You are on page 1of 14


G.R. No. 154668, DEC. 16, 2004
Petitioner Nicolas was the Commissioner of the Economic Intelligence and
Investigation Bureau. He was administratively before the Ombudsman for allegedly
releasing an apprehended cargo based on spurious documents. The Graft
Investigation Officer found him guilty of gross neglect of duty which was duly
approved by the Ombudsman. The motion for reconsideration was denied, and thus
he appealed to the CA. The CA upheld the decision. Petitioner went further to the SC
arguing that the CA erred in affirming the decision despite of lack of substantial
evidence to support his conviction of gross neglect of duty.
What is the quantum of proof required in administrative proceedings?
The quantum of proof necessary to prove a charge in an administrative case
is substantial evidence, which is defined as relevant evidence that a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Such quantum was not met
here. Even though petitioner had not adduced evidence on his behalf, the facts on
record show that his act or omission does not constitute gross neglect of duty.

G.R. No. 85502, February 24, 1992
The petitioner was granted a Timber License Agreement (TLA), authorizing it
to cut, remove and utilize timber within the concession area in Zamboanga del Sur,
for a period of ten years. Private respondents Gilbolingo and Bugtai filed a petition
with the DENR for the cancellation of the TLA on the ground of serious violations of
its conditions and the provisions of forestry laws and regulations. The same charges
were subsequently made, also by the herein private respondents, in a complaint for
injunction with damages against the petitioner in the Regional Trial Court of
Pagadian City. The petitioner moved to dismiss this case on three grounds, to wit: 1)
the court had no jurisdiction over the complaint; 2) the plaintiffs had not yet
exhausted administrative remedies; and 3) the injunction sought was expressly
prohibited by section 1 of PD 605. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss. The
petitioner then elevated the matter to the respondent Court of Appeals, which
sustained the trial court. The Court of Appeals held that the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies was not without exception and pointed to the several
instances approved by this Court where it could be dispensed with. The respondent
court found that in the case before it, the applicable exception was the urgent need
for judicial intervention.


and Pilipino Telephone Corporation filed against the National Telecommunications Commission an action for declaration of . promulgating rules and regulations on the billing of telecommunications services. which is one of the grounds allowed in the Rules of Court for the dismissal of the complaint. AUGUST 12. 6) when irreparable damage will be suffered. Among these exceptional cases are: 1) when the question raised is purely legal. The deficiency is not jurisdictional. however. 3) when the act complained of is patently illegal. and 10) in quo warranto proceedings. 151908. 2) when the administrative body is in estoppel. which enjoins upon the Judiciary a becoming policy of non-interference with matters coming primarily (albeit not exclusively) within the competence of the other departments. 4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention. 2003 FACTS: Pursuant to its rule-making and regulatory powers. Inc. 9) when the subject of the controversy is private land. 8) when strong public interest is involved.What is the correct application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies? HELD: The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review. speedy and adequate remedy. which are allowed only when there is no other plain. INC.. VS. The theory is that the administrative authorities are in a better position to resolve questions addressed to their particular expertise and that errors committed by subordinates in their resolution may be rectified by their superiors if given a chance to do so. SMART COMMUNICATIONS. As correctly suggested by he respondent court. speedy and adequate remedy available to the petitioner. Non-observance of the doctrine results in lack of a cause of action. 5) when the claim involved is small. It may be added that strict enforcement of the rule could also relieve the courts of a considerable number of avoidable cases which otherwise would burden their heavily loaded dockets. Petitioners Isla Communications Co. A no less important consideration is that administrative decisions are usually questioned in the special civil actions of certiorari. there are a number of instances when the doctrine may be dispensed with and judicial action validly resorted to immediately. 2000 Memorandum Circular No.R. the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued on June 16. No. prohibition and mandamus. Failure to invoke it operates as a waiver of the objection as a ground for a motion to dismiss and the court may then proceed with the case as if the doctrine had been observed. NTC G. One of the reasons for the doctrine of exhaustion is the separation of powers. 13-6-2000. 7) when there is no other plain.

It is required that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law. Petitioners Islacom and Piltel alleged. petitioners Globe Telecom. the trial court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the NTC from implementing Memorandum Circular No. 2000. This was granted by the trial court. particularly the statute it is administering . as well as with respect to what fields are subject to regulation by it. that the NTC has no jurisdiction to regulate the sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since such jurisdiction belongs to the Department of Trade and Industry under the Consumer Act of the Philippines. Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule-making powers and quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory powers. they prayed that the Billing Circular be declared null and void ab initio. Constitutional and statutory provisions control with respect to what rules and regulations may be promulgated by an administrative body. It may not make rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or a statute. confiscatory and violative of the constitutional prohibition against deprivation of property without due process of law. Hence. In the meantime. 2000. ISSUE: Whether or not exhaustion of administrative remedies apply to this case. respondent NTC and its co-defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 13-6-2000 (the Billing Circular) and the NTC Memorandum dated October 6. that the Circular will result in the impairment of the viability of the prepaid cellular service by unduly prolonging the validity and expiration of the prepaid SIM and call cards. the standards prescribed by law. On October 27. Inc. filed a joint Motion for Leave to Intervene and to Admit Complaint-inIntervention. The rules and regulations that administrative agencies promulgate. inter alia. They must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute in order for such rule or regulation to be valid. 13-6-2000 and the Memorandum dated October 6. HELD: NO. should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency. but in conformity with. and be not in contradiction to. 2000. Quasi-legislative or rulemaking power is the power to make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers. which are the product of a delegated legislative power to create new and additional legal provisions that have the effect of law. that the Billing Circular is oppressive. Soon thereafter. and that the requirements of identification of prepaid card buyers and call balance announcement are unreasonable. Inc and Smart Communications.nullity of NTC Memorandum Circular No. with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.

No. PPA. requiring it to have its tugboats and barges undergo harbor formalities and pay entrance/clearance fees as well as berthing fees. Philippine Coconut Authority. where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. or defeat. (3) even the dredging and maintenance of the Malijao River Channel from Guimaras Strait up to said private .or which created it. The resolution in question was issued by the PCA in the exercise of its rule. the former must prevail. so strenuously urged by the Solicitor General on behalf of respondent. VICTORIA’S MILLING CO. & PPA G.making or legislative power. has obviously no application here. wherein it maintained that it is exempt from paying PPA any fee or charge because: (1) the wharf and an its facilities were built and installed in its land. it was held: The rule of requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before a party may seek judicial review. the purpose of a statute. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature. requiring petitioner to secure a permit for cargo handling operations at its Da-an Banua wharf and remit 10% of its gross income for said operations as the government's share. the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts. In case of conflict between a statute and an administrative order. This principle applies only where the act of the administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function.. weigh evidence. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions. both dated June 2. ASST. 73705. In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an administrative agency. However. (2) repair and maintenance thereof were and solely paid by it. only judicial review of decisions of administrative agencies made in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function is subject to the exhaustion doctrine. hold hearings. or which are in derogation of. VS. 1987 FACTS: The Iloilo Port Manager of respondent Philippine Ports Authority (PPA for short) wrote petitioner Victorias Milling Co. Not to be confused with the quasi-legislative or rule-making power of an administrative agency is its quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power. AUGUST 27. To these demands. petitioner sent two (2) letters. OFFICE OF THE PRES’L.R. and not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-making or quasi-legislative power. 1981. This is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law.. a party need not exhaust administrative remedies before going to court. and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature. likewise. In Association of Philippine Coconut Dessicators v. INC.

505. On April 2. merely transferred to the PPA the powers of the Bureau of Customs to impose and collect customs duties. It contends that when Republic Act No. but the same was denied. On the other hand. among others. Petitioner. which do not and can not include the power to legislate on procedural matters. 1982. HELD: The instant petition is devoid of merit. 857. in good faith. 1984." On January 10. Inc. . 6). Philippine Ports Authority. the CTA dismissed petitioner's action on the ground that it has no jurisdiction. creating the PPA on July 11. On March 29. shows that the PPA is vested merely with corporate powers and duties (Sec. Petitioner further added that the wharf was being used mainly to handle sugar purchased from district planters pursuant to existing milling agreements. petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the said Court. In reply. fees and other money charges concerning the use of ports and facilities thereat) is there any provision governing appeals from decisions of the PPA on such matters. which justified the PPA's demands. by considerations which lead to the assumption that procedural rules of appeal then enforced still hold true. and under the said law. Further request for reconsideration was denied on January 14. PPA was not yet in existence. so that it is but reasonable to seek recourse with the Court of Tax Appeals. customs duties. likewise. neither in Presidential Decree No. 1982. submits that it was guided. on November 3. A motion for Reconsideration was filed. on March 31. v. fees and other money charges imposed by the Bureau under the Tariff and Customs Code. and then with the SC. Petitioner. 131 of PPA AO No.. PPA Iloilo sent petitioner a memorandum of PPA's Executive Officer. contends that an analysis of Presidential Decree No. 1981. revising its charter (said decrees. 1125 (creating the Court of Tax Appeals) was passed in 1955. but the same was denied on the sole ground that it was filed beyond the reglementary period. 1982. the Court of Tax Appeals had exclusive appellate jurisdiction over appeals from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs regarding. 13-77 was tolled by the pendency of the petitions filed first with CTA.wharf are being done by petitioner's equipment and personnel. in holding that the recourse first to the Court of Tax Appeals and then to this Court tolled the period to appeal. It recommended that the appeal be addressed to the Office of the President. much less to effectively take away from the Court of Tax Appeals the latter's appellate jurisdiction. and accordingly. entitled "Victorias Milling Co. among others. 1974 nor in Presidential Decree No. 857. petitioner served notice to PPA that it is appealing the case to the Court of Tax Appeals. 1984. and (4) at no time has the government ever spent a single centavo for such activities. ISSUE: Whether or not the period of appeal under Sec. petitioner filed an appeal with the Office of the President. Maximo Dumlao.

857 provides for the remedy of appeal to the Office of the President. Quezon City. the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain one’s side of a controversy or a chance to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. After she was conferred the Doctorate Degree. HELD: Indeed. ISSUE: Whether or not the right to meet or confront the witnesses is demandable as a matter of right in the administrative proceedings. in administrative proceedings. 857 empowers the PPA to promulgate such rules as would aid it in accomplishing its purpose. CA G. 134625. She was asked to submit her written explanation. she enrolled in the doctoral program in Anthropology of the University of the Philippines College of Social Sciences and Philosophy (CSSP) in Diliman. nevertheless.These contentions are untenable for while it is true that neither Presidential Decree No. 1999 FACTS: Private respondent Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine is a citizen of India and holder of a Philippine visitor’s visa. Sometime in April 1988. the UP Board of Regents stripped her of that Degree on the ground of plagiarism. UP BOARD OF REGENTS VS. 505 nor Presidential Decree No. In this case. A party who has availed of the opportunity to present his position cannot tenably claim to have been denied due process. which she forwarded on September 25. private respondent was informed in writing of the charges against her and afforded opportunities to refute them. She argued that her right to due process was violated because she was not accorded opportunity to cross examine the witnesses against her.R. Presidential Decree No. AUGUST 31. 1993. Private [29] . No.

ACHACOSO G. 31 SCRA 764). for disciplinary cases involving students need not necessarily include the right to cross examination. the same may not be said to detract from the observance of due process. It is not tenable for private respondent to argue that she was entitled to have an audience before the Board of Regents. Capulong. 1991 order.P.R. Petitioner argued that they were denied due process of law because the respondent Administrator resolved the case without any formal hearing. we held: Respondent students may not use the argument that since they were not accorded the opportunity to see and examine the written statements which became the basis of petitioners’ February 14. 110 SCRA 438. INC. Gas Corporation of the . VS.P. authorities explaining her position.P. ISSUE: Whether or not a formal type of hearing is required in the administrative proceedings. In Ateneo de Manila University v. On the basis of the pleadings and memoranda the public respondent rendered a decision.. In addition. POEA against the private respondents for having allegedly violated their Contracts of Employment with the petitioners which supposedly resulted in damages arising from the interdiction of the vessel by the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF) at Kiel Canal. chancellor and the members of the Zafaralla committee to discuss her case. or. It is noteworthy that the U.respondent then met with the U. Nor indeed was private respondent entitled to be furnished a copy of the report of the Zafaralla committee as part of her right to due process. MAY 31. “Equally unmeritorious is the petitioners 'allegation that they were denied due process because the decision was rendered without a formal hearing. Germany. HELD: NO. in March 1986. Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in the courts of justice. they were denied procedural due process. she sent several letters to the U. VAR-ORIENT SHIPPING CO. as applied to administrative proceedings. An administrative proceeding conducted to investigate students’ participation in a hazing activity need not be clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding. Banjos. No. Rules do not require the attendance of persons whose cases are included as items on the agenda of the Board of Regents. 81805. 1988 FACTS: The petitioners filed a complaint with the Workers' Assistance and Adjudication Office. an opportunity to explain one's side (Tajonera vs. Lamaroza. Granting that they were denied such opportunity. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard (Bermejo vs.

Among those cases was that of William and others. respectively. admitting William Gatchalian and his companions as Filipino citizens. HELD: It is true that under Sec. On January 24. The petitioners' counsel did not oppose either the "Motion to Resolve" or the respondents "Motion for Execution of Decision" dated October 19. or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies. order. Francisco Gatchalian. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VS. decisions. After investigation. 93 SCRA 653.R. . namely: Jose Gatchalian. resolutions. board or commission. DELA ROSA G. and Johnson. Fernandez. then a twelve-year old minor. Francisco. instrumentalities. However. Before the Citizenship Evaluation Board. vs. On June 10. arrived in Manila from Hongkong together with Gloria. except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution. that they had been denied due process in the form of a formal hearing. They had with them Certificates of Registration and Identity issued by the Philippine Consulate in Hongkong based on a cablegram bearing the signature of the then Secretary of Foreign Affairs. ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the Bureau of Immigration are appealable to the CA. As a consequence thereof. both of which were furnished them through counsel. only the private respondents submitted memoranda. Bunyog's Comment). as they now contend. and sought admission as Filipino citizens. Elena Gatchalian and Benjamin Gatchalian. the then Secretary of Justice issued Memorandum No. Santiago Gatchalian testified that he has five (5) children with his wife Chu Gim Tee. Gloria Gatchalian. was recognized by the Bureau of Immigration as a native born Filipino citizen following the citizenship of his natural mother. If it were true. Marciana Gatchalian. 1991 FACTS: On July 12. 1962. MAY 31. William Gatchalian was issued Identification Certificate No. 16135 by the immigration authorities on August 16.Phil. 1961.1987. 1961. The fact is that at the hearing of the case on March 4. Inciong. The same memorandum directed the Board of Commissioners to review all cases where entry was allowed on the ground that the entrant was a Philippine citizen. 1987. of Santiago Gatchalian. the provisions of this Act. 95122-23. On June 27. Felixberto Serrano. 9 setting aside all decisions purporting to have been rendered by the Board of Commissioners on appeal or on review motu proprio of decisions of the Board of Special Inquiry. William Gatchalian. the Court of Appeals is vested with — (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments. the Board of Special Inquiry No. grandfather of William Gatchalian. Hon. and of sub-paragraph (1) of the third paragraph of and sub-paragraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. This procedure is authorized by law to expedite the settlement of labor disputes. the respondents filed a motion to resolve (Annex 7. or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of (Dormitorio vs. all surnamed Gatchalian. No. Gloria and Francisco are the daughter and son. Santiago Gatchalian. 9 (3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 1960. Minister of Labor. it was agreed by the parties that they would file their respective memoranda and thereafter consider the case submitted for decision (Annex 7 of Bunyog's Comment). The petitioners did not. 113 SCRA 257). 1987 (Annex 10). 1 rendered a decision dated July 6. while William and Johnson are the sons of Francisco. they should have opposed both motions. 129. Cebu Institute of Technology vs. 1961. 72 SCRA 388).

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Rosales exhausted administrative remedies before filing in court the complaint for damages. Republic Act No. No. Manta. Precisely. a motion for reconsideration or appeal is curative in character on the issue of alleged denial of due process. the school insisted that it has filed a motion for reconsideration and the case was reconsidered. this should be resorted to before resort can be made to (the) court. however. 1988 FACTS: This case sprouted from the complaint filed by Rosales against Don Bosco Technical Institute before the Bureau of Private School for alleged anomalous ranking of honor pupils for the grade school. we emphatically declared: When an adequate remedy may be had within the Executive Department of the government. 5434. September 15. Petitioners however. under Republic Act No. This traditional attitude of the courts is based not only on convenience but likewise on respect. HELD: Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. ROSALES VS. are specifically appealable to the Court of Appeals. it is specifically provided that the decisions of the Land Registration Commission (LRC). Such contention is however untenable. or their enabling acts. which in fact they did. However. that said exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals extends to all quasi-judicial agencies. According to the school. Thus. claim that they were denied due process. the judiciary shall decline to interfere. COURT OF APPEALS G. 5434. as a general rule. the Social Security Commission (SSC). obviously to show that their case falls within one of the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. a litigant fails or refuses to avail himself of the same. recourse through court action. the reconsidered decision should have been appealed by petitioner to the Secretary of Education prior to filing of said complaint for damages. The quasi-judicial bodies whose decisions are exclusively appealable to the Court of Appeals are those which under the law. when they filed a motion for reconsideration and later when the motion was denied. the Patent Office and the Agricultural Invention Board are appealable to the Court of Appeals. cannot prosper until all the remedies have been exhausted at the administrative level. . Respondent school insisted that the complaint for damages should be dismiss for failure of the petitioner to exhaust administrative remedies. If a remedy is available within the administrative machinery. because in the first place. but nevertheless. Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). The Bureau of Private School rendered a decision in favour of Rosales.It does not provide. in Abe-Abe et al. the opportunity or right to oppose. they appealed to the Secretary of Education and Culture. Thus. convenience of the party litigants and respect for a co-equal office in the government. they were made to avail in the same administrative agency.R. L-47821. and so the latter filed a complaint for damages. v.

In the said bidding. the Director of Lands conducted a public bidding for the cadastral survey of several municipalities including the Municipality of Numancia. Meanwhile.A. 1977. Thereupon. in an order dated February 7. without both appeals being resolved. HELD: We likewise take cognizance of the wealth of jurisprudence on this doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies.200 days. The Director of Lands likewise scrapped the Valderama Plsm contract because of the non-completion of the project despite the grant of repeated extensions totalling 1. Aklan Pcadm project. 1991 FACTS: The petitioners Director of Lands and the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources entered into a contract with the private respondent B. alleging that the Director of Lands acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in awarding the said cadastral survey projects to other persons while the appeals of the private respondent remain pending. the private respondent filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for a temporary restraining order with the Court of Appeals. consequently. the latter failed to do so. The Court has consistently held that "acts of an administrative agency must not casually be over-turned by a court.DIRECTOR OF LANDS VS. February 19.R. 79684. This appeal is pending. Antique. THE COURT OF APPEALS G. the private respondent appealed the cancellation of the said contract to the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources. No. which denial the private respondent seasonably appealed to the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources. Aklan. Aklan and the Municipality of Valderama. Similarly. the Director of Lands reinstated the said contract without however granting the company's request for a price adjustment. despite written demands from the Bureau of Lands to the private respondent to commence the Numancia. The private respondent was likewise contracted by the petitioners to do the photo-cadastral mapping of Project PCADM-493-D in Numancia. and a court should as a rule not substitute its judgment . the former cancelled the contract with regard to the said project and declared the performance bond as forfeited. Armando Villamayor and Cristina Matuod were declared as the successful bidders for the Numancia and Valderama projects. Antique. Gonzalez Surveying Company for which the latter was bound to execute a public land subdivision mapping (Plsm) of the alienable and disposable lands in the Municipality of Valderama. where the appeal also still remains pending. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in disregarding the opinion of the Director of Lands on a matter within its exclusive competence and technical expertise. However. On a motion for reconsideration filed by the private respondent. respectively.

1996 final and executory. It is further provided for in Section 9 that "The Rules of Court shall apply in a suppletory character whenever practicable. 18 and Section 4. unless a motion for reconsideration thereof is filed within such period. No. Aggrieve by said decision." unless "there be a clear showing of arbitrary action or palpable and serious error. Section 7 thereof provides: Sec. 7. however. APRIL 24. as no one has seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration thereto. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the President shall. HELD: The rules and regulations governing appeals to the Office of the President of the Philippines are embodied in Administrative Order No. 1998 FACTS: This case involves a land dispute between the Quisumbings and tenants. which second motion became the basis of the assailed "Win-Win" Resolution. Said parcel of land was supposed to be covered by the Agrarian Law. the farmers and other tenants march their way from Bukidnon until Manila to protest the land exemption from the coverage of the DAR. When the Office of the President issued the Order dated June 23. it was exempted from coverage because the area upon said land lie was subsequently declared by the provincial government and its coverage from the DAR was exempted which exemption was upheld the Office of the President." In similar vein. FORTICH VS. are accorded not only respect but more often than not even finality. Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court . ISSUE: Whether or not the Office of the President may change its ruling after it has attain finality. we reiterated recently the rule that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters. Section 7 of Administrative Order No. become final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties. more so modify its Decision.for that of the administrative agency acting within the parameters of its own competence. 18. save in exceptionally meritorious cases. CORONA G. said decision by the OP has become final and executory. (Emphasis ours). in the present case cadastral surveys and mappings and land registration.R. the Office of the President has no more authority to entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent DAR Secretary. the said Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case. Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party shall be allowed and entertained. except as otherwise provided for by special laws. 1997 declaring the Decision of March 29. 131457. Having lost its jurisdiction.

THE COURT OF APPEALS G. MARCH 10. was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that accord finality to administrative determinations. A thorough scrutiny of the conflicting provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 129. also known as the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987 and Supreme Court Circular No.O." Executive Order No. 1996. No. Thus. still the said motion should not have been entertained considering that the first motion for reconsideration was not seasonably filed. thereby allowing the Decision of March 29. ISSUE: Whether or not an executive order can change an LOI HELD: The fact that BOI is not expressly included in the list of quasi-judicial agencies found in the third sentence of Section 1 of Circular 1-91 does not mean that said circular does not apply to appeals from final orders or decision of the BOI. 226. otherwise known as the "Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. And even if a second motion for reconsideration was permitted to be filed in "exceptionally meritorious cases. INC.mandate that only one (1) motion for reconsideration is allowed to be taken from the Decision of March 29. thus. FIRST LEPANTO CERAMICS. 1996 Decision which had already become final and executory. Besides. 266 is one such statute." as provided in the second paragraph of Section 7 of AO 18. 110571.R. 1996 to lapse into finality. The second sentence of Section 1 thereof expressly states that " They shall also apply to appeals from final orders or decisions of any quasi-judicial agency from which an appeal is now allowed by statute to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. called for. the enumeration is preceded by the words " . 1-91 is. 1994 FACTS: Brought to fore in this petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for preliminary injunction is the novel question of where and in what manner appeals from decisions of the Board of Investments (BOI) should be filed. VS." E. the act of the Office of the President in re-opening the case and substantially modifying its March 29.

namely. and fired a shot in the air.R. It may also be granted by . those of: (1) the National Labor Relations Commission. and harassment until further orders from the Commission and to appeal before the Commission. On May 28. They allegedly handcuffed private respondent Teresita Valles. if that were the intention. the CHR itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ. CA we upheld the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over the Court of Tax Appeals despite the fact that the same is not among the agencies reorganized by B.P. the "preventive measures and legal aid services" mentioned in the Constitution refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a preliminary writ of injunction) which the CHR may seek from the proper courts on behalf of the victims of human rights violations. again bulldozed the area.P. . Only the following final decisions and interlocutory orders are expressly excluded from the circular. 1992 FACTS: The CHR issued an Order of injunction commanding EPZA.among these agencies are . or of the Supreme Court. on the ground that B. which is but implementary of said law. or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals. 101476. the 125th PNP Company and Governor Remulla and their subordinates to desist from committing further acts of demolition. Evidently. It is never derived by implication. terrorism." strongly implying that there are other quasi-judicial agencies which are covered by the Circular but which have not been expressly listed therein. Since in DBP v. there is no reason why BOI should be excluded from Circular 1-91. 1991 and expanded it to include the Secretary of Public Works and Highways. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS G. 129 is broad and comprehensive. pointed their firearms at the other respondents. ISSUE: Whether or not the CHR can issue and injunction order. No. the contractors. APRIL 14. BOI does not fall within the purview of the exclusions listed in Section 2 of the circular. Two weeks later. . 129. the same group accompanied by men of Governor Remulla. HELD: The constitutional provision directing the CHR to "provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection" may not be construed to confer jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of injunction for. EPZA VS. for a writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued "by the judge of any court in which the action is pending [within his district]. (2) the Secretary of Labor and Employment. the Constitution would have expressly said so. and their subordinates. 1991. More importantly. (3) the Central Board of Assessment Appeals and (4) other quasi-judicial agencies from which no appeal to the courts is prescribed or allowed by statute. CHR Chairman Mary Concepcion Bautista issued another injunction Order reiterating her order of May 17. Not being a court of justice. .

Rules of Court). 2.the judge of a Court of First Instance [now Regional Trial Court] in any action pending in an inferior court within his district. It is available only in a pending principal action. A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy. Rule 58. and for no other purpose . for the preservation or protection of the rights and interest of a party thereto." (Sec.