You are on page 1of 5

G.R. Nos.

90660-61

January 21, 1991

UTE PATEROK, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS and HON. SALVADOR N. MISON, respondentsappellees.
Facts:
In March 1986, the petitioner shipped from Germany to the Philippines two
(2) containers, one with used household goods and the other with two (2) used
automobiles (one Bourgetti and one Mercedes Benz 450 SLC). The first container
was released by the Bureau of Customs and later on, the Bourgetti car, too. The
Mercedes Benz, however, remained under the custody of the said Bureau. In
December 1987, the petitioner received a notice of hearing from the legal officer of
the Manila International Container Port, Bureau of Customs informing the former
that seizure proceedings were being initiated against the said Mercedes Benz for
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 73 in relation to Section 2530(F) of the Tariff and
Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), as amended, and Central Bank Circular
(CBC) 1069.
While the said case was pending, the petitioner received only on April, 1988,
a letter informing her that a decision ordering the forfeiture of her Mercedes Benz
had been rendered on December 16, 1986 by the District Collector of Customs. The
petitioner had not been informed that a separate seizure case was filed on the same
Mercedes Benz in question before the said District Collector, an office likewise under
the Bureau of Customs. The petitioner later found out that on November 13, 1986, a
Notice of Hearing set on December 2, 1986, concerning the said Mercedes Benz,
was posted on the bulletin board of the Bureau of Customs at Port Area, Manila. The
petitioner, thereafter, filed a motion for new trial5 before the Collector of Customs,
Port of Manila, but the latter, in an order6 dated May 30, 1988, denied the same,
invoking the failure of the former to appear in the said hearing despite the posting
of the notice on the bulletin board.
Issue:
Whether or not the publication on the bulletin board was sufficient
compliance with proper service of notice.
Held:
NO. Time and again, the Court has emphasized the imperative necessity for
administrative agencies to observe the elementary rules of due process. In the
present case, although there was a notice of hearing posted on the bulletin board,
the said procedure is premised on the ground that the party or owner of the
property in question is unknown. In the case at bar, the facts evidently show that
the petitioner could not have been unknown. If only the public respondents had
exercised some reasonable diligence to ascertain from their own records the
identity and address of the petitioner as the owner and the consignee of the
property in question, the petitioner would have been afforded the opportunity to be

herein petitioner. No. 1993. promulgated a Decision denying the petitioners Motion to Dismiss and reversing the Order of the Regional Director Issue: the case Held: Whether or not the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator had jurisdiction over . Aggrieved by the cancellation of his award. or after twenty-one years. 1994. chose to resolve the case on the merits and on October 14.800 cubic centimetres. Instead of filing an Answer to the Petition. 2002] HON. NUESA in his capacity as the Regional Director of DAR Region III and RESTITUTO RIVERA. however. Facts: On May 25. On January 24. On August 26. private respondent filed an application with the Regional Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform for the purchase of said lots claiming that he had complied with the conditions set forth in the Order. the private respondent shall personally cultivate or otherwise develop at least one-fourth of the area or occupy and construct his house in case of residential lot and pay at least the first instalment. petitioner. a Petition with the Provincial Adjudication Board.R. herein petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on the ground that the proper remedy was an appeal to the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform from the Order of the Regional Director. then Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued an Order of Award in favor of Jose Verdillo over two (2) parcels of agricultural land under the conditions that within a period of six (6) months. under DAR Memorandum Circular No. promulgated an Order cancelling the award in favour of Jose Verdillo and ordering the processing of the application of Restituto Rivera to purchase the lots. ANTONIO M. and not by a Petition with the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator. [G. Antonio M. 5-87. petitioners. 1972. COURT OF APPEALS (14th Div. Nuesa. 1994. March 6. for Annulment of said Order. the Regional Director of DAR. private respondent then filed on March 20. vs.heard and to present her defense which is the essence of procedural due process. respondents. Restituto Rivera. the Court cannot allow the petitioner to retrieve the vehicle as the importation of the same is clearly in violation of BP 73 which prohibits the importation of gasoline powered motor cars with an engine displacement of over 2. Petitioner had filed his own application for said parcels in opposition to that of private respondent. The DARAB Provincial Adjudicator. 132048. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) and JOSE VERDILLO. Notwithstanding the procedural infirmity aforementioned. HON. Region III.). filed a letter of protest against private respondent claiming that contrary to the manifestation of private respondent. it is petitioner who had been in possession of the land and had been cultivating the same. 1994. HON.

stewardship or otherwise over lands devoted to agriculture. the DARAB had no jurisdiction over the controversy and should not have taken cognizance of private respondents petition in the first place. Centeno. As held by this Court in Centeno vs. cases.O.NO.A. In the case at bar. tenancy. 6657.. care should be taken that administrative actions are not done without due regard to the jurisdictional boundaries set by the enabling law for each agency. fixing. original and appellate jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes. whether leasehold. R. changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. In this case. the DAR is vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program. and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under R. The DARAB has primary.A. P. No. which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are accorded not only respect but even finality by the courts. whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary.any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements. Nos. respondent DARAB officials and boards. Consequently. maintaining. . 3844 as amended by R. including disputes concerning farmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating. tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries. leasehold. Agrarian dispute is defined to include (d) . E.A.D. had overstepped their legal boundaries in taking cognizance of the controversy between petitioner Rivera and private respondent Verdillo. 229.. controversies. or any agrarian relations whatsoever that could have brought this controversy between them within the ambit of the abovecited provision. landowner and tenant. 6389. petitioner and private respondent had no tenurial. 228 and 129-A. or lessor and lessee. provincial and central. While it bears emphasizing that findings of administrative agencies. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers.

respondents. Quezon City. petitioner Romeo G. 04-07 was issued under which Administrator David created a Prequalification. MAPAGAY. conduct of bidding. HON. Presiding Judge. HON. and recommendation to the Administrator of the bids accepted. DAVID. Nos. Branch 89. HON. CONTINENTAL WATCHMAN AND SECURITY AGENCY. LASALA. FELIX M. 1993. conducted a public bidding to award security contracts for the protection of its facilities. the NFA. Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) to undertake the prequalification. petitioners. ABESAMIS. 115121-25. David became NFA Administrator.[G. In August 1992. Presiding Judge. Pending this review. Quezon City. MASADA SECURITY AGENCY. JUSTO M. Quezon City. C. evaluation. vs. and NORMAN D. VELASCO. Branch 98. Special Order No. Branch 88. February 9. COURT OF APPEALS. SULTAN. ALBERTO T. When the time of the bidding came. through then Administrator Pelayo J. Facts: In 1990. BERNARDO P. Gabaldon. HON. HON. Respondents . Quezon City. THE HON. MANUBAY. procedures on the accreditation of private security agencies and the bidding for security services. RODOLFO ORTIZ. Presiding Judge. 1996] NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY and ROMEO G. Presiding Judge.R. BENEDICTO B. Administrator David extended the services of private respondents and the other incumbent security agencies on a periodic basis. COL. Regional Trial Court. some bids were disqualified for failure to comply with documentary requirements including those of Respondents. TIRSO D. Presiding Judge. Regional Trial Court. Regional Trial Court. He caused a review of all security service contracts. ULEP. Branch 85. Quezon City. Branch 105. On April 6. Among those awarded were the private respondents.

The principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. private respondents contracts were terminated in the midst of bidding preparations and their replacements hired barely five days after their termination. David terminated the contracts of the security agencies and engaged the services of seven new agencies. On appeal to the SC. an appeal to the NFA Board or Council of Trustees and the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987 was not a plain. their complaint is premature. In fact. In this case. Held: NO. . respondent Masada. submitted all requirements and was preparing for the public bidding only to find out that contracts had already been awarded by negotiation.Lanting Security and Watchman Agency filed complaints with the RTC to restrain the Administrator from proceeding with the public bidding. The lower court ruled in favor of Respondents. During the pendency of the writ of preliminary injunction. a prequalified bidder. It is subject to some limitations and exceptions. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. The urgency of the situation compelled private respondents to go to court to stop the implementation of these negotiated security contracts. Indeed. Respondents filed another complaint to restrain the NFA from terminating their services. the NFA contends that respondents did not exhaust administrative remedies and hence. Issue: Whether or not the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies renders the complaint of the defendants premature.