You are on page 1of 4


PENA - Ombudsman violated Lopez’

- PCGG created to assist in recovery of ill- constitutional right to a speedy
gotten wealth of Marcos disposition
- PCGG ordered to freeze assets of 2 - The right to a speedy disposition of a case,
garment manufacturing firms = violated when attended by vexatious,
- Yim Kam Shing was revoked as co- capricious, and oppressive delays; or when
signatory to effect deposits & withdrawals of unjustified postponements of the trial are
the funds asked for and secured, or even without
- Action for damages + writ of prelim cause or justifiable motive a long period of
injunction against bank, PCGG questioning time is allowed to elapse without the party
the revocation of the authorization as having his case tried.
signatory - Delay could only be attributed to inaction on
- RTC has no jurisdiction over the PCGG the part of investigating officials.
- PCGG exercises quasi-judicial functions
- With this, the Commission is a co-equal United Residents of Dominican Hills v. COSLAP
body with RTC and co-equal bodies have - UCPB donated DH property to PH to be
no power to control the other. used for priority programs, projects,
- Necessarily, those who wish to question the activities, econ dev, gov purposes
Commission’s acts or orders in such cases - Presidential Management Staff received
must seek recourse in the same court, app from United, to acquire a portion of DH
Sandiganbayan, which is vested with - MoA signed between HIGC, PMS and
exclusive and original jurisdiction. United: to sell DH to HIGC, then to United
- United: alleges that resp constructed
LBP v. Natividad houses there, so United secured demolition
- Natividad filed w/ RTC for det. of order -> Resps filed for annulment of
compensation for parcel of land acquired by contracts + TRO in COSLAP
gov pursuant to PD 27. - COSLAP required parties to maintain status
- RTC: determined amt. to be paid is at 30 quo + issued contested order
pesos per square m. - COSLAP has no jurisdiction to try + hear
- DAR & LBP: filed separate MR -> denied petition for annulment of contracts +
due to lack of notice of hearing TRO
- LBP: respondents should have sought - It discharges quasi-judicial functions. Its
consideration of DAR’s initial valuation of decisions have the force + effect of a
their properties before going to RTC regular admin decision. Exec. Dept. may not
- RTC has jurisdiction impose judgment of one its own agencies
- Respondents did file a letter to DAR upon judiciary.
secretary which prompted them to file with - Admin agencies are not considered courts
RTC due to said reply
- DAR’s jurisdiction – limited to DARAB v. Lubrica
implementation of agrarian reform but may - Suntay filed petition for payment of just
include just compensation compensation under PD 27 against DAR
- RTC’s original and exclusive jurisdiction – - Alleged that the value determined by DAR
determination of just compensation; refers and LBP were low, and violative of due
to judicial proceedings process
- RARAD in favor of Suntay; LBP filed petition
Lopez v. Ombudsman for just compensation with RTC
- Jose Lopez, admin officer of DECS ordered - Suntay filed MTD for res judicata, lack of
several lab equipment capacity to sue + cause of action
- COA discovered deficiencies in transactions - RTC dismissed LBP for failure to pay docket
+ falsification of pub doc against Lopez etal fees
- Lopez filed to ombudsman denying - LBP appealed CA; meanwhile RARAD
- 4 yrs later, ombudsman ended prelim inv + issued writ of execution
recommended that he be prosecuted for - LBP filed pettion for certiorari + TRO before
graft and corrupt practices DARAB against Suntay & RARAD
- MR filed by Lopez: there was deprivation of - DARAB can’t take cognizance of LBP’s
due process due to inordinate delay petition for certiorari
- Only particular courts are expressly - 8 were suspended for 90 days
designated to issue writ of certiorari. - DECS Sec. Carino dismissed 1 teacher and
- The extent to which an admin agency may suspended 3 more
exercise such powers depends largely on - Case appealed to CHR
statute provisions (not implied) - CHR has no power to try, decide, and
- Here, DARAB adopted its Rules of determine cases such as the alleged
Procedure where it delegated to RARAD human rights violation involving civil
and PARAD the authority to hear, and political rights.
determine, adjudicate all agra cases + - It has no judicial power. It can only
disputes. investigate all forms of human rights
violation involving civil and political rights
Bautista v. CA (Aloña) but it cannot and should not try and decide
- Bautista issued check to Alona, was on the merits and matters involved therein.
dishonored due to insufficient funds The CHR is hence then barred from
- Alona filed complaint with city prosec of proceeding with trial.
cavite -> latter ruled in favor of Alona.
- Bautista filed w/ ORSP pet. For review -> Lastimosa v. Vasquez
denied - Dayon filed rape case against Mayor
- Bautista filed w/ CA pet. For review of Illustrisimo in Ombudsman
ORSP’s resolution -> denied - O directed Mayor to be charged w/ rape
- Prosecutor conducting preliminary - case referred to prosecutor Lastimosa
investigation is not performing a quasi- - L conducted prelim investigation -> found
judicial function only acts of lasciviousness.
- OP not a QJ body, its decisions approving - L then filed an info for the said crime against
the filing of a criminal complaint not mayor w/ MTC of Santa Fe
appealable to CA under Rule 43. - As no rape case has been filed by Prosec
- Prosecutor in a prelim, does not determine office, Deputy ombudsman ordered L to
the guilt/innocence of accused – merely explain why he refused to obey order of O
inquisitorial - L was filed w/ admin. Complaint for grave
misconduct + maliciously refraining from
Sabio v. Gordon prosecuting a crime
- Miriam Defensor introduced Senate Res. - Ombudsman has authority to file admin
455 directing an inquiry in aid of legislation case against Lastimosa and suspend
on the anomalous losses incurred by POTC, him
PHILCOMSAT - When a prosecutor is deputized, he comes
- Gordon then wrote Sabio of PCGG inviting under the supervision and control of the
him to be one of the resource persons in the Ombudsman which means he is subject to
meeting -> declined, and invoked EO No. 1 the power of the Ombudsman to direct,
“no member of Commission shall be review, approve, reverse or modify his
required to testify / produce evid in any (prosecutor) decision.
judicial, legis, admin proceeding”
- Gordon threatened Sabio to be cited with Ilocos Sur Electric Cooperative v. NLRC
contempt - ISECO dismissed Engr. Sabio when he
- EO No. 1 is unconstitutional on the questioned expenses incurred by acting
ground that it tramples upon the gen. manager Bautista + excessive leaves
Senate’s power to conduct legislative - Sabio filed illegal suspension before LA
inquiry under Art. 6, Sec. 21 of consti - He was then dismissed -> filed illegal
- “the power of inquiry is co-extensive with dismissal before NLRC
the power to legislate.” - ISECO filed petition questioning NLRC’s
- The State adopts and implements a policy jurisdiction
of full public disclosure of all its transactions - NLRC has jurisdiction over cases
involving public interest. involving ISECO’s employees
- PD 269 not appropriate; it pertains to
Carino v. CHR National Electric Admin’s power to control
- 800 public school teachers did not attend electric cooperatives -> doesn’t say NEA
work + staged rallies
has power to hear and decide cases of - LA granted MTD -> NLRC reversed -> CA
employees in electric cooperatives. affirmed
- Dismissal arose frm purely labor disputes - Labor tribunals had jurisdiction over the
which falls within LA and NLRC’s jurisdiction case
- That the contract of Basso was replete w/
Syqia v. BPWW references to US laws do not preclude our
- BPWW + Ruiz, filed complaints against labor tribunals from exercising jurisdiction
Syqia for selling electricity w/o permit. - Art. 217 clearly vests original and exlcusive
- Syqia asserts BPWW has no right to involve jurisdiction to hear cases involving
themselves w/ contractual obligations of termination disputes to the LA.
respondents as such was beyond their - Also, LA acquired jurisdiction over Basso
jurisdiction when he filed complaint against CMI, and
- BPWW has no jurisdiction over CMI was acquired through coercive process
complaints involving contractual of service of summons.
- PD No. 1 (amended by 458): jurisdiction, Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations and
supervision, control over electric light, National Labor Union Inc
power, waterworks utilities public service - Ang Tibay supplies PH Army with leather
formerly vested in Public Service Act were - Toribio (owner) claimed there was shortage
transferred to respondent board. of leather soles so temporarily laid off
- Since Syqia is not engaged in a public employees who were members of NLU
service, BPWW has no jurisdiction. - NLU alleges unfair labor practices
- Case brought to CIR then elevated to SC
Divinagracia v. CBSI which ruled in favor of Toribio
- CSB and PBS were granted legislative - CIR thru OSG filed MR while NLU filed MNT
franchises to operate broadcasting systems - New trial is needed due to failure to
- NTC issued Provisional Authorities allowing follow due process
them to install + operate AM and FM - CIR is more an admin board than a part of
stations throughout the integrated judicial system of the nation.
- Petitioner filed complaint w/ NTC alleging - Its functions are comprehensive and
that despite the law mandating the public extensive -> not constrained by technical
offering of at least 30% of common stocks rules
of respondents, both failed to do so - BUT must comply w/ procedural due
- NTC dismissed complaints, positing that process (right to hearing, etc)
even if it had jurisdiction to revoke the PA
for violations, it refrained from exercising it Anillo v. COSLAP
- NTC does not have power to revoke - COSLAP commissioner was asked to settle
Provisional Authorities or CPC for a land dispute in Cavite (squatters resided
infractions of terms and conditions in Green Valley by virtue of Estate of
- Doing so gives veto power to admin agency Rodriguez)
over the implementation of the law and - COSLAP -> subjected parties to mediation
enforcement. No such statute provides them conferences
that power - Only complainant submitted position paper
- Not under Public Service Commission’s - COSLAP in favor of complainant; Petitioner
jurisdiction except as to rate-fixing, and C’s appealed to CA via Rule 45 to nullify
authority to impose fines did not carry over COSLAP decision
to NTC - COSLAP has jurisdiction over the case
- 1) Petitioners wrong to have brought the
Continental Micronesia v. Joseph Basso case to SC – hierarchy of courts
- Continental Airlines offered Basso position - 2) complied w/ due process -> petitioners
of gen manager of PH branch -> accepted. given notices thru mail + directed them to
- When CMI took over PH operations, Basso appear
was eventually terminated -> filed complaint - 3) CA’s resolution -> res judicata.
for illegal dismissal w/ NLRC
- CMI filed MTD for lack of jurisdiction OTG of Corona v. United Harbour Pilots
presence of foreign elements
- PPA violated respondent’s right to - Reyes is credit and collection manager and
exercise profession and right to due operations coordinator of Marsman
process in issuing PPA-AO 04-92, - Marsman suspended him for
limiting the term of appointment of misappropriation of funds
harbor pilots to 1 year subject to yearly - Reyes filed illegal dismissal with NLRC
renewal/cancellation - Found innocent -> Respondent appealed to
- SC: 2 conditions must concur: 1) there is Office of President and reversed decision
deprivation, 2) such is done w/o proper - Pres. did not act GADLEJ in conducting
observance of due process. new hearings on appeal
- Also, GR: notice and hearing, as the - Reyes’ participation estopped him from
fundamental requirements of procedural complaining
due process, are essential only when an - SG: “no law which prohibits OP from
administrative body exercises its quasi- conducting new additional hearings in an
judicial function. In the performance of its appealed case” … the office “is by itself an
executive or legislative functions, such as administrative body and is possessed w/
issuing rules and regulations, an fact-finding prerogative”
administrative body need not comply with
the requirements of notice and hearing. San Luis v. CA
- However, their license is granted in the form - San Luis issued Office Order 72 transferring
of an appointment w/c allows them to Berroya to office of Provincial Engineer.
engage in pilotage until 70 yrs old - B challenged this, but CSC ruled that the
- Here, PPA-AO restricts pilots’ right to enjoy order stands -> didn’t follow -> suspended
their profession before their compulsory by San Luis
retirement. - CSC ruled suspension illegal -> San Luis
appealed to Office of Pres.
Montoya v. Varilla - OP reversed CSC, then changed again to
- Montoya member of PNP -> he was original decision
dropped from the rolls due to failure to - Final orders of OP and CSC has force
attend enhancement course and is binding
- Also AWOL for 67 days -> CSC dismissed - Decisions of admin agencies pursuant to
him quasi-judicial authority -> binding within the
- Montoya’s right to due process was purview of res judicata
- 1) no due notice -> unable to attend Alvarez v. People
hearing, present arguments, submit - Alvarez, mayor of Munoz, Nueva Ecija,
evidence. invited Australian-Professional Inc (API) to
construct Wag-wag shopping mall ->
Ynot v. IAC approved under BOT arrangement
- Ynot caught transporting 6 carabaos -> - But no mall was constructed as API stopped
charged w/ violation of EO 626-A. work after a few months.
- Ynot claimed EO was unconstitutional + - Petitioner charged before Sandiganbayan
violated his right to due process for violation of Sec.3 RA 3019 (Anti-Graft &
- “no carabao shall be transported to another Corrupt Practices Act) for giving
province – failure to follow this rule = unwarranted benefits
confiscate and distribute to charitable - Petitioner liable for violating RA 3019
institutions as Chairman of Natl Meat - Prosecution successfully demonstrated that
Inspection Commission may see fit” Alvarez acted with manifest partiality and
- The manner of disposition of the gross inexcusable negligence
confiscated property in the EO is not - Sandiganbayan convicted him after finding
valid that: (1) petitioner railroaded the project; (2)
- “May seem fit” is extremely generous and there was no competitive bidding; (3) the
dangerous – loaded w/ hazardous contractor was totally unqualified to
opportunities for bias, abuse, corruption undertake the project; and (4) the provisions
- oppressive, not necessary of the BOT law and relevant rules and
regulations were disregarded and not
Reyes v. Zamora followed.