given a petition to dismiss but did not dismiss instead he was given 5 days to prevent additional witnesses on February 6, 1995, Samalio filed a motion for dismiss but denied on February 16, 1995 motion to dismiss was granted and the case be set a new on February 22 1995 on July 25, 1995,

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

he was found guilty by BID commissioner liwag and was denied on June 2, 1997 the said decision was appealed to civil service commission on
17

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
November 26, 1997 but dismissed for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of Liwag. Thus, filed a petition for Review to CA but was denied as well. Hence, Certiorari to the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or not Samalio was denied due process Held: No. Time and Again, that there had been several instances when people conceived that right to a hearing means, a formal hearing and that there be a cross examination of witnesses. Right to be heard connotes, opportunity to be heard not only in courts but also on position papers, answers, statements and documents presented and shall be determined by the court if it suffice to convict an individual or not based on their papers sent to the court. On the present case, Samalio need not interpose before the court that he was denied due process, the mere fact that at the time when there has been postponement, he may file a motion to dismiss but did not instead sought for additional days to present witnesses but did not avail of such. He likewise submitted his answer from the complaint and supporting statements to interject his innocence yet not sufficient. He was likewise given the chance to appeal to CSC and CA and submitted his position paper where through such paper, He was heard but not sufficient to strengthen his innocence. In all these circumstances, It shows that Samalio had all the chance to be heard but the decision is up to the body who will determine the evidence presented. BID being an investigative body and conferred Adjudicatory power will weigh the strength of the evidence not withstanding the Constitutional right of an accused on the presumption of innocence. BID considered Samalio’s side through his answer but not strong enough to overcome all the allegations against him.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
When required RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW Sicat Vs. reyes
18
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
100 Phil 505; 1956 There is no question that in the tenancy case instituted by Arcadio Lagmen against his landlord Froncisco Liongsion before the court of Industrial Relations, Alipio Sicat was not a part even if he was the tenant placed in the land by the latter to take the place of the former. However, when that case was called by trial on the merits, the parties submitted an amicable agreement wherein, among other things, stipulated as follows: “That the parties respectfully pray his Hon. Court to order the reinstatement of the petitioner Arcadio Lagman a tenant of the respondent in the said remaining portion of his holding beginning the crop year 1956-1957 and to order the present tenant, Alipio Sicat, to vacate said remaining land holding, and the dismissal of the respective claims of herein parties.” The above agreement, which serves as basis of the ejectment of Alipio Sicat, cannot be binding and conclusive upon the latter, who is not a party to the case. Indeed, the order, as well as the writ of execution, cannot legally enforce against Alipio Sicat for the simple reason that he was not given his day in court. It is well-settled that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law.” And by due process of law, we men a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and render judgment only after trial, or as this court has said “due process of law contemplates notice opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, affecting one person or property.” It is, therefore evident that the order of the lower court dated ob January 23, 1956, as well as the writ of execution of July 6, 1956, are null and void, the same having been issued by it in excess of jurisdiction. When Not Required Cancellation of Passport : Hearing would have been proper and necessary if the reason of withdrawal or cancellation of the passport were not clear or doubtful. But where the holder of the passport is facing criminal charge in our courts and left the country to evade criminal prosecution, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, in the exercise of discretion to revoke a passport already issued, cannot be held to have acted whimsically or capriciously in withdrawing or canceling such passport.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
discretion is exercised by an DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW RECOLETOS officer vested with upon an undisputed fact, such as the filing of a serious criminal charge against the passport holder, hearing may be dispensed with by such officer as a prerequisite to the
19
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing. When Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
cancellation of his passport, lack of such hearing does not violate the due process of law clause of the Constitution. And the exercise of the discretion vested in him cannot be deemed whimsical and capricious because of the absence of such hearing. If hearing should always be held in order to comply with the due process of law clause, then a writ of preliminary injunction issued ex parte would be violative of the said clause.( Suntay Vs. People,101 Phil 833,1957) When the administrative body acts as an alter ego of the president. Administrative and Judicial Proceedings It can happen that the same act or occurrence gives rise to action cognizable both by the courts and by an administrative agency. Can the two cases prosper, simultaneously or successively, or will the filing of one bar the other? What effect will decision in one have on the other? can evidence in one proceeding be utilized as basis of decision by the other? In the American jurisdiction, the principal of primary jurisdiction or prior resort is well established. This is invoked when a statute confers concurrent original jurisdiction in both court and agency over specified matters. Despite explicit statutory grant of jurisdiction the courts defer to the agency and refuse to entertain a case where the issue requires agency expertise and uniformity of rulings. The principal has been adverted to by our Supreme Court, but has yet to be applied in this jurisdiction. On the other hand, the Insurance Code provides: the authority to adjudicate granted to the Commissioner under this Section shall be concurrent with the civil courts, but the filing of the complaint with the Commission shall preclude the civil courts from taking the cognizance of a suit involving the same subject matter. Under this legislation, the rule of primary jurisdiction or primary resort would be developed if, notwithstanding the grant of concurrent jurisdiction to civil courts, even when a case is brought before them first, they refuse to exercise jurisdiction so that the Insurance Commission may deal uniformly with contested cases.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
is conferred by law is conclusive when supported byLAW RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF evidence
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Due Delegation and findings of Dialola of administrative body who Jaynee fact

20

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Antonio et al. Vs. Honorable Francisco Villa and OMB Task Force on Public Works and Highways G.R NO. 144694; March 28, 2005 Facts: Antonio , Ramirez and Tel Equen were charged of falsification of documents as to purchases and bidding held on May 10, 1990 which it did not really occur. The facts are as follows. Aguano, supply officer of (MPED) Mountain province engineering district issued a requisition voucher for the construction of Mainit bridge in Barangay Mainit , Mt. province . Ramirez , assistant district engineer, favorably but the said bidding did not really occur , they issued a letter requesting or borrowing the baileys and construction materials of bailey bridge construction project from Ifugao Engineering district handled by Mabunga . As a result, they were able to get these materials from the DPWH potia Depot. Thus, Mainit Bridge was constructed the materials used were from the IED on the strength of the request letter issued by Tel Equen Mabunga. All the components borrowed were returned to IED in January 1, 1991. On September 11, 1990 the concerned citizens of ifugao wrote a letter to the ombudsman to conduct investigation on the delayed completion of a bridge in Mitapia , Lamut, Ifugao. The OMB task force, an investigative body of DPWA found Antonio, Tel equen and Ramirez guilty of falsification of documents that there was no bidding that occurred on May 10, 1990 but instead look it from the IED. The said facts are negated by the NBI, according to the NBI, There was a conspiracy between IED, MPED and Aguana and Dangayo OMB filed an administration complain for dishonesty and was found guilty thus petitioner here in filed an appeal. Issue: Whether or not OMB’s investigation be given credence Whether or not there was a denial of due process

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Held: Jaynee Dialola

Yes. OMB is an administrative body created and given the power to investigate on cases coming within its jurisdiction .Investigation gathered by
21

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
an administrative agency charged with investigative powers be given with finality in all courts. Questions of facts, as to whether there was a bidding conducted, or none is determined by OMB and their findings are conclusive in all courts. Thus, No question as to OMB’s finding be given credence because it is conferred by law creating it. Findings of fact can only be contested if judgment is base a on misapprehension of facts. No. Citing the case of Ang Tibay Vs. CIR, The following requisites must be complied in all administrative proceedings : (1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) The decision must be supported by evidence; (4) The evidence must be substantial; (5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence present at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; (6) The administrative body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate; and (7) The administrative body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently metTel-Equen, Ramirez, and Antonio participated in all levels of the present proceedings, from the Ombudsman to this Court. In fact, during the preliminary conference held on 27 November 1992 before Graft Investigation Officer Lamberto T. Tagayuna, the parties agreed to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the evidence on record. Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in the courts of justice. Thus, Tel-Equen, Ramirez, and Antonio can no longer request for the cross-examination of the witnesses against them. The Constitution provides that "[p]ublic office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives."Tel-Equen, Ramirez, and Antonio's acts fail to show that they have lived up to this public trust.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 50324 is AFFIRMED. OF LAW F. Tel-Equen, RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL Jimmie Rolando D. Ramirez, and Rudy P. Antonio committed acts of dishonesty, falsification of public documents, misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the
22
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, WHEREFORE, the instant petition Dialola Jaynee is DENIED. The decision of the Court

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
best interest of the service. They are DISMISSED from the service, and shall suffer the accessory penalties of dismissal But instances of both administrative and judicial proceedings involving the same facts and usually the same party respondent/dependent had come up. In Galang Vs. CA the Supreme Court pointed out that there was no compatibility between the administrative case for exclusion of an alien or a criminal case for violation of certain provision of the immigration law, although both proceedings arose from same facts. The alleged conflicts between the said proceedings according to the then Justice Concepcion, was at best purely physical not legal, in the sense that one does nullify or set aside the other. Courts usually leave to the administrative forum questions of reinstatement, payment of back salaries, etc. in case acquittal in criminal case. An exception is People Vs. Consigna where the Supreme Court found absolute lack of evidence to prove charges of malversation and ordered reinstatement. Evidence, Rules and Quantum of Generally, administrative agencies are not bound by the technical rules regarding the admission of evidence in the ordinary courts of justice. They are not necessarily requires to take into account in the determination of cases only such evidence as may have been presented by the parties. Thus, an administrative agency may at times make its own inquiry into the facts at issue and take judicial notice of certain other matters. But its decision must be supported by substantial evidence. Judicial Review Except when the Constitution requires or allows it, judicial review may be granted or withheld as Congress chooses. Thus, the law may provide that a determination made by an administrative agency shall be final and irreviewable. In such case, there is no violation of due process.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

GENERALLY

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

23

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
One of the obstacles to the development of administrative law was reluctance to accept the exercise of adjudicative functions by officers or bodies not pertaining to the judiciary. In the separation and distribution of powers, judicial power has been vested in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as may be created by law. The Constitution gives the legislature the power to create courts inferior to the Supreme Court and to define and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts. Legislature has created administrative agencies with powers more dynamic and broader than the ordinary courts of justice. Thus, in Lopez Vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 127139, Feb. 19,1999, it was held that the rule must be served in order to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to courts. Besides, sec 187 of RA 7160 expressly provides that administrative remedies must be exhausted before constitutionality or legality of a tax ordinance may be challenged in court. Note however, that only those decisions of administrative agencies made in the exercise of quasi-judicial powers are subject to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies. Modes of Appeal: Petition of review to the administrative body then to the office of the president, but not when the department head is an alter ego, thus, file an appeal to the RTC, then to the CA under rule 43 of the Rules of Court, then by Petition for review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court if denied by the Court of Appeals Appeal Section 19 of the administrative code provides: Unless otherwise provided by law or executive order, an appeal from a final decision of the agency may be taken to the department head.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW
Perfection of appeal:
24

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Within 15 days after receipt of a copy of the decision complained of by the party adversely affected, by filing with the agency which adjudicated the case a notice of appeal: Served to parties concerned copies to parties concerned and paying the required fees If denied: Perfection of appeal – during the remainder of the remaining period for appeal, reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial. If decision if reversed: Perfection – 15 days from receipt of the resolution of reversal within which to perfect his appeal.

Certiorari The Revised Rules of Court provides: Section 1. Petition for Certiorari – When any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions, has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings, as the law requires, of such tribunal, board or officer. The petition shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order subject thereof, together with copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
Prohibition
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

The Revised Rules of Court provides:
25

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Sec. 2. Petition for prohibition – When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board or person, whether exercising functions judicial or ministerial, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the defendant to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein. The petition shall be accompanied by certified true copy of the judgment or order subject thereof, together with copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto. Mandamus The Revised Rules of Court provides: Sec. 3. Petition for Mandamus – When any tribunal, corporation, board or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the defendant, immediately or at some other specified time, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant. Declaratory Relief The Revised Rules of Court provides: Sect. 1. Who may file petition for declaratory relief – Any person interested under a deed will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance, may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action to determine any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or statute and for a declaration of his rights or duties there under.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
Habeas Corpus RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW The Revised Rules of Court provides:
26
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Section 1. To what habeas corpus extends – Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus, the writ shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto. Injunction The Revised Rules of Court provides: Section 1. Preliminary Injunction defined; classes – A preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action prior to the final judgment, requiring a person to refrain from a particular act. It may also require the performance of a particular act, in which case it shall be known as a preliminary mandatory injunction. Quo Warranto The Revised Rules of Court provides: Section 6. When an individual may commence such an action (Quo Warranto) – A person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an action therefore in his own name. Extent of Judicial Review GENERALLY Laws creating administrative agencies and providing fro judicial review may indicate the scope of that review. Questions of law or of both law and fact will depend on the enabling act. The mode of judicial review indicated will determine the scope of judicial inquiry.

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, CONSTITUTING PROVISIONS Jaynee Dialola

In cases brought from the COMELEC on certiorari, inquiry is limited to questions involving absence or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
27

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
discretion. It is within the constitutional authority of the legislature to prescribe the extent of review which may be exercised. LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS The act providing for uniform procedure for appeal in specified agencies, makes reference to the scope of judicial review by setting the manner and period for appeal, whether it involves questions of fact, mixed questions of fact and law, or questions of law, or all three kinds of questions.

The Law Fact Distinction There is no clear-cut line can be drawn to separate questions of law from questions of fact. The distinction between “question of law” and “question of fact” gives little help in determining how far the courts will review. They are not two mutually exclusive kinds of questions. Matters of law grow downward into roots of fact, and matters of fact reach upward, without break into matters of law. Then facts are the so called jurisdictional and constitutional facts. Jurisdictional facts are those facts upon which an administrative agency’s power to act depends. While constitutional facts are those involving constitutional issues. Questions of Law A party challenging administrative action may direct his attack against the constitutionality of the very statute creating the agency and granting powers; or against the validity of agency action if these transcend the limits established by law; or against the correctness of its interpretation and application of the law. These involve questions which must ultimately be decided by the courts of justice. However, administrative bodies may be called upon initially to consider legal issues falling within jurisdiction.

CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Questions of Facts Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

Reference has been made to the distinction drawn in the statutes RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW between question of law and question of fact and the power of courts to review them. But when the issue involved is whether a certain thing exists or
28

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
whether an event has taken place or which of two versions of a happening is the correct one, a question of fact is raised. Finality is attached to the findings of fact of some agencies when these findings are supported by substantial evidence. But there is reserved to the courts the power to review the findings of fact when the evidence supporting them is not substantial, and whether evidence is substantial or not is for the court to say. Questions of Facts and Law : Questions of Fact and Law are to be determined by the Administrative body, conferred by law, to exercise it is given more weight and conclusiveness by all courts.

Me Shurn Corporation and Samy Chou Vs. Me Shrun Workers and Rosalina Cruz GR No. 156292; January 11, 2005 Facts: On June 7,1998 employees of Me shurn Corporation organized a union who had pending application in bureau of labor relation . On June 17, 1998 petitioner corporation . placed the respondents on forced leave. On June 23,1998 respondents corporation applied for a petition of certification and in May 7,1999 it was granted Aug 4, 1998 respondent staged a strike vs. petitioner Corporation. On Aug 31, CBA that officers of the union will sign an agreement containing a guarantee that upon their return work, no labor org. will be organized. Instead be mediators. On Nov 5, 1998 there came an election of officers. As a consequence, laid off its employees. Petitioner Corporation. Contends that they do not have an option if they will not lessen their employees they might loose their profit and may not pay these employees because of insufficiency of profit.

These filed a force for illegal dismissal in NLRC L.A pay their back wages and rein statePOLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE by CA for lack of them hence appear, but dismissed CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, merit for lack of Jurisdiction Issue:
Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW
Whether or not CA has no jurisdiction of this Case
29

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Held: Yes. The NLRC has jurisdiction on the determination of existence of ER’ & EE’ relationship question of fact are determined by the administration and questions of law are the court. On this case it is right that the determination and issuance of permit and certification it left to the sound direction of administration body and may not be denied by any agreement. It is the DOLE who handles jurisdiction on legitimate labor organization and tasked to determine the labor organization as provided by the law creating it. The question of legitimate labor organization is a question of fact left to administration body charged of investigating and determining it and not the court. Courts are not tiers of facts but of law. Question of Discretion When a matter has been committed to agency discretion, courts are reluctant to disturb agency action on it. But a party may get a court to intervene against arbitrary action or grave abuse of discretion. METHODS OF ENFORCEMENT Some agency actions may be taken directly and without a hearing. Thus, for non-payment of taxes a summary distrait of personal property or a levy on real property may be made by administrative authorities. Or nuisance may be abated summarily. The enforcement of agency decisions may be done with or without recourse to the course, depending on the governing statutes. Under licensing statutes, agencies may grant or refuse a license depending on whether the applicant has complied with requirements of the law; and violations of the conditions or regulations under which the grant, or its revocation. Again the intervention of the courts may or may not be necessary depending on the applicable laws. A previous chapter discussed how violation of agency orders or decisions may be punished as contempt either directly by the agency or through court action.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS REGARDING ENFORCEMENT Patent Law

CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan If the Director finds that a Hinayon, Sec. 32. Cancellation of patent – Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan case for Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, cancellation has been made out, he shall order the patent or any specified Jaynee Dialola

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

claim or claims RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAWeffective until thereof cancelled. The order shall not become the time for appeal has elapsed or, if appeal is taken, until judgment on appeal becomes final. When the order or judgment becomes final, any rights
30

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
conferred upon the patentee by the patent or any specified claim or claims cancelled thereby, shall terminate. Notice of cancellation shall be published in the Official Gazette. Labor Code Art. 128 Visitorial and enforcement powers

The Minister of Labor or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to order and administer, after due notice and hearing, compliance with the labor standards and provisions of this code based on the findings of labor regulations officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection, and to issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement for their order, except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises issues which cannot be resolved without considering the evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection. The secretary of Labor may likewise order stoppage of work or suspension of operations of any unit or department of an establishment when non-compliance with the law or implementing rules and regulations poses grave and imminent danger to the health and safety of workers in the workplace. Within twenty-four hours, a hearing shall be conducted to determine whether an order for the stoppage of work or suspension of operations shall be lifter or not. In case the violation is attributable to the fault of the employer, he shall pay the employees concerned their salaries or wages during the period of such stoppage of work or suspension of operation.

It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to obstruct, impede, delay or otherwise render ineffective the orders of the secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives issued pursuant to the authority granted under this article, and no inferior court or entity shall issue POLITICAL LAW or restraining temporary or permanent injunction COMMITTEE order or otherwise CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, assume jurisdiction over any case involving the enforcement orders Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, issued in accordance with this article. Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

31

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Art. 224 Execution of decisions, orders or wards The Secretary of Labor, the Commission or any Labor Arbiter or medarbiter may, upon his own initiative or on motion of any interested party, issue a writ of execution requiring a sheriff or a proper officer to execute final decisions, orders or awards of the Commission, the Labor Arbiter, or compulsory arbiters or voluntary arbitrators Stare Decisis and Res Judicata in Administrative Matters A prior judgment by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction may constitute a bar to subsequent action where there are: (a) identity of parties, (b) identity of subject matter, and (c) identity of issues. This is the doctrine of res judicata. On the other hand, a judgment may operate to preclude consideration of question previously decided in a prior suit where the litigant is not a party under the doctrine of stare decisis whereby the decision of the Supreme Court on a particular issue will be followed by the court and courts of inferior thereto until overruled by it. It will be seen that these doctrine apply to judicial decisions. Executive and administrative Functions: Issuance of licenses, grants rights and privileges and promulgates rules and regulation but such rules must not contradictory to the general law neither can it amend the general law or change the scope of the general law. It must be in compliance of the general and cannot extend its scope.

Illustrative case: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS (FORMER SECOND DIVISION) and NEOLITO DUMLAO, respondents.
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay GutierrezNo. 147009. March 11, 2004 Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, G.R. VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, Jaynee Dialola

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

Ponente:

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

AZCUNA, J.
32

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
Facts: The Civil Service Commission (CSC), through the Office of the Solicitor General, brings before the Court the issue of regularity of the CSC’s institution of disciplinary administrative proceedings against an erring civil servant on the basis of an anonymous letter-complaint. This is a petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which seeks a reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision dated October 30, 2000 and Resolution dated February 6, 2001 in CA G.R. SP No. 56098. The facts of the case are as follows: On February 4, 1997, the CSC received an anonymous letter-complaint against Neolito Dumlao (Dumlao), a Department of Education Culture and Sports Supervisor of Binalonan, Pangasinan. The letter-complaint contained allegations that Dumlao: 1) never received a college degree; 2) never received a Master of Arts degree in English; and 3) has many pending criminal cases. On March 13, 1997, the CSC requested Director Antonio R. Madarang to look into these allegations and, if necessary, conduct an investigation. On August 4, 1997, Madarang submitted his Report of Investigation stating that Dumlao failed to finish his four-year Liberal Arts Course. On August 7, 1997, the CSC wrote to the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to verify the educational attainment of Dumlao. On September 15, 1997, the CHED confirmed that Dumlao did not finish his four-year Liberal Arts Course from the University of Pangasinan. On September 18, 1997, the CSC formally charged Dumlao with Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document.

After receiving Dumlao’s Answer, the CSC conducted formal hearings wherein both parties presented testimonial and documentary evidence. On May 21, 1999, the CSC issued Resolution No. 99-1056 finding Dumlao guilty under the administrative charge and ordered his dismissal from the service. Dumlao filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied on October 27, 1999. for granted the petition and set aside MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW RECOLETOS DE the resolution dismissing Dumlao from the service. It ruled that the CSC was without jurisdiction to conduct an
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Dumlao elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals through a petition Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, review on certiorari. The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision that Jaynee Dialola

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

33

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
investigation and file a formal charge on the basis of a mere anonymous letter-complaint. Issues: 1. May the Civil Service Commission arrogate upon itself to provide something which the Administrative Code of 1987 did not provide for? 2. Does this affect jurisdiction? Held: In the first issue, we rule in the negative. Administrative rules and regulations are intended to carry out, not supplant or modify the law. With this, we cannot but hold with disapprobation the pertinent provision, viz., the second paragraph of Section 8 of Resolution No. 99-1936. Where the law makes no distinction, one does not distinguish. What is contemplated under Sections 46 and 48 is the initiation of a complaint against a civil service official or employee, much like the “institution” of a criminal complaint, by filing a complaint for preliminary investigation by the fiscal, which vests the fiscal with the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether to file a criminal case in court. In the case at bar, the CSCRO was without jurisdiction to conduct a preliminary investigation on the anonymous complaint. May the CSCRO then file a formal charge against petition? We rule in the negative. The complaint is dismissible at the outset. – Section 48 (2), Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Book V of E.O. No. 292 provides: (2) In the case of a complaint filed by any other person, the complainant shall submit sworn statements covering his testimony and those of his witnesses together with his documentary evidence. If on the basis of such papers a prima facie case is found not to exist, the disciplining authority shall dismiss the case…”

Section 8, Rule II of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, provides: “SEC. 8. Complaint. POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE –
CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, The complaint shall contain the following: Jaynee Dialola

d. certified true copies of documentary evidence and affidavits of his witnesses, if any; and
34

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
e. certification or statement of non-forum shopping. In the absence of any one of the aforementioned requirements, the complaint shall be dismissed.” In short, the Court of Appeals deemed the anonymous letter as a complaint which failed to comply with the formal requirements of the law. The CSC filed a motion for reconsideration but it was subsequently denied in the assailed Resolution. Hence, this petition. The CSC assigns two errors: 1. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the CSC Regional Office was without jurisdiction to conduct an investigation on the anonymous complaint. 2. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the CSC Regional Office cannot file a formal complaint against Dumlao on the basis of an anonymous complaint. The petition is meritorious. The Court of Appeals gravely erred in considering the letter-complaint as the complaint referred to in Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292 and the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. A plain reading therein readily shows that the “complaint” under said statute and rules both refer to the actual charge to which the person complained of is required to answer and indicate whether or not he elects a formal investigation should his answer be deemed not satisfactory.

In contrast, the letter-complaint in issue simply contained the following averments: 1. A department of Education Culture and Sports, Supervisor based in Binalonan is an undergraduate. He never had a college degree. His name is POLITICAL LAW supervisor based in Binalonan, Neolito Dumlao, presently assigned as COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan his college degree in U Pang., short Pangasinan. He claims to have finished Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, for University of Pangasinan in Dagupan City. xxx. A check with the registrar Jaynee Dialola office will shockRECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW you.

35

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
2. Dumlao also claims to have taken his M.A. in English at the Zaragoza College of Tayug, Pangasinan. Check that one too and you will be surprised. 3. He also has many pending cases in court; all criminal cases that includes forgery, falsification of public documents, and estafa … As can be seen from the bare contents of the anonymous letter, it was not a complaint within Section 8, Rule II of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service which requires the full name and address of the complainant and of the person complained of, a narration of the relevant and material facts, and certification of non-forum shopping. Neither did it, by itself, commence administrative proceedings, requiring an answer from Dumlao described under Section 48 (2) of E.O. No. 292, but merely triggered an investigation by the CSC. Indeed, the letter-complaint is just a plain and simple letter. It was merely a communication sent to the CSC Regional Office to call its attention to the educational background of Dumlao that is not different from an information or tip given by telephone to the Regional Office. To say that the CSC cannot act upon the information because it was from an anonymous caller, or in this case an anonymous writer, would result in an absurd and restrictive interpretation of E.O. 292 and effectively deprive the Government of its disciplining power over people who hold a public trust. Under Sections 46 and 48 (1), Chapter 6, Subtitle A, Book V of E.O. No. 292 and Section 8, Rule II of Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, a complaint may be initiated against a civil service officer or employee by the appropriate disciplining authority, even without being subscribed and sworn to. Considering that the CSC, as the disciplining authority for Dumlao, filed the complaint, jurisdiction over Dumlao was validly acquired.

As regards the actual guilt of Dumlao, the Court notes that while the petition filed before the Court of Appeals raised both questions of law and fact, the appellate court limited itself to ruling only on the question of law and refrained from making a ruling on the facts. The Court, not being a trier of facts, is not in a position to determine whether the facts presented POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE warrant a finding of guilt against Dumlao. Consequently, this case is CHAIRMAN:to theGutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan for Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon,to Lady Jay remanded Court of Appeals Paulo further proceedings solely Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, determine the sufficiency of the evidence against Dumlao. Jaynee Dialola WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No.
36

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

RECOLETOS NOTES
CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS 2006

Political Law
56098 are REVERSED. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in consonance with this decision. SO ORDERED. Doctrines: The HRET has sole and exclusive jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election, returns, and qualifications of members of the House of Representatives. Thus, once a winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a Member of the House of Representatives, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begin.( GEORGIDI B. AGGABAO Vs. THE COMMISSIO ON ELECTIONS,G.R. No. 163756) In National Federation of Labor vs. Laguesma,1[3] we ruled that the remedy of an aggrieved party in a Decision or Resolution of the Secretary of the DOLE is to timely file a motion for reconsideration as a precondition for any further or subsequent remedy, and then seasonably file a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. And without a motion for reconsideration seasonably filed within the ten-day reglementary period, the questioned Decision or Resolution of the Secretary becomes final and executory.2[4] Consequently, the merits of the case can no longer be reviewed to determine if the Secretary could be faulted for grave abuse of discretion.

Thus, when a petition for certification election is filed by a legitimate labor organization, it is good policy of the employer not to have any participation or partisan interest in the choice of the bargaining representative. While employers may rightfully be notified or informed of petitions of such nature, they should not, however, be considered parties thereto with an inalienable right to oppose it. (SMC QUARRY 2 WORKERS POLITICAL (FSM) LOCAL CHAPTER UNION – FEBRUARY SIX MOVEMENT LAW COMMITTEE NO. 1564 (for and CHAIRMAN: Lady Jay Gutierrez VICE-CHAIRMAN:Juan Paulo Abello, MEMBERS: Nicolas Tristan Hinayon, in behalf of its members), petitioner, vs. TITAN MEGABAGS INDUSTRIAL Vanessa Alogoc, Mignon Chrix Cu, Grace Binuya, Jean Paul Dato, Danna Buenaventura, Rosyn Alvaran, CORPORATION,respondent.) Jaynee Dialola

RECOLETOS DE MANILA SCHOOL OF LAW

37

You're Reading a Free Preview

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