CARMELO V RAMOS

FACTS:

The Mayor of Manila created a committee to investigate the anomalies involving the license
inspectors and other personnel of the License Inspection Division of the Office of the City
Treasurer and of the License and Permits Division of the said office. He named Jesus Carmelo as
chairman. The committee issued subpoenas to Armando Ramos requiring him to appear before it
in connection with an
Administrative case but Ramos refused to appear. Claiming that Ramos’ refusal tended to impede
or obstruct the administrative proceedings, petitioner filed with the CFI a petition to
declare Ramos in contempt. The trial court dismissed the petition. It held that there is no law
empowering committees created by municipal mayors to issue subpoenas and demand witnesses
testify under oath and that to compel Ramos to testify would be to violate his right against self-
incrimination.

ISSUE:

W/N the said committee is empowered to subpoena witnesses and ask for their punishment in
case of refusal

HELD:

NO. The rule is that Rule 64 (Contempt) of the Rules of Court applies only to inferior and
superior courts and does not comprehend contempt committed against administrative officials or
bodies like the one in this case, unless said contempt is clearly considered and expressly defined
as contempt of court, as is done in paragraph 2 of section 580of the Revised Administrative Code
Evangelista vs Jarencio
68 SCRA 99
Facts:

Evangelista, petitioner, is head of the Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government
Operations (PARGO) created by Executive Order No. 4, which, among others, provides:

“The agency is hereby vested with all the powers of an investigating committee under Sections
71 and 580 of the Revised Administrative Code, including the power to summon witnesses by
Subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, take testimony or evidence relevant to the
Investigation.” Respondent Manalastas (Asst. City Public Service Officer of Manila) was issued
a subpoena adtestificandum commanding him to appear as witness at the office of the PARGO to
testify in a certain investigation pending therein. Instead of obeying it, he filed a petition with the
CFI of Manila for prohibition, certiorari and restraining order assailing its legality. Judge
Jarencio issued a restraining order. Hence, this action.

Issue:

WON the PARGO enjoys the authority to issue subpoena in its conduct of fact-finding
investigation

Held :

YES
(1) Agency is with authority to enforce subpoenas issued. “Rightly, administrative agencies
may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations, WON adjudication is
involved, and WON probable cause is shown and even before the issuance of a
complaint. It is enough that the investigation be for a lawfully authorized purpose. The
purpose of the subpoena is to discover evidence, not to prove appending charge, but upon
which to make one if discovered evidence so justifies. Because judicial power is reluctant
if not unable to summon evidence until it is shown to be relevant to issues on litigations,
itdoes not follow that an administrative agency charged with seeing that the laws are
enforced may not have and exercise powers of original inquiry”

(2) Authority delegated by statute “The administrative agency has the power of inquisition
which is not dependent upon a case of controversy in order to get evidence, but can
investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated or even just because it
wants assurance that it is not. When investigative and accusatory duties are delegated by
statute to an administrative body, it too may take steps to inform itself as to whether
there is probable violation of the law. In sum, it may be stated that the subpoena meets
the requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is:(a) within the authority of the
agency(b) the demand is not too indefinite (c) the information is reasonable relevant”

(3) Information sought reasonably relevant to the investigations. There is no doubt that the
fact-finding investigations being conducted by the PARGO upon sworn statements
implicating certain public officials of the City Government t of Manila in anomalous
transactions for all within the PARGO’s sphere of authority and that the information
sought to be elicited from respondent Manalastas of which he is claimed to be in
possession, is reasonably relevant to the investigations.”
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-27392. January 30, 1971.]
PABLOCATURAandLUZSALVADOR,
petitioners,
vs
.

THE COURT OFINDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and CELESTINO TABANIAG, et al.,
respondents.Joselito J. de la Rosa
for petitioners.
Ernesto Estrella
for respondents.
D E C I S I O NFERNANDO,
J

:
It is a noe! "uestion t#at presents itse!f $efore t#is %ourt in t#is petition for t#ere  ie& of a
reso!ution of respondent %ourt of Industria! Re!ations. 'pe(ifi(a!!y, it is & # e t # e r
r e s p o n d e n t % o u r t , i n t # e e ) e r ( i s e o f i t s p o & e r o f i n e s t i * a t i o n t o
a s s u r e (o+p!ian(e &it# t#e interna! !a$or or*aniation pro(edures under 'e(tion 17
of t#eIndustria! ea(e (t,
1
(an re"uire a !a$or or*aniation/s $oo s of a((ounts, $an a((ounts, pass $oos,
union funds, re(eipts, ou(#ers and ot#er do(u+ents re!atedto [its] finan(es $e de!i  ered
and deposited &it# it at t#e #earin* to (ondu(t su(#in esti*ation in a((ordan(e &it#
a (o+p!aint du!y fi!ed &it#out t#e offi(ia!s of su(#!a$or or*aniation, t#erein na+ed
as respondents and petitioners $efore us, $ein* #eard prior to t#e issuan(e of su(# order.
#e respondent %ourt, first a(tin* t#rou*# sso(iate Jud*e Joa"uin . 'a!ador and t#ereafter
en banc,
up#e!d its po&er to doso. #e (#a!!en*e to su(# (o+peten(e sou*#t to $e fortified $y t#e a!!
e*ation of t#ea$sen(e of pro(edura! due pro(ess &as re4e(ted. fter a (arefu! study of t#e
+atter,&e (annot say t#at t#ere$y respondent %ourt &as in error. 5e #a e no reason
toreerse. s set fort# in t#e $rief for t#e petitioners, a$!o %atura and Lu 'a!ador, t#e
residentand reasurer, respe(tie!y, of t#e #i!ippine 6ir*inia o$a((o d+inistration
+p!oyees sso(iation, a !e*iti+ate !a$or or*aniation du!y re*istered, t#ere &as, on 8e(e+$er
27,1 9  , a ( o + p ! a i n t a * a i n s t t # e + u n d e r ' e ( t i o n 1 7 f i ! e d $ y t # e
p r o s e ( u t i o n d i  i s i o n o f respondent %ourt, t#e prin(ipa! (o+p!ainants $ein* no&
respondent %e!estino a$ania*as &e!! as ot#er e+p!oyees (onstitutin* +ore t#an ten per(ent of
t#e entire +e+$ers#ipo f s u ( # ! a $ o r o r * a n i  a t i o n . I n t # e ( o + p ! a i n t , i t & a s
( # a r * e d t # a t d u r i n * t # e t e n u r e o f offi(e of petitioners $efore us as su(#
 resident and reasurer, t#ey &ere responsi$!e for unaut#oried dis$urse+ent of union
funds &it# (o+p!ainants on arious o((asionsd u r i n * t # e ! a t t e r p a r t o f 1 9 
d e + a n d i n * f r o + t # e +  a f u ! ! a n d d e t a i ! e d r e p o r t o f a ! ! finan(ia! transa(tions of
t#e union and to +ae t#e $oo of a((ounts and ot#er
re(ords of t#e finan(ia! a(tiities of t#e union open to inspe(tion $y t#e +e+$ers, on!yto $e +et
&it# a refusa! on t#eir part to (o+p!y. It &as furt#er asserted t#at t#e e)e(utie$oard of su(# !
a$or or*aniation passed a reso!ution (a!!in* for a *enera! +e+$ers#ip + e e t i n * s o
t#at petitioners (ou!d $e (onfronted a$out t#e status of union funds,
$utt#en, a$!o %atura, as resident, (an(e!!ed su(# +eetin*. #ere &as
t # e r e a f t e r a * e n e r a ! + e + $ e r s # i p r e s o ! u t i o n r e i t e r a t i n * p r e i o u s d e + a n d s
 f o r a f u ! ! a n d d e t a i ! e d report of a!! finan(ia! transa(tions of t#e union, $ut
a*ain t#ere &as no response, t#us ( o + p e ! ! i n * t # e + e + $ e r s t o r e f e r t # e + a t t e r t o
t # e 8 e p a r t + e n t o f L a $ o r & # i ( # d u ! y issued su$poenas for t#e presentation of
su(# $oo  of a((ounts to petitioners &it#out any su((ess. fter settin* fort# t#at (o+p!
ainants #ad e)#austed a!! re+edies proidedin t#e union/s (onstitution and $y-!a&s, &#i(# &ere
a!! unaai!in*, t#e (o+p!aint sou*#t,after due #earin* and 4ud*+ent, to de(!are present
petitioners, as respondents, *ui!ty of unfair !a$or pra(ti(e under t#e a$o  e pro ision of
t#e Industria!  ea(e  (t, for t#e+ to(ease and desist fro+ furt#er (o++ittin* su(#
unfair !a$or pra(ti(e (o+p!ained of, andto render a fu!! and detai!ed report of a!!
finan(ia! transa(tions of t#e union as &e!! as to+ a  e t # e $ o o  o f a ( ( o u n t s
a n d o t # e r r e ( o r d s o f t # e s e f i n a n ( i a ! a ( t i  i t i e s o p e n t o inspe(tion $y t#e
+e+$ers.
2
 # e r e a f t e r, o n 8 e ( e + $ e r 2 : , 1 9  , r e s p o n d e n t % e ! e s t i n o  a $ a n i a * a n d
t # e o t # e r + e + $ e r s , a s p e t i t i o n e r s i n t # e a $ o e ( o+ p ! a i n t $ e f o r e r e s p o n d e n t
% o u r t , s o u * # t a n in4un(tion to preent no& petitioners a$!o %atura &#o, it turned out,
&as a*ain e!e(tedas resident in an e!e(tion on Noe+$er 1;, 19, fro+ tain* #is oat# of
offi(e in ie&o f # i s a ! ! e * e d p e r s i s t e n ( e i n t # e a $ u s e o f # i s a u t # o r i t y i n t # e
d i s $ u r s e + e n t o f u n i o n funds as &e!! as #is refusa! to +ae a fu!! and detai!ed report of a!!
finan(ia! transa(tionsof t#e union. 3#en (a+e t#e order of 8e(e+$er 29, 19  , $y
 sso(iate Jud*e Joa"uin . 'a!  ador &#i(#, instead of *rantin* t#e in4un(tion
sou*#t, !i+ited itse!f to re"uirin* and dire(tin*persona!!y t#e respondents a$!o
%atura and Lu 'a!  ador, president and treasurer, respe(tie!y, of t#e #i!ippine
6ir*inia o$a((o d+inistration +p!oyees/ sso(iation,t o d e ! i  e r a n d d e p o s i t t o
t # i s % o u r t a ! ! t # e s a i d  s s o ( i a t i o n / s $ o o  o f a ( ( o u n t s , $ a n  a((ounts, pass
$oo  s, union funds, re(eipts,  ou(#ers and ot#er do(u+ents re!ated tot#e finan(es
of t#e said !a$or union at t#e #earin* of t#is petition on January 3, 19  7 at 9<00 o/(!
o( in t#e +ornin*. 'aid respondents are #ere$y re"uired to (o+p!y stri(t!y &it#t#is =rder.

 # e r e & a s a + o t i o n f o r r e ( o n s i d e r a t i o n o n J a n u a r y 2 , 1 9 7 $ y
n o & petitioner a$!o %atura and Lu 'a!ador on t#e *round t#at t#ey &ere not #eard
$efores u ( # o r d e r & a s i s s u e d , & # i ( # + o r e o  e r i n t # e i r o p i n i o n & a s
$ e y o n d t # e p o & e r o f respondent %ourt. 5it# sso(iate Jud*e ns$erto . aredes
dissentin*, t#e order &assustained in a reso!ution $y t#e %ourt
en banc
on >e$ruary 2:, 197. ?en(e t#e presentpetition fi!ed on pri! 3, 197.#e petition &as
*i  en due (ourse $y t#is %ourt in a reso!ution of pri! 13, 19 7 &it# a p r e !
i+inary in4un(tion issued upon petitioners/ postin* a $
o n d o f  2 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . Respondents did not ta  e t#e trou$!e of fi!in* an
ans&er &it#in t#e period e)pired on June 17, 197 and petitioners &ere re"uired to su$+it
t#eir $rief &it#in t#irty days under t#is %ourt/s reso!ution of Ju!y 1@, 197. 'u(# a $rief &as
du!y fi!ed on
' e p t e + $ e r 1 9 o f t # a t y e a r.  # e r e & a s n o $ r i e f f o r r e s p o n d e n t s .  # e ( a s e
& a s t # u s dee+ed su$+itted for de(ision on =(to$er @, 19:.In t#e !i*#t of
t#e interpretation to $e a((orded t#e app!i(a$!e !e*a! pro  isions and after a (arefu!
(onsideration of t#e (ontention t#at su(# a po&er to issue t#e (#a!!en*ed order (annot $e
dee+ed as possessed $y respondent %ourt &#i(# +oreo er did not a((ordpetitioners
pro(edura! due pro(ess, &e #a  e rea(#ed t#e (on(!usion, as set fort# at t#eo p e n i n *
o f t # i s o p i n i o n , t # a t p e t i t i o n e r s ( a n n o t p r e a i ! .  # e o r d e r a s i s s u e d f i r s t
$ y sso(iate Jud*e Joa"uin . 'a!ador and t#ereafter $y respondent %ourt
en
$an( +ust$e sustained.1 .  # e ( o n t r o ! ! i n * p r o  i s i o n s o f ! a & t o
t # e s p e ( i f i ( s i t u a t i o n $ e f o r e t # i s % o u r t ( o n ( e r n i n * t#e po&er of in  esti*ation
of respondent %ourt to assure (o+p!ian(e &it# interna! !a$or or*aniation
pro(edures &it# t#e (orrespondin* aut#ority to in esti*ate to su$stantiate a!!e*ed
io!ations, +ay $e found in para*rap#s A$B, A#B, and A1B of t#e afore(ited 'e(tion17 of t#e
Industria! ea(e (t. #us< #e +e+$ers s#a!! $e entit!ed to fu!! and detai!edreports fro+
t#eir offi(ers and representaties of a!! finan(ia! transa(tions as proided int#e (onstitution
and $y-!a&s of t#e or*aniation. ; . . . #e funds of t#e or*aniations#a!! not
$e app!ied for any purpose or o$4e(t ot#er t#an t#ose e)press!y stated in
its(onstitution or $y-!a&s or t#ose e)press!y aut#oried $y a reso!ution of t#e
+a4ority of t#e +e+$er.  . . . #e $oo  s of a((ounts and ot#er re(ords of t#e
finan(ia! a(ti  itiesof a !e*iti+ate !a$or or*aniation s#a!! $e open to inspe(tion $y
any offi(ia! or +e+$er t#ereof. 7o repeat, t#e (o+p!aint $efore respondent
%ourt a*ainst petitioners as  resident and reasurer of t#e union, spe(ifi(a!!y re(ited an
unaut#oried dis$urse+ent of union fundsas &e!! as t#e fai!ure to +a e a fu!! and detai!
ed report of finan(ia! transa(tions of t#e union and to +ae t#e $oo of a((ounts and ot#er
re(ords of its finan(ia! a(tiities opento inspe(tion $y t#e +e+$ers. %!ear!y, t#e +atter
&as dee+ed serious enou*# $y
t#ep r o s e ( u t o r o f r e s p o n d e n t % o u r t t o ( a ! ! f o r t # e e ) e r ( i s e o f t # e s t a
t u t o r y p o & e r o f i n  e s t i * a t i o n t o s u $ s t a n t i a t e t # e a ! ! e * e d i o ! a t i o n s o
a s t o a s s u r e t # a t t # e r i * # t s a n d (onditions of +e+$ers#ip in a !a$or or*aniation
as spe(ifi(a!!y set fort# in 'e(tion $erespe(ted. !! t#at t#e (#a!!en*ed order did &as to
re"uire petitioners, as resident andreasurer of t#e !a$or or*aniation, to de!ier and
deposit &it# respondent %ourt a!! of its $oo  of a((ounts, $an  a((ounts, pass
$oo  s, union funds, re(eipts,  ou(#ers and ot#er do(u+ents re!ated to its finan(es at t#e
#earin* of t#e petition $efore it on January3, 197.= n i t s f a ( e , i t ( a n n o t $ e s a i d t # a t
s u ( # a r e " u i r e + e n t i s $ e y o n d t # e s t a t u t o r y p o & e r (onferred. If it &ere
ot#er&ise, t#e spe(ifi( pro  isions of !a& a!!e*ed!y io!ated +ay not $ e
e f f e ( t i  e ! y ( o + p ! i e d & i t # .  # e a u t # o r i t y t o i n e s t i * a t e + i * # t $ e r e n d e r e d
f u t i ! e i f respondent %ourt (ou!d $e #e!d as #ain* a(ted (ontrary to !a&. o parap#rase
Justi(eL a u r e ! , t # e p o & e r t o i n  e s t i * a t e , t o $ e ( o n s ( i e n t i o u s a n d r a t i o n a ! a t
t#e ery !east,re"uires an in"uiry into e)istin* fa(ts and (onditions. #e
d o ( u + e n t s r e " u i r e d t o $ e produ(ed (onstitutes e  iden(e of t#e +ost so!id (#ara(ter
as to &#et#er or not t#ere&as a fai!ure to (o+p!y &it# t#e +andates of t#e !a&. It is
not for t#is %ourt to &#itt!
ed o & n t # e a u t # o r i t y ( o n f e r r e d o n a d + i n i s t r a t i  e a * e n ( i e s t o a s s u r e
t # e e f f e ( t i  e ad+inistration of a statute, in t#is (ase intended to