You are on page 1of 20

QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER Decree No.

101, thereby safeguarding the petitioners


constitutional right to procedural due process?

B. Granting arguendo, that respondents did comply with the


TAXICAB OPERATORS v. BOT procedural requirements imposed by Presidential Decree No.
101, would the implementation and enforcement of the assailed
memorandum circulars violate the petitioners constitutional
FACTS: rights to.
Petitioner Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila, Inc. (TOMMI) is a
domestic corporation composed of taxicab operators, who are (1) Equal protection of the law;
grantees of Certificates of Public Convenience to operate
taxicabs within the City of Manila and to any other place in (2) Substantive due process; and
Luzon accessible to vehicular traffic.
(3) Protection against arbitrary and unreasonable classification
On October 10, 1977, respondent Board of Transportation (BOT) and standard?
issued Memorandum Circular No. 77-42 which reads:
RULING:
SUBJECT: Phasing out and Replacement of Old and Dilapidated
Taxis (which are 6 years older). The SC held that Circ 77-42 is valid. BOTs reason for enforcing
the Circular initially in Metro Manila is that taxicabs in this city,
compared to those of other places, are subjected to heavier
The law is set to be immediately implemented in Metro Manila traffic pressure and more constant use. Thus is of common
first before it would be implemented elsewhere. Pursuant to knowledge. Considering that traffic conditions are not the same
this, the Director of the Bureau of Land Transportation issued in every city, a substantial distinction exists so that
Circ 52 which is the IRR of the law in the NCR. infringement of the equal protection clause can hardly be
successfully claimed.
On January 27, 1981, petitioners filed a Petition with the BOT,
docketed as Case No. 80-7553, seeking to nullify MC No. 77-42 In so far as the non-application of the assailed Circulars to other
or to stop its implementation; to allow the registration and transportation services is concerned, it need only be recalled
operation in 1981 and subsequent years of taxicabs of model that the equal protection clause does not imply that the same
1974, as well as those of earlier models which were phased-out, treatment be accorded all and sundry. It applies to things or
provided that, at the time of registration, they are roadworthy persons identically or similarly situated. It permits of
and fit for operation. classification of the object or subject of the law provided
classification is reasonable or based on substantial distinction,
TOMMI also assailed the constitutionality of the law. It avers, which make for real differences, and that it must apply equally
among other things, that the Circular in question violates their to each member of the class. What is required under the equal
right to equal protection of the law because the same is being protection clause is the uniform operation by legal means so
enforced in Metro Manila only and is directed solely towards the that all persons under identical or similar circumstance would
taxi industry. be accorded the same treatment both in privilege conferred and
the liabilities imposed. The challenged Circulars satisfy the
ISSUES: foregoing criteria.

A. Did BOT and BLT promulgate the questioned memorandum As enunciated in the preambular clauses of the challenged BOT
circulars in accord with the manner required by Presidential Circular, the overriding consideration is the safety and comfort
1

of the riding public from the dangers posed by old and The carabaos are not to be removed from the quarantine but
dilapidated taxis. The State, in the exercise of its police power, the carabaos was taken from the corral by the command of the
can prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, accused were used as work animals as if they are not
good order, safety and general welfare of the people. It can quarantined.
prohibit all things hurtful to comfort, safety and welfare of
society. It may also regulate property rights. In the language of ISSUE: Whether or not the facts alleged in the information and
Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando the necessities imposed by proved on the trial do not constitute a violation of Act No. 1760
public welfare may justify the exercise of governmental or any portion thereof.
authority to regulate even if thereby certain groups may
plausibly assert that their interests are disregarded. HELD:
US v. PANLILIO
We are forced to agree with this contention.
DOCTRINE: The orders, rules and regulations of an
administrative officers or body issued pursuant to a statute The original information against the accused charged a violation
havethe force of law but are not penal in nature and a violation of section 6 of Act No. 1760 committed by the accused in that
of such orders is not a offense punishable by law unless the he ordered and permitted his carabaos, which, at the time, were
statute expressly penalizes such violation. in quarantine, to be taken from quarantine and moved from one
place to another on his hacienda. An amended information was
FACTS: filed. It failed, however, to specify that section of Act No. 1760
alleged to have been violated, evidently leaving that to be
On or about the 22nd day of February, 1913, all of the carabaos ascertained by the court on the trial.
belonging to the above-named accused having been exposed to
disease known as rinderpest, were, in accordance with an order There is no question here of importation and there is no charge
of duly-authorized agent of the Director of Agriculture, duly or proof that the animals in question were suffering from a
quarantined in a corral in the barrio of Masamat, Pampanga, P. dangerous communicable disease or that the Secretary of the
I.; that, on said place, the said accused, Adriano Panlilio, Interior had made the declaration provided for in section 5 or
illegally and voluntarily and without being authorized so to do, that the accused had driven or taken said animals from one
and while the quarantine against said carabaos was still in island, province, municipality, township or settlement to
force, permitted and ordered said carabaos to be taken from the another. They had not been in highway nor moved from one
corral in which they were then quarantined and conducted from municipality or settlement to another. They were left upon
one place to another; that by virtue of said orders of the defendant's hacienda, where they were quarantined, and there
accused, his servants and agents took the said carabaos from worked by the servants of the accused.
the said corral and drove them from one place to another for
the purpose of working them. the law nowhere makes it a penal offense to refuse to comply
with the provisions of section 7, nor is the section itself so
the defendant was notified in writing on February 22, 1913, by a phrased as to warrant the conclusion that it was intended to be
duly authorized agent of the Director of agriculture, that all of a penal section. The section provides the means by which the
his carabaos in Pampanga, had been exposed to a disease refusal of the owner to comply therewith shall be overcome and
called RINDERPEST and thus quarantined and were ordered the punishment, if we may call it punishment, which he shall
kept in a corral designated by an agent of the Bureau of receive by reason of that refusal. It has none of the aspects of a
Agriculture and were to remain there until released by further penal provision or the form or substance of such provision. It
order of the Director of Agriculture. does not prohibit any act. It does not compel an act nor does it
really punish or impose a criminal penalty. The other sections of
the law under which punishments may be inflicted are so
2

phrased as to make the prohibited act unlawful, and section 8 HOLY SPIRIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. DEFENSOR
provides the punishment for any act declared unlawful by the
law. FACTS:

Nowhere in the law, however, is the violation of the orders of The instant petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997
the Bureau of Agriculture prohibited or made unlawful, nor is Rules of Civil Procedure, with prayer for the issuance of a
there provided any punishment for a violation of such orders. temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
Section 8 provides that "any person violating any of the injunction, seeks to prevent respondents from enforcing the
provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished by a implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No.
fine of not more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment 9207, otherwise known as the "National Government Center
for not more than six months, or by both such fine and (NGC) Housing and Land Utilization Act of 2003." Petitioner Holy
imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, for each offense." A Spirit Homeowners Association, Inc. (Association) is a
violation of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture, as homeowners association from the West Side of the NGC.
authorized by paragraph (c), is not a violation of the provision of
the Act. The orders of the Bureau of Agriculture, while they may Named respondents are the ex-officio members of the National
possibly be said to have the force of law, are statutes and Government Center Administration Committee (Committee). At
particularly not penal statutes, and a violation of such orders is the filing of the instant petition, the Committee was composed
not a penal offense unless the statute itself somewhere makes a of Secretary Michael Defensor, Chairman of the Housing and
violation thereof unlawful and penalizes it. Nowhere in Act No. Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), Atty.
1760 is a violation of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture Edgardo Pamintuan, General Manager of the National Housing
made a penal offense, nor is such violation punished in any way Authority (NHA), Mr. Percival Chavez, Chairman of the
therein. Presidential Commission for Urban Poor (PCUP), Mayor Feliciano
Belmonte of Quezon City, Secretary Elisea Gozun of the
It is contended by the Government that if the offense stated in Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and
the information and proved upon the trial does not constitute a Secretary Florante Soriquez of the Department of Public Works
violation of any of the provisions of Act No. 1760, it does and Highways (DPWH).
constitute a violation of article 581, paragraph 2, of the Penal
Code. It provides: President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law R.A. No.
9207. In accordance with Section 5 of R.A. No. 9207, the
A fine of not less than fifteen and not more than seventy Committee formulated the Implementing Rules and Regulations
pesetas and censure shall be imposed upon: . . . (IRR) of R.A. No. 9207 on June 29, 2004. Petitioners
subsequently filed the instant petition questioning its validity.
2. Any person who shall violate the regulations, ordinances, or
proclamations issued with reference to any epidemic disease The OSG claims that the instant petition for prohibition is an
among animals, the extermination of locusts, or any other improper remedy because the writ of prohibition does not lie
similar plague. against the exercise of a quasi-legislative function. Since in
issuing the questioned IRR of R.A. No. 9207, the Committee was
Wherefore, the accused is accordingly convicted of a violation of not exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial function,
article 581, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code, and is sentenced to which is the scope of a petition for prohibition under Section 2,
pay a fine of seventy pesetas (P14) and censure, with subsidiary Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the instant
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and the costs of this prohibition should be dismissed outright, the OSG contends. For
appeal. So ordered. their part, respondent Mayor of Quezon City and respondent
NHA contend that petitioners violated the doctrine of hierarchy
of courts in filing the instant petition with this Court and not
3

with the Court of Appeals, which has concurrent jurisdiction principle, however, applies only where the act of the
over a petition for prohibition. administrative agency concerned was performed pursuant to its
quasi-judicial function, and not when the assailed act pertained
ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for prohibition is not the to its rule-making or quasi-legislative power.
proper remedy to assail an IRR issued in the exercise of a quasi-
legislative function. The assailed IRR was issued pursuant to the quasi-legislative
power of the Committee expressly authorized by R.A. No. 9207.
RULING: The petition rests mainly on the theory that the assailed IRR
issued by the Committee is invalid on the ground that it is not
Yes. The court ruled that a petition for prohibition is also not the germane to the object and purpose of the statute it seeks to
proper remedy to assail an IRR issued in the exercise of a quasi- implement. Where what is assailed is the validity or
legislative function. Prohibition is an extraordinary writ directed constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by the
against any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative
whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial function, the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the
functions, ordering said entity or person to desist from further same.
proceedings when said proceedings are without or in excess of
said entitys or persons jurisdiction or are accompanied with Since the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the
grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other validity of the assailed IRR issued by the Committee in the
plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of exercise of its quasi-legislative power, the judicial course to
law. Prohibition lies against judicial or ministerial functions, but assail its validity must follow the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
not against legislative or quasi-legislative functions. Generally, Although the courts have concurrent jurisdiction in the issuance
the purpose of a writ of prohibition is to keep a lower court of writ of certiorari, habeas corpus, etc., such concurrence does
within the limits of its jurisdiction in order to maintain the not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court
administration of justice in orderly channels. Prohibition is the forum.
proper remedy to afford relief against usurpation of jurisdiction
or power by an inferior court, or when, in the exercise of True, this Court has the full discretionary power to take
jurisdiction in handling matters clearly within its cognizance the cognizance of the petition filed directly with it if compelling
inferior court transgresses the bounds prescribed to it by the reasons, or the nature and importance of the issues raised, so
law, or where there is no adequate remedy available in the warrant. A direct invocation of the courts original jurisdiction to
ordinary course of law by which such relief can be obtained. issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special
Where the principal relief sought is to invalidate an IRR, and important reasons therefore, clearly and specifically set out
petitioners remedy is an ordinary action for its nullification in the petition.
which falls under the RTC.

Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule-


making powers and quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory
powers. Quasi-legislative or rule-making 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. OPLE v. TORRES

In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or FACTS:


regulation issued by an administrative agency, a party need not
exhaust administrative remedies before going to court. This
4

Administrative Order No. 308, entitled "Adoption of a National President also has the duty of supervising the enforcement of
Computerized Identification Reference System," was issued by laws for the maintenance of general peace and public order.
President Fidel Ramos On December 12, 1996. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and
offices under his control to enable him to discharge his duties
Senator Blas F. Ople filed a petition seeking to invalidate A.O. effectively.
No. 308 on several grounds. One of them is that: The
establishment of a National Computerized Identification Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying
Reference System requires a legislative act. The issuance of policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper
A.O. No.308 by the President is an unconstitutional usurpation governmental organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform
of the legislative powers of congress. Petitioner claims that A.O. standard of administrative efficiency and check the official
No. 308 is not a mere administrative order but a law and hence, conduct of his agents. To this end, he can issue administrative
beyond the power of the President to issue. He alleges that A.O. orders, rules and regulations.
No.308 establishes a system of identification that is all-
encompassing in scope, affects the life and liberty of every From these precepts, the Court holds that A.O. No. 308 involves
Filipino citizen and foreign resident, and more particularly, a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an
violates their right to privacy. administrative order.

On this point, respondents counter-argue that: A.O. No. 308 was The Administrative Code of 1987 provides:
issued within the executive and administrative powers of the
president without encroaching on the legislative powers of Sec. 3. Administrative Orders.Acts of the President which
congress. relate to particular aspects of governmental operation in
pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be
ISSUE: Whether the issuance of A.O. No. 308 is an promulgated in administrative orders.
unconstitutional usurpation of the power of Congress to
legislate. An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President
which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation
RULING: of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should
be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying
Legislative power is the authority to make laws, and to alter and out the legislative policy. The Court rejects the argument that
repeal them. The Constitution has vested this power in the A.O. No. 308 implements the legislative policy of the
Congress. The grant of legislative power to Congress is broad, Administrative Code of 1987. The Code is a general law and
general, and comprehensive. Any power deemed to be incorporates in a unified document the major structural,
legislative by usage and tradition, is necessarily possessed by functional and procedural principles of governance and
Congress, unless the Constitution has lodged it elsewhere. embodies changes in administrative structure and procedures
designed to serve the people.
The executive power, on the other hand, is vested in the
President. It is generally defined as the power to enforce and It cannot be simplistically argued that A.O. No. 308 merely
administer the laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into implements the Administrative Code of 1987. It establishes for
practical operation and enforcing their due observance. As head the first time a National Computerized Identification Reference
of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief System. Such a System requires a delicate adjustment of
Executive. He represents the government as a whole and sees various contending state policies
to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of
his department. He has control over the executive department, The primacy of national security, the extent of privacy interest
bureaus and offices. Corollary to the power of control, the against dossier-gathering by government, the choice of policies,
5

etc. As said administrative order redefines the parameters of PROVISIONS WHICH ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO THE
some basic rights of our citizenry vis-a-vis the State as well as LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE SUBJECT LAW.
the line that separates the administrative power of the
President to make rules and the legislative power of Congress, it III. THE DOWNGRADING OF SALARY GRADE LEVEL OF THE
ought to be evident that it deals with a subject that should be PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT SUPERVISOR OR THE NEGLECT OR
covered by law. REFUSAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT TO UPGRADE THE
Petition is granted and A.O. No. 308 is declared null and void for SALARY GRADE LEVEL OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT TO A
being unconstitutional. RESPECTABLE LEVEL OF SALARY GRADE HIGHER THAN THAT OF
THE PRINCIPALS DESPITE CLEAR INTENTION OF R.A. 9155 TO
RETAIN THE POSITION OF PSDS IN THE HIERARCHY OF
PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGERS AND OFFICERS OF THE
v. DE JESUS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
ILLEGAL.
FACTS:
Issues:
Republic Act No. 9155, otherwise known as the Governance of
Basic Education Act 2001, became a law on August 11, 2001, 1) Whether or not District Supervisor shall not exercise
in accordance with Section 27(1), Article VI of the Constitution. administrative supervision over the Elementary School
Under Section 14 of the law, the DepEd Secretary is mandated Principals (ESPs) and Secondary School Principals (SSPs).
to promulgate the implementing rules and regulations within
ninety (90) days after the approval of the Act, provided that the 2) Whether or not Rule IV, Section 4.3; Rule V, Sections 5.1 and
principle of shared governance shall be fully implemented the second paragraph of Section 5.2; and Rule VI, Section 6.2,
within two (2) years after such approval. paragraph 11 of Department of Education Order No. 1, Series of
2003 are constitutional.
On March 13, 2003, the PSDSA, the national organization of
about 1,800 public school district supervisors of the DepEd, in Rulings:
behalf of its officers and members, filed the instant petition for
prohibition and mandamus, alleging that: 1) A plain reading of the law will show that the schools district
supervisors have no administrative supervision over the school
I. THE ACT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IN REMOVING heads; their responsibility is limited to those enumerated in
PETITIONERS ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER Section 7(D) of R.A. No. 9155, to wit:
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND ITS PRINCIPALS (SCHOOL HEADS)
WITHIN HIS/HER DISTRICT AND CONVERTING HIS/HER (1) Providing professional and instructional advice and support
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION TO THAT OF PERFORMING STAFF to the school heads and teachers/facilitators of schools and
FUNCTION FOR THE DIVISION OFFICE PER SECTION 5.1 RULE V learning centers in the district or cluster thereof;
OF THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF REPUBLIC (2) Curricula supervision; and
ACT 9155 (DEPED ORDER NO. 1, SERIES OF 2003) IS A GROSS (3) Performing such other functions as may be assigned by
VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT 9155 THE GOVERNANCE OF proper authorities.
BASIC EDUCATION ACT OF 2001.
It is a settled rule of statutory construction that the express
II. THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATION OF REPUBLIC mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all
ACT 9155 AS PROMULGATED UNDER DEPED ORDER NO. 1, others. This rule is expressed in the familiar maxim expressio
SERIES OF 2003 EXPANDED THE LAW AND INCLUDED unius est exclusio alterius. Where a statute, by its terms, is
6

expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by current bills in accordance with their lease contracts, and their
interpretation or construction, be extended to others. The rule relationship is contractual in nature.
proceeds from the premise that the legislature would not have
made specified enumerations in a statute had the intention The board ruled: It is the considered opinion of this Board, that
been not to restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to since the tenants (complainants) are already paying rentals for
those expressly mentioned. the use of their rooms and for the cost of their electricity within
their rooms, they should no longer be required to pay for the
2) The court reviewed the IRR and found that Section 4.3 of extra cost of electricity in common areas such as the elevator
Rule IV, and Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of Rule V are valid. The and the servants' quarters, for it is only fair and equitable that
provisions merely reiterate and implement the related the cost of electricity for common areas such as the elevator
provisions of R.A. No. 9155. Under the law, a division and servants' quarters be shouldered alone by the owner of the
superintendent has the authority and responsibility to hire, building as part of the cost for the rentals being paid by the
place, and evaluate all division supervisors and district tenants (complainants). ...
supervisors as well as all employees in the division, both
teaching and non-teaching personnel, including school heads. A ISSUE: Whether or not the board has jurisdiction over the case.
school head is a person responsible for the administrative and
instructional supervision of the schools or cluster of schools. RULING:
The division superintendent, on the other hand, supervises the
operation of all public and private elementary, secondary, and NO, it doesnt have jurisdiction over the case.
integrated schools and learning centers.
The Court resolved to treat the petition as a special civil action
and to grant the petition. Under the reorganization plan effected
QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER by Presidential Decree No. 1 as amended by Presidential Decree
No. 458, jurisdiction, supervision and control over public service
SYQUIA v. BOARD OF POWER AND WATER WORKS related to electric light, power and waterworks utilities formerly
(Private respondents: RUIZ, ENRIQUEZ, AND MOSES) vested in the Public Service Act were transferred to respondent
board.
FACTS:
Respondent board as a regulatory board manifestly exceeded
Private respondents filed three separate complaints with its jurisdiction in taking cognizance of and adjudicating the
respondent Board of Power and Waterworks charging petitioner complaints filed by respondents against petitioner.
as administrator of the South Syquia Apartments at Malate,
Manila with the offense of selling electricity without permit or Respondent board acquired no jurisdiction over petitioner's
franchise issued by respondent board, in that petitioner billed contractual relations with respondents-complainants as her
respondents-complainants various specified amounts for their tenants, since petitioner is not engaged in a public service nor
electricity consumption at their respective apartments for the in the sale of electricity without permit or franchise.
months of May to September, 1974 in excess of the Meralco
rates authorized by respondent board. Respondents' complaints against being charged he additional
cost of electricity for common facilities used by the tenants (in
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss but was denied. Answer was addition to those registered in their respective apartment
filed questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent, since she is meters) give rise to a question that is purely civil in character
not engaged in the sale of electric power but merely passes to that is to be adjudged under the applicable provisions of the
the apartment tenants as the end-users their legitimate electric Civil Code (not the Public Service Act) and not by the

respondent regulatory board which has no jurisdiction but by Petitioner, in its answer, questioned PSC's jurisdiction over the
the regular courts of general jurisdiction. subject matter of the letter-complaint, even as it denied liability
for the non-delivery of the message to the addressee.
Its orders were beyond its jurisdiction and must be set aside as
null and void. Hearing ensued, after which the PSC issued an order finding
ACCORDINGLY, the questioned orders of respondent board are petitioner "responsible for the inadequate and unsatisfactory
annulled and the complaints of private respondents are ordered service complained of, in violation of the Public Service Act"
dismissed.
With costs against private respondents. ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent has jurisdiction.

RULING: NO, it doesnt have jurisdiction.


GLOBE WIRELESS v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DOCTRINE: Section 13 of Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended
otherwise known as the Public Service Act, vested in the Public
Too basic in administrative law to need citation of jurisprudence Service Commission jurisdiction, supervision and control over all
is the rule that the jurisdiction and powers of administrative Public services and their franchises, equipment and other
agencies are limited to those expressly granted or necessarily properties. However, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 4630, the
implied from those granted in the legislation creating such legislative franchise under which petitioner was operating,
body; and any order without or beyond such jurisdiction is void limited respondent Commission's jurisdiction over petitioner
and ineffective. only to the rate which petitioner may charge the Public. Thus,

FACTS: Sec. 5. The Public Service Commission is hereby given


jurisdiction over the grantee only with respect to the rates
Challenged in this petition for certiorari is the jurisdiction of the which the grantee may charge the public subject to
defunct Public Service Commission [PSC] under Section 21 of international commitments made or adhered to by the Republic
Commonwealth Act No. 146, as amended, to discipline and of the Philippines.
impose a fine upon petitioner, Globe Wireless, Ltd.
The act complained of consisted in petitioner having allegedly
A message addressed to Maria Diaz, Monte Esquina 30, Madrid, failed to deliver the telegraphic message of private respondent
Spain, filed by private respondent Antonio B. Arnaiz with the to the addressee in Madrid, Spain. Obviously, such imputed
telegraph office of the Bureau of Telecommunications in negligence had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject
Dumaguete City was transmitted to the Bureau of matter of the very limited jurisdiction of the Commission over
Telecommunications in Manila. It was forwarded to petitioner petitioner.
Globe Wireless Ltd. for transmission to Madrid. Petitioner sent
the message to the American Cable and Radio Corporation in Moreover, under Section 21 of C.A. No. 146, as amended, the
New York, which, in turn, transmitted the same to the Empresa Commission was empowered to impose an administrative fine in
Nacional de Telecommunicaciones in Madrid. The latter, cases of violation of or failure by a Public service to comply with
however, mislaid said message, resulting in its non-delivery to the terms and conditions of any certificate or any orders,
the addressee. decisions or regulations of the Commission. petitioner operated
under a legislative franchise, so there were no terms nor
After being informed of said fact, private respondent Arnaiz, conditions of any certificate issued by the Commission to
sent to then Public Service Commissioner Enrique Medina an violate. Neither was there any order, decision or regulation from
unverified letter-complaint relating the incident. the Commission applicable to petitioner that the latter had
allegedly violated, disobeyed, defied or disregarded.
8

Philippines and any member of the Philippine Bar in good


standing may practice law anywhere and before any entity,
PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION v. AGRAVA whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative, in the
Philippines. Moreover, "The practice of law is not limited to
FACTS: the conduct of cases or litigation m court; it embraces the
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions
This is a petition filed by the Philippine Lawyers Association for and special proceedings, the management of such actions and
prohibition and injunction against Celedonio Agrava, in his proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and
capacity s Director of the Philippines Patent Office. On May 23, in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all
1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he action taken for them in matters connected with the law
had scheduled for June 27, 1957 an examination for the purpose incorporation sendees, assessment and condemnation services
of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the
before the said office. Petitioner contends that one who has foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in
passed the bar examinations, and is in good standing, is duly bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting
qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office and proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and
that the respondent Director's holding an examination for the guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do
purpose is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the
law. The respondent, in reply, maintains that the prosecution of work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind
patent cases "does not involve entirely or purely the practice of of the legal effect of facts and conditions. As such, , the practice
law but include the application of scientific and technical of law includes such appear ance before the Patent Office, the
knowledge and training as a matter of actual purpose so as to representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons,
include engineers and other individuals who passed the and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their
examination can practice before the Patent Office. Furthermore, oppositions thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent
respondent contends that he has previously conducted such cases. Thus, under the present law, members of the Philippine
examinations and that this is the first time that he is questioned Bar authorized by this Tribunal to practice law, and in good
formally. standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office,
for the reason that much of the business in said office involves
ISSUES: the interpretation and determination of the scope and
application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well
1. Whether or not members of the bar should first take and pass as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved; that
an examination conducted by the Patent Office before he would part of the functions of the Patent Director are judicial or quasi-
be allowed to practice law in said office; judicial, so much so that appeals from his orders and decisions
are, under the law, taken to the Supreme Court. In sum, the
2. Whether or not appearance before the Patent Office and the practice of law covers any activity in or out of court, which
preparation of applications or patents, etc. constitutes practice requires the application of law, legal procedures, principles or
of law or is included in the practice of law; and, practice and calls for legal knowledge, training and experience.
And, only the Supreme Court has the exclusive and
3. Whether or not the Director of the Patent Office is authorized constitutional power with respect to admission to the practice of
to conduct examinations for patent attorneys. law.
GUEVARRA v. COMELEC
RULING:
FACTS:
The Supreme Court has the exclusive and constitutional power
with respect to admission to the practice of law in the
9

Guevara was ordered by the COMELEC to show cause why he Ang Tibay has filed an opposition for both the motion for
should not be punished for contempt for having published in the reconsideration of CIR and the motion for a new trial by the
newspaper an article which tended to interfere with and National Labor Union.
influence the COMELEC awarding the contracts for the
manufacture and supply of ballot boxes; and which article Toribio claimed to have laid off workers due to the shortage of
likewise tended to degrade, bring into disrepute, and undermine leather soles in the Ang Tibay factory.
the exclusive constitutional function of this Commission and its The Court of industrial relations forwarded a motion for recon
Chairman with the supreme court.
Petitioner, filed a motion to quash on the following ground that In pursuit of a retrial in the Court of Industrial Relations, the
the Commission has no jurisdiction to punish as contempt the national labor union, the respondent, averred:
publication of the alleged contemptuous article, as neither in 1. The shortage of soles has no factual basis
the Constitution nor in statutes is the Commission granted a 2. The scheme was to prevent the forfeiture of his bond to cover
power to so punish the same. the breach of obligation with the Army
3. The letter he sent to the army was part of this scheme
ISSUE: 4. The company union was an employer dominated one.
Whether or not the COMELEC has the power and jurisdiction to 5. laborers rights to CBA is indispensable.
conduct contempt proceedings against Guevara in connection 6. Civil code shouldnt be used to interpret a legislation of
with the publication of an article. American industrial origins.
7. Toribio was guilty of unfair labor practice for favoring his
RULING: union.
Although the negotiation conducted by the Commission has 8. Exhibits are inaccessible to respondents.
resulted in controversy between several dealers, that however 9. The exhibits can reverse the judgment.
merely refers to a ministerial duty which the Commission has
performed in its administrative capacity. It only discharged a ISSUE: Whether or not the National Labor Union, Inc. is entitled
ministerial duty; it did not exercise any judicial function. Such to a new trial.
being the case, it could not exercise the power to punish for
contempt as postulated in the law, for such power is inherently HELD: Yes. The records show that the newly discovered
judicial in nature. As this Court has aptly said: "The power to evidence or documents obtained by NLU, which they attached
punish for contempt is inherent in all courts; its existence is to their petition with the SC, were evidence so inaccessible to
essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, them at the time of the trial that even with the exercise of due
and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of diligence they could not be expected to have obtained them
courts, and, consequently, in the administration of justice". We and offered as evidence in the Court of Industrial Relations.
are therefore persuaded to conclude that the Commission on Further, the attached documents and exhibits are of such far-
Elections has no power nor authority to submit petitioner to reaching importance and effect that their admission would
contempt proceedings if its purpose is to discipline him because necessarily mean the modification and reversal of the judgment
of the publication of the article mentioned in the charge under rendered (said newly obtained records include books of
consideration. business/inventory accounts by Ang Tibay which were not
previously accessible but already existing).
ANG TIBAY v. CIR
The SC also outlined that administrative bodies, like the CIR,
FACTS: although not strictly bound by the Rules of Court must also
make sure that they comply to the requirements of due process.
For administrative bodies, due process can be complied with by
observing the following:
10

request for the extradition of private respondent Mark Jimenez.


(1) The right to a hearing which includes the right of the Secretary of Justice then ordered a technical evaluation and
party interested or affected to present his own case and submit assessment of the extradition request. Pending evaluation,
evidence in support thereof. private respondent (Mark Jimenez) through counsel wrote a
letter addressed to herein petitioner requesting copies of official
(2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to extradition request from the US Government. He requested
present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish ample time to comment and for the matter to be held in
the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the abeyance in the meantime.
evidence presented. Secretary of Justice denied the said request specifically invoking
our countrys responsibility to the Vienna Convention on the law
(3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose the of Treaties that every treaty in force is binding upon parties to
obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which it and must be performed by them in good faith. Extradition is
cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to a toll of criminal law enforcement and to be effective must be
support its decision. A decision with absolutely nothing to processed expeditiously. Particularly in this case is the RP-US
support it is a nullity, a place when directly attached. Extradition Treaty.

(4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a Extradition is the process by which persons charged with or
finding or conclusion but the evidence must be substantial. convicted of crimes against the law of a State and found in a
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla It means foreign state are returned by the latter to the former for trial or
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as punishment.
adequate to support a conclusion.
Pacta sunt servanda requires the parties to a treaty to keep
(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented their agreement therein in good faith. The observance of
at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed our countrys legal duties under a treaty is also compelled by
to the parties affected. Section 2, Article II of the Constitution.

(6) The administrative body or any of its judges, therefore, The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national
must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of
and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of international law as part of the law of the nation.
a subordinate in arriving at a decision. Under the doctrine of incorporation, rules of international law
form part of the law of the land and no further legislative action
(7) The administrative body should, in all controversial is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere.
questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties After the denial of the request letter, Mark Jimenez filed a
to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the petition against herein Secretary of Justice. RTC presiding Judge
reasons for the decisions rendered. The performance of this Lantion favored Jimenez. Thus, this petition is now at bar.
duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.
Issue:

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LANTION (digest 1) Whether or not respondent Judge Lantion acted without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
FACTS: amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the
temporary restraining order to herein petitioner in performing
On June 18, 199 , the Department of Justice received from the his legal duties as Secretary of Justice.
Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. Note No. 0522 containing a
11

Held: iii. 18 USC 1343 (Fraud by wire, radio, or television; 2 counts;


Maximum Penalty: 5 years/count)
NO. The Extradition Law provides Rules of Court shall apply, iv. 18 USC 1001 (False statement or entries; 6 counts;
thus extradite has the basic right of notice and hearing. The RP- Maximum Penalty: 5 years/count)
US Extradition Treaty under the Incorporation Clause in case of v. 2 USC 441f (Election contributions in name of another; 33
conflict is not superior over a national law. International law is counts; Maximum Penalty: less than 1 year)
given equal standing but not superior to national legislative
enactment. The principle lex posterior degorat oriori takes The Department of Justice denied Mr. Jimenez request for
effect extradition documents based
on the following:
a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a treaty.
In States where the constitution is the highest law of the land, i. Article 7 of the Extradition Treaty between the Philippines
such as the Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and and the United States enumerates the documentary
treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with the requirements and establishes the procedures under which the
constitution. Thus, petitioner is ordered to furnish private documents submitted shall be received and admitted as
respondent copies of the extradition request and its supporting evidence. Evidentiary requirements are under Section 4 of P.D.
papers and to grant him (Jimenez) a reasonable period within No. 1069. Evaluation by the Department of the documents is
which to file his comment and supporting evidence There was not a preliminary investigation nor akin to preliminary
only a void on some provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty investigation of criminal cases. Thus, the constitutionally
as regards to the basic due process right of a prospective guaranteed rights of the accused in all criminal prosecutions are
extradite at the evaluation stage of the extradition proceeding. not available. It merely determines the compliance of the
RTCs decision is rendered moot and academic and herein Requesting Government with the procedures and requirements
petition is DISMISSED. under the relevant law and treaty. After the filing of the petition
for extradition, the person sought to be extradited will be
(digest 2) furnished by the court with copies of the petition.
ii. The Department of Justice under P.D. No. 1069 is the
FACTS: counsel of the foreign governments in all extradition requests.
Furthermore, Article 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty provides
In accordance to "Extradition Treaty Between the that the Philippine Government must represent the interests of
Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the the United States in any proceedings arising out of a request for
Government of the United States of America" (RP-US Extradition extradition. Thus, it must comply with the request of the
Treaty), the Department of Justice received from the United States Government to prevent unauthorized disclosure of
Department of Foreign Affairs U.S. Note Verbale No. 0522 the subject information.
containing a request for the extradition of Mark Jimenez to the iii. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
United States attached with the Grand Jury Indictment, the provides that "Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties
warrant of arrest issued by the U.S. District Court, Southern to it and must be performed by them in good faith". Extradition
District of Florida, and other supporting documents on June 18, is a tool of criminal law enforcement and to be effective,
1999. Mr. Jimenez was charged with the following: requests for extradition or surrender of accused or convicted
persons must be processed expeditiously.
i. 18 USC 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the
United States; 2 counts; Maximum Penalty: 5 years/count) Mr. Jimenez filed with filed with the Regional Trial Court of the
ii. 26 USC 7201 (Attempt to evade or defeat tax;4 counts; National Capital Judicial Region a petition presided over by the
Maximum Penalty:5 years/count) Honorable Ralph C. Lantion against the Secretary of Justice, the

12

Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and the Director of the National


Bureau of Investigation: HELD: DISMISSED for lack of merit. Petitioner is ordered to
i. mandamus to compel the Department to furnish the furnish private respondent copies of the extradition request and
extradition documents its supporting papers, and to grant him a reasonable period
ii. certiorari to set aside Departments letter dated July 13, within which to file his comment with supporting evidence.
1999 denying his request
iii. prohibition to restrain the Department from considering the i. NO.
extradition request and from filing an extradition petition in
court Extradition Request
iv. enjoin the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of The Extradition Request (Sec. 4. PD 1069) is made by the
the NBI from performing any act directed to the extradition Foreign Diplomat of the
v. application for the issuance of a temporary restraining Requesting State, addressed to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.
order and a writ of preliminary injunction The Secretary of Foreign Affairs has the executive authority to
conduct the evaluation process which, just like the extradition
Honorable Ralph C. Lantion ordered the Secretary of Justice, the proceedings proper, belongs to a class by itself or is sui generis.
Secretary of Foreign It is not a criminal investigation but it is also erroneous to say
Affairs and the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation that it is purely an exercise of ministerial functions. At such
to maintain the status quo by refraining from committing the stage, the executive authority has the power:
acts complained of, from conducting further proceedings in 1) to make a technical assessment of the completeness and
connection with the request of the United States Government, sufficiency of the extradition papers in form and substance
from filing the corresponding Petition with a Regional Trial court 2) to outrightly deny the request if on its face and on the face
and from performing any act directed to the extradition for a of the supporting documents the crimes indicated are not
period of 20 days from service of the order. extraditable
3) to make a determination whether or not the request is
Hon. Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Chief Justice of the Supreme Court politically motivated, or that the offense is a military one which
of the Philippines ordered Hon. Lantion to cease and desist from is not punishable under non-military penal legislation.
enforcing the order. Due to transcendental importance, the
Court brushed aside peripheral procedural matters which The process may be characterized as an investigative or
concern the proceedings in Civil Case No. 99-94684 and the inquisitorial process (NOT an exercise of an administrative
TRO and proceded on the issues. body's quasi-judicial power) (Sec. 5. PD 1069 and Pars. 2 and 3,
Art. 7 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty) that is indispensable to
ISSUE: prosecution. The power of investigation consists in gathering,
i. Whether or NOT the evaluation procedure is not a organizing and analyzing evidence, which is a useful aid or tool
preliminary investigation nor akin to preliminary investigation of in an administrative agency's performance of its rule-making or
criminal cases quasi-judicial functions.
ii. Whether or NOT the twin basic due process rights granted In Ruperto v. Torres, the Court laid down the test of determining
by Sec. 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court on the right to be whether an administrative body is exercising judicial functions
furnished a copy of the complaint, the affidavits, and other or merely investigatory functions applies to an administrative
supporting documents and the right to submit counter-affidavits body authorized to evaluate extradition documents. If the only
and other supporting documents within 10 days from receipt is purpose for investigation is to evaluate evidence submitted
dispensable before it based on the facts and circumstances presented to it,
iii. Whether or NOT the right of the people to information on and if the agency is not authorized to make a final
matters of public concern granted under Sec. 7 of Art. III of the pronouncement affecting the parties, then there is an absence
1987 Constitution is violated of judicial discretion and judgment. Thus, the role of the
13

administrative body is limited to an initial finding of whether or After delivery of the Extradition Request by the Secretary of
not the extradition petition can be filed in court. The court has Foreign Affairs to the Secretary of Justice, the latter shall
the power to determine whether or not the extradition should designate and authorize an attorney in his office to take charge
be effected. The evaluation procedure (in contrast to ordinary of the case (Par. 1, Sec. 5, PD 1069). The attorney shall file a
investigations) may result in the deprivation of liberty of the written Extradition Petition with the proper regional trial court,
prospective extraditee or accused (Sec. 2[c] of PD 1069) at 2 with a prayer that the court take the extradition request under
stages: consideration (Par. 2, Sec. 5, PD 1069). The presiding judge
1) provisional arrest of the prospective extraditee pending the shall issue an order summoning the prospective extraditee to
submission of the request appear and to answer the petition. The judge may issue a
This is because the Treaty provides that in case of urgency, a warrant of arrest if it appears that the immediate arrest and
contracting party may request the provisional arrest of the temporary detention of the accused will best serve the ends of
person sought pending presentation of the request (Par. 1, Art. justice or to prevent flight (Par. 1, Sec. 6, PD 1069).
9 of the RP-US Extradition Treaty) to prevent flight but he shall
be automatically discharged after 60 days (Par. 4 of the RP-US Extradition Hearing
Extradition Treaty) or 20 days (Sec. 20[d] PD 1069) if no request The provisions of the Rules of Court, insofar as practicable
is submitted. Otherwise, he can be continuously detained, or if and not inconsistent with the summary nature of the
not, subsequently rearrested (Par. 5, Art 9, RP-US Extradition proceedings, shall apply during the Extradition Hearing (Par. 1,
Treaty) Sec. 9, PD 1069) The attorney may represent the Requesting
2) temporary arrest of the prospective extraditee during the state. (Sec. 8, PD 1069). The Courts decision on whether the
pendency of the extradition petition in court (Sec. 6, PD 1069). petition is extraditable based on the application of the dual
The peculiarity and deviant characteristic of the evaluation criminality rule and other conditions mentioned in Article 2 of
procedure is that: the RP-US Extradition Treaty or whether or not the offense for
1) there is yet no extradite; BUT which extradition is requested is a political one (Par. 3, Article 7
2) it results in an administrative if adverse to the person of the RP-US Extradition Treaty) shall be final and immediately
involved, may cause his immediate incarceration executory (Sec. 12, PD 1069) and appealable with the Court of
Appeals where the provisions of the Rules of Court governing
The evaluation process partakes of the nature of a criminal appeal in criminal cases in the Court of Appeals shall apply
investigation. Similar to the evaluation stage of extradition except for the required 15-day period to file brief (Sec. 13, PD
proceedings, a preliminary investigation, which may result in 1069).
the filing of an information against the respondent, can possibly
lead to his arrest, and to the deprivation of his liberty. The ii. YES.
characterization of a treaty in Wright was in reference to the
applicability of the prohibition against an ex post facto law. It Neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law precludes the twin
had nothing to do with the denial of the right to notice, rights of notice and hearing from a prospective extradite. In the
information, and hearing. absence of a law or principle of law, we must apply the rules of
fair play. Petitioner contends that United States requested the
In this case, the extradition request was delivered to the Philippine Government to prevent unauthorized disclosure of
Department of Foreign Affairs on June 17, 1999 (the following confidential information. Such argument, however has been
day the Department of Justice received the request). Thus, the overturned by petitioner's revelation that everything it refuses
Department of Foreign Affairs failed to discharge its duty of to make available at this stage would be obtainable during trial.
evaluating the same and its accompanying documents. If the information is truly confidential, the veil of secrecy cannot
be lifted at any stage of the extradition proceedings. The
Extradition Petition constitutional issue in the case at bar does not even call for
"justice outside legality," since private respondent's due
14

process rights, although not guaranteed by statute or by treaty,


are protected by constitutional guarantees. BERNARDO v. ABALOS

However in this case, with the meticulous nature of the FACTS:


evaluation, which cannot just be completed in an abbreviated
period of time due to its intricacies and certain problems in the On April 21, 1998, petitioners Antonio M. Bernardo, Ernesto A.
extradition papers (such as those that are in Spanish and Domingo, Jr. and Jesus C. Cruz filed with the COMELEC a
without the official English translation, and those that are not criminal complaint against respondents Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr.,
properly authenticated) it cannot to be said to be urgent. Benjamin C. Abalos, Jr., Dr. Eden C. Diaz, Romeo Zapanta and
Therefore, notice and hearing requirements of administrative Arcadio de Vera for vote buying.
due process cannot be dispensed with and shelved aside.
Respondents sponsored, arranged and conducted an all-
iii. NO. expense-free transportation, food and drinks affair for the
During the evaluation procedure, no official governmental Mandaluyong City public school teachers, registered voters of
action of our own government has as yet been done; hence the said city, at the Tayabas Bay Beach Resort, Sariaya, Quezon
invocation of the right is premature. Later, and in contrast, Province.
records of the extradition hearing would already fall under
matters of public concern, because our government by then Mayor Benjamin Abalos, Sr. delivered a speech wherein he
shall have already made an official decision to grant the offered and promised the Mandaluyong City public school
extradition request. teachers and employees a hazard pay of P1,000.00 , and
increasing their allowances from P1,500.00 to P2,000.00 for
JUDICIAL REVIEWS food, or with a total of P3,000.00 which they will get by the end
of the month.

ABEJO v. DELA CRUZ The offers and promises to said public school teachers, who
(Another case is heard in line with this case entitled: are members of the Board of Election Inspectors of
Pocket bell phils. V. SEC) Mandaluyong City and registered voters thereat, were made a
few weeks before the election to induce or unduly influence the
said teachers and the public in general (the other guests) to
vote for the candidacy of Benjamin Benhur Abalos, Jr.

On December 1, 1998, the COMELEC En Banc issued the


assailed Resolution No. 98-3208dismissing the complaint "for
insufficiency of evidence to establish prima facie case."

On February 09, 1999, petitioners, without first submitting a


motion for reconsideration, filed the instant petition with this
Court.

ISSUES:
Whether petitioners failure to submit a motion for
reconsideration was fatal to his cause of action.

HELD: YES
15

. Petitioners did not exhaust all the remedies available to them of EDB in coal exploration and development have been
at the COMELEC level. Specifically, they did not seek a transferred to BED. Also, under the doctrine of primary
reconsideration of the assailed COMELEC En Banc Resolution as jurisdiction, BED has the expertise, so the court must first defer
required by Section1, Rule 13 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of to its determination. The case below is suspended.
Procedure.
FACTS:

-Petitioners' failure to file the required motion for PET IEI was granted a coal operating contract by the
reconsideration utterly disregarded the COMELEC Rules Bureau of Energy Development (BED) for exploration of 2
intended "to achieve an orderly, just, expeditious and coal blocks in Eastern Samar.
inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and
proceeding brought before the Commission."-Contrary to IEI was later on advised that to rationalize the countrys
petitioners' statement that a resort to a motion for coal supply
reconsideration is "dilatory," it bears stressing that the purpose -and-demand balance, the coal operator in the area
of the said motion is to give the COMELEC an opportunity to should be the Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corp.
correct the error imputed to it. If the error is immediately (MMIC)
corrected by way of a motion for reconsideration, then it is the So IEI and MMIC executed a MOA where IEI assigned and
most expeditious and inexpensive recourse. But if the COMELEC
transferred to MMIC all rights and interests in the 2 coal
refuses to correct a patently erroneous act, then it commits a
blocks subject of IEIs coal operating contract.
grave abuse of discretion justifying recourse by the aggrieved
party to a petition for certiorari.-A petition for certiorari under
Subsequently, IEI filed action for rescission of MOA with
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, can
only be resorted to if "there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, damages against MMIC and Ministry of Energy before the
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. RTC. IEI also prayed that Energy Minister be ordered to
approve the return of coal operating contract from MMIC
Having failed to file the required motion for reconsideration of to IEI.
the challenged Resolution, petitioners' instant petition is
certainly premature. Significantly, they have not raised any TRIAL COURT summary judgment ordered the rescission
plausible reason for their direct recourse to this Court. of MOA and ordered the reversion of 2 coal blocks
WHEREFORE petition is dismissed. covered by the coal operating contract

CA reversed: TC had no jurisdiction over the action since


INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES v. CA under PD 1206, it is the BED that has the power to
decide controversies relative to the exploration,
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction. exploitation and development of coal blocks

IEI was granted coal operating contract but it was later on


advised that the coal operator in the area subject of the ISSUES & HOLDING
contract should be MMIC. IEC and MMIC executed a MOA
transferring to the latter all the formers rights and interest in WON the civil court has jurisdiction to hear and decide
the contract. IEI filed action for rescission of MOA. the suit for rescission of the MOA concerning a coal
TC rescinded the MOA; CA reversed, saying that its BED, not operating contract over coal blocks? Yes but court
the TC, which has jurisdiction over the action. SC held that the must first defer to BED; judicial determination
BED has jurisdiction. Under PD 1206, the powers and functions suspended
16

technical determination by the BED which has specialized


WON CA erred in holding that it is the BED which has expertise to act on it. These issues preclude an initial judicial
jurisdiction over the action and not the civil court? NO. determination.

TC does not have competence to decide matters concerning


activities on exploration, exploitation, development and
RATIO: extraction of coal. BUT case is NOT dismissed, only suspended,
until after the matters within the competence of BED are
IEIs cause of action was not merely the rescission of a contract determined.
but the reversion or return to it of the operation of the coal
blocks PETITION DENIED.

BED, as the successor to the Energy Development Board (EDB) GSIS v. CSC
(abolished by PD 1206), is tasked with the function of
establishing a comprehensive and integrated national program DOCTRINE: "when the law bestows upon a government body
for the exploration, exploitation and development and the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific
extraction of fossil fuels; adopting a coal devt program; matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive
regulating all activities relative thereto; undertaking by itself or unless it be proved that another body is likewise vested with
through service contracts such exploitation and development. the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have
concurrent jurisdiction over the matter."

PD 1206 provides that the powers and functions of the defunct FACTS:
EDB on the implementation of PD 972 on coal exploration and
devt have been transferred to BED, provided that coal operating In May, 1981, the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)
contracts including the transfer or assignment of interest in said dismissed six (6) employees as being "notoriously
contracts shall require approval of Secretary of Energy. undersirable," they having allegedly been found to be
connected with irregularities in the canvass of supplies and
Considering the foregoing, BEDs jurisdiction, in the first materials.
instance, to pass upon any question involving the MOA between
IEI and MMIC, a coal-operating contract, should be sustained. Five of these six dismissed employees appealed to the Merit
Systems Board. The Board found the dismissals to be illegal
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction (DPJ) It may occur that the because effected without formal charges having been filed or
Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case an opportunity given to the employees to answer, and ordered
(matter involved is also judicial). But if the determination of the the remand of the cases to the GSIS for appropriate disciplinary
case requires the expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of proceedings.
the proper admin bodies because technical matters or intricate
questions of facts are involved, then relief must be first The GSIS appealed to the Civil Service Commission. By
obtained in an admin proceeding before a remedy will be Resolution dated October 21, 1987, the Commission ruled that
supplied by the courts (even though the matter is within the the dismissal of all five was indeed illegal.
proper jurisdiction of a court).
Still unconvinced, the GSIS appealed to the Supreme Court (G.R.
DPJ applies in this case since the question of what coal areas Nos. 80321-22). Once more, it was rebuffed. On July 4, 1988 this
should be exploited and developed and which entity should be Court's Second Division promulgated a Resolution which:
granted coal operating contracts over said areas involves a
17

a) denied its petition for failing to show any grave abuse of


discretion on the part of the Civl Service Commission, the On October 9, 1989, the Civil Service Commission promulgated
dismissals of the employees having in truth been made without Resolution No. 89-779 adopting, approving and putting into
formal charge and hearin, and effect simplified rules of procedure on administrative
disciplinary and protest cases, pursuant tothe authority granted
b) declared that reinstatement of said five employees was by the constitutional and statutory provisions above cited, as
proper, "without prejudice to the right of the GSIS to pursue well as Republic Act No. 6713.
proper disciplinary action against them;"
In light of all the foregoing consitutional and statutory
c) MODIFIED, however, the challenged CSC Resolution of provisions, it would appear absurd to deny to the Civil Service
October 21, 1987 "by elminating the payment of back salaries Commission the power or authority or order execution of its
to private respondents (employees) until the outcome of the decisions, resolutions or orders which, it should be stressed, it
disciplinary proceedings is known, considering the gravity of the has been exercising through the years. It would seem quite
offenses imputed to them. obvious that the authority to decide cases is inutile unless
accompanied by the authority to see taht what has been
CSC granted the motion for execution in an Order dated June decided is carried out. Hence, the grant to a tribunal or agency
20, 1990. It accordingly directed the GSIS "to pay the of adjudicatory power, or the authority to hear and adjudge
compulsory heirs of deceased Elizar Namuco and Eusebio cases, should normally and logically be deemed to include the
Manuel for the period from the date of their illegal separation grant of authority to enforce or execute the judgments it thus
up to the date of their demise." renders, unless the law otherwise provides.

GSIS appealed to this court. It contends that the Civil Service


Commission has no pwer to execute its judgments and final
orders or resolutions, and even conceding the contrary, the writ
of execution issued on June 20, 1990 is void because it varies
this Court's Resolution of July 4, 1988.
PAAT v. CA
RULING:
FACTS:
The Civil Service Commission, like the Commission on Elections
and the Commission on Audit, is a consitutional commission he truck of private respondent Victoria de Guzman was seized
invested by the Constitution and relevant laws not only with by the DENR personnel while on its way to Bulacan because the
authority to administer the civil service but also with quasi- driver could not produce the required documents for the forest
judicial powers. It has the authority to hear and decide product found concealed in the truck. Petitioner Jovito Layugan,
administrative disciplinary cases instituted directly with it or CENRO ordered the confiscation of the truck and required the
brought to it on appeal. The Commission shall decide by a owner to explain. Private respondents failed to submit required
majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought explanation. The DENR Regional Executive Director Rogelio
before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for Baggayan sustained Layugans action for confiscation and
decision it within sixty days from the date of its submission for ordered the forfeiture of the truck. Private respondents brought
on certiorari by any aggrieved party within thirty days from the case to the DENR Secretary. Pending appeal, private
receipt of a copy thereof. It has the power, too, sitting en banc, respondents filed a replevin case before the RTC against
to promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice petitioner Layugan and Baggayan. RTC granted the same.
before it or before any of its offices, which rules should not Petitioners moved to dismiss the case contending, inter alia,
however diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. that private respondents had no cause of action for their failure
18

to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court denied their administrative forfeiture proceedings in pursuant to Sections
motion. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners 68-A of OD 705, as amended. Dismissal of the replevin suit for
aver that the trial court could not legally entertain the suit for lack of cause of action in view of the private respondents
replevin because the truck was under administrative seizure failure to exhaust administrative remedies should have been
proceedings. the proper course of action by the lower court instead of
assuming jurisdiction over the case and consequently issuing
ISSUE: the writ ordering the return of the truck.
Whether or not the instant case falls within the exception of the
doctrine.

RULING:

The Court held in the negative. The Court has consistently held
that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the
court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed of all the
means of administrative processed afforded him. Hence, if a
remedy within the administrative machinery can still be
resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every
opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his
jurisdiction then such remedy should be exhausted first before
courts judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation
of court intervention is fatal to ones cause of action.

The doctrine is a relative one and its flexibility is called upon by


the peculiarity and uniqueness of the factual and circumstantial
settings of a case. Hence, it is disregarded (1) when there is
violation of due process, (2) when the issue involved is purely a
legal question, (3) when the administrative action is patently
illegal amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, (4) when
there is estoppels on the part of the administrative agency
concerned, (5) when there is irreparable injury, (6) when the
respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter
ego of the President bears the implied and assumed approval of
the latter, (7) when to require exhaustion of administrative
remedies would be unreasonable, (8) when it would amount to
nullification of a claim, (9) when the subject matter is a private
land in land case proceedings, (10) when the rule does not
provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, and (11) when
there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial
intervention.

A suit for replevin cannot be sustained against the petitioners


for the subject truck taken and retained by them for
19

20