I. De Rama vs.

Court of Appeals

Facts:

- Petitioner CLR wrote a letter seeking the recall of appointments of 14 municipal employees who
were allegedly midnight appointments of the former Mayor Abeja. While the matter was pending Commented [I1]: Article VII Section 15 of 1987 Constitution
in the CSC, 3 of the recalled municipal employees filed with the CSC claim for payment of
salaries alleging that their appointments were declared permanent, since their salaries were
withheld pursuant to Office Order No. 95-01.
- CSC issued an Order in favor of the municipal employees’ claim of salaries ruling that they
cannot be deprived of such salaries due to the unilateral act of the newly assumed mayor. CSC
denied petitioners’ request of recall due to lack of merits stating that there were no midnight
appointment, and it opined that such provision only covers appointments made by the president
and not by local elective officials.
- Petitioners moved for reconsideration averring that the CSC was without jurisdiction to:
a. Refuse or revoke the subject appointments; and
b. Uphold the validity of said appointments, even assuming that there was failure to present
evidence that such appointments contravened existing laws.
He also added that CSC erred in finding the appointments valid despite circumstances showing
same were fraudulently issued.
- CSC denied the motion due to lack of evidence, and the said appointments were approved by the
Head, Civil Service Field Office, Lucena City when submitted for attestation.
- Petitioner filed a petition for review before the CA alleging that the CA erred in its decision after
it ignored his supplement to the consolidated appeal and MR wherein he laid out the evidences.
- CA denied the petition due to lack or merits

Issues:

WON CA gravely and seriously erred

Held:

NO. Supplemental Pleadings must be:

1. With reasonable notice, and is DISCRETIONARY upon the court or tribunal to allow the same or
not;
2. State transactions which took place SINCE the pleading sought to be supplemented was filed. In
the instant case, petitioner alleged fraud and irregularities are not new events and should have
been raised at the very first opportunity.

In addition, question of facts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. To consider the alleged facts
and arguments raised BELATEDLY would in the supplemental pleading to the appeal at this very late
stage of proceeding would tantamount to trampling the basic principles of fair play, justice, and due
process.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in RULE 45 in RROC is limited only to reviewing only errors of LAW,
not of fact, unless the factual findings assailed by petitioners are devoid of support by the evidence on the
record or the impugned judgment based on misapprehension of facts.

It is held that UPON the issuance of appointment, he acquires legal right which cannot be taken by
revocation of appointment or by removal EXCEPT for cause and previous notice and hearing. In addition,
midnight appointment is not one of the grounds provided by Rule V Sec. 9 of Omnibus Implementing
Regulations of Revised Administrative Code when an appointment may be called.

II. Rizal Empire Insurance Group vs. NLRC

Facts:

Private Respondent Rogelio Coria is an employee of the petitioner, and is subsequently dismissed on the
grounds of tardiness and unexcused absences. The former files a complaint with MOLE and is reinstated.
Petitioner filed an appeal with NLRC yet it was dismissed since the same was filed out of time.

Issue: WON the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
arbitrarily dismissing petitioner’s appeal on technicality?

Held:

No. The Revised Rules of NLRC are clear and explicit and leave no room for interpretation. It is upheld
that administrative regulations and policies of administrative bodies have the force of law and are entitled
to great respect.

III. Lokin Jr. vs. COMELEC

Election Protest Quo Warranto

Proposes to oust the winning candidate from office, A special civil action which refers to questions of
and it strictly a contest between the defeated and disloyalty to the state, or ineligibility of the
winning candidates based on the grounds of winning candidate. The objective is to unseat the
electoral frauds and irregularities to determine who ineligible person from office, BUT not to install the
between them has actually obtained the majority of petitioner in his place. ANY voter may initiate the
the legal votes cast and is entitled to hold office. action
It can ONLY be filed by a candidate who has duly
filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted
for in the preceding elections.
- Certiorari and not election protest or quo warranto, is the proper recourse to review a COMELEC
resolution approving the withdrawal of nomination of its original nominees and substituting them
with others, even if the substitute nominees have already been proclaimed and have taken their
oath of office.
- In determining Forum shopping, it is important to consider the vexation caused to the courts and
the litigants by a party who accessed different courts and administrative agencies to rule on the
same or related causes or to grant the same or substantially the same reliefs, in the process
creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by different for a upon the same
issues.
 - Mere filing of several cases based on same incident does not necessarily constitute forum
shopping; the test is whether the several actions filed involve the same transactions and same
essential facts and circumstances.
- The Legislature CANNOT surrender or abdicate its legislative powers. Under certain
circumstances, the legislature can delegate to executive officers and administrative bodies the
authority to adopt and promulgate IRR, but the legislature MUST declare the policy of the law
and fix the legal principles that are to control in given cases.
- It is axiomatic that the clear letter of law is controlling and cannot be amended by a mere
administrative rule issued for its implementation. The power of administrative agencies is
confined to implementing the law or putting it into effect.
- Requisites for a valid IRR
o Promulgation must be Authorized by the legislature
o It must be within the Scope of the authority given by the legislature
o It must be promulgated in Accordance with the prescribed procedure
o It must be Reasonable
- The Legislature deprived the party-list organization of the right to change its NOMINEES or to
ALTER the ORDER of nominees once the list is SUBMITTED to COMELEC to prohibit
circumvention of the voters’ demand for transparency, except when the nominee
o Dies
o Withdraws in writing his nomination
o Becomes incapacitated

Facts:

Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) submitted 5 nominees including the herein petitioner as
representative, and such were later published in two newspaper of general circulation. However, prior the
elections, CIBAC filed a certificate amending the list of nominees, whereby it withdrew the nominations
of 3 nominees including the herein petitioner.

On June 26, 2007, CIBAC through its counsel filed with the COMELEC the right of CIBAC to a second
seat and right of LOKIN to be proclaimed as its second nominee. This was opposed by Villanueva and
Cruz-Gozales, thus the former filed a petition to confirm the certificate of nomination, substitution and
amendment of the list of nominees since the COMELEC failed to act upon the matter despite the
submission of the petition of 81% of CIBAC members.

COMELEC issued several resolutions:

- 8219- to set the matter pertaining to validity of withdrawal of the nominations

- 07-60 partial proclamation of parties participating under Party-List System as having won
- 07-72 additional seats granted to the Party Lists

With the declaration that CIBAC is entitled to additional seat, De Los Santos requested that Lokin be
formally sworn for the latter to assume office, yet it was denied due to the pending case (which resolved
the withdrawal of Tokin and other 2 nominees and granted new order of nominees)
COMELEC opined that the actions of Villanueva as president of CIBAC were presumed to be within the
scope of his authority which includes the act of submitting the party’s manifestation of intent to
participate in 2007 elections as well as its certificate of nominees.

Lokin seeks through mandamus to compel the COMELEC to proclaim him as the official second
Nominee of CIBA. The latter asserts that Certiorai is an inappropriate recourse, and that it should be an
Electoral Protest filed at HRET. CIBAC posits that Lokin is guilty of Forum Shopping for filing petition
for mandamus and certiorari, considering that both petitions ultimately seek to have him proclaimed as
second nominee of CIBAC.

Issues:

1. WON the Court has Jurisdiction over the controversy

2. WON Lokin is guilty of Forum Shopping
3. WON Sec 13 of RN 7804 is unconstitutional
4. WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion

Held:

1. Lokin has correctly brought the special civil action for certiorari. The constitutional mandate is
now implemented by the Rule 64 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for the
review of judgments, final orders, or resolutions of the COMELEC and COA
2. Petitioner is NOT guilty of Forum Shopping. Lokin filed the petition for mandamus to compel the
COMELEC to proclaim him as second nominee and to strike down the provision of 7-60 and 7-
72 holding in abeyance. Wherein he insisted that the COMELEC had the ministerial duty to
proclaim him due to his being second nominee and that the COMELEC had no authority to
exercise Discretion and to suspend the proclamation of winning party-list with pending disputes.
The petition for certiorari was to assail the COMELEC’s approval of the withdrawal of
nomination and to challenge the validity of Sec. 13 of RN 7804
3. It is unconstitutional. Pursuant to Section 8 of RA No 7941, the legislature deprived the party-list
organization to change its nominees or to alter the order of nominees once the list is submitted to
COMELEC. The exceptions in Sec. 8 are exclusive, thus not even the courts may add by
implication, and it is a rule that an express exception excludes all, although it is always proper in
determining the applicability of the rule to inquire whether, in a particular case, it accords with
reason and justice.
4. COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in expanding to four the three statutory grounds for
substituting a nominee. The IRRs issued should always accord with the law implemented, and
should not override, supplant, or modify the law. The COMELEC did not merely reword or
rephrased the provision since it established an entirely new ground not found in the text of the
original provision. In case of conflict between IRR and Law, the latter shall prevail.
 IV. Victorias Milling Company vs. SSC
- Distinction between administrative rule (creation of rules with the force and effect of valid law)
and administrative interpretation of law (merely interprets a pre-existing law)
- An administrative rule is binding on the courts so long as the procedures fixed for its
promulgation is followed, and its scope is within the statutory authority granted by the legislature,
even if the courts are not in agreement with the policy stated therein. While Administrative
Interpretation of law is merely advisory, and it is the court that FINALLY determines what the
law mean.
- Circular No. 22 of SSC is merely an advisory opinion and need not to be approved by the
president.
- When a term is specifically defined in a statute, such interpretation must be adopted in enforcing
that particular law, for it cannot be gainsaid that a particular phrase or term may have one
meaning for one purpose and another meaning for some other purpose.

Facts:

Petitioner wrote a protest against the SSC with circular No. 22 which runs contrary to Circular no. 8. In
addition, the petitioner questioned the validity of the circular for lack of authority on the part of SSC to
promulgate due to the absence of the President’s approval and lack of Publication in the Official Gazette.

In response, SSC opined that Circular No. 22 is not a rule or regulation, but a mere administrative
interpretation of the statue, a mere statement of general policy or opinion as to how the law should be
construed

Issue:

WON the Circular No. 22 is an administrative regulation

Held:

No. It was issued to apprise those concerned of the interpretation or understanding of the commission, of
the law as amended, which it was its duty to enforce. It did not add any duty or detail that was not already
in the law as amended. It merely stated and circularized the opinion of the Commission as to how the law
should be construed.

V. Francisco Abella vs CSC

- Permanent appointment is issued to a person who has met the requirements of the position to
which the appointment is made in accordance with the provision of law, the rules and the
standards promulgated pursuant thereto.
- The selection of the appointee- taking into account the totality of his qualifications, including
those abstract qualities that define his personality- is the prerogative of the appointing authority.
No tribunal may compel an appointment of a favored person.
- Real party in Interest is one who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, or one entitled to
the avails of the suit. As a general rule, one who has no right or interest to protect cannot invoke
the jurisdiction of the court as party-plaintiff in an action.
 - Appointee is rightly a real party in interest since he was injured by CSC’s disapproval and is
prevented to assume office in a permanent capacity
- The Constitution mandates that as “the central personnel agency of the government”, the CSC
should establish a career service and adopt measures to promote the morale, efficiency, integrity,
responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the Civil Services.
- One cannot claim security of tenure if one held no tenure, which pertains to the rank, not to the
position to which the employee MAY be appointed, prior to appointment.
- The classification of position in the Career Service is quasi-legislative which is exercised by
administrative agencies through the promulgation of rules and regulation of within the confines of
the granting statues and doctrine of non-delegation of certain powers flowing from the separation
of the branches of Government. As a general rule, Prior notice and hearing are NOT essential to
validity of the rules promulgated to govern FUTURE conduct, since there is no determination of
past events or facts that have to be established or ascertained.

Facts:

Petitioner was hired by SBMA on contractual basis. Subsequently, the latter issued to the former a
permanent employment as Director III, however it was disapproved on the ground that petitioner’s
eligibility is inappropriate. Abella appealed the disapproval to the CSC, however it was denied thus led
him to file a petition for review seeking the reversal of CSC resolution alleging that such was
unconstitutional.

CA opined that the ONLY the appointing officer may request reconsideration of the action taken by the
CSC on appointments. In addition, it resolved that constitutional question should not be passed upon if
there are other grounds upon the case may be decided.

Issues:

- WON the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion

o In ruling that the petitioner lacks personality to question the disapproval of the
petitioner’s appointment
o Petitioner is not a real Party in Interest
o Dismissing the petitioner’s appeal on mere technicality in his questioning of the
constitutionality of memorandum issued

Held:

1. Who may file reconsideration or appeal

Appointing officer and the CSC (determines whether the appointee possesses the appropriate civil service
eligibility) acting consecutively make an appointment complete. CSC disapproval is a challenge to the
exercise of the appointing authority’s discretion.

Appointee’s Legal Standing to challenge the CSC Disapproval

Legal standing is granted to challenge the constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act
despite the lack of personal injury. Although petitioner had no vested right to the position, it was his
eligibility that was questioned, thus he should be granted the opportunity to prove his eligibility.

- Appointee is a Real Party in Interest and is allowed Procedural Relief

2. Constitutionality of Sec. 4 CSC Memorandum Circular 21

The challenged circular protects the right of the incumbents as long as they remain in the positions to
which they were previously appointed. There is no basis to argue that it is an ex post facto law.

3. Disapproval of Appointment

Since petitioner had no CES eligibility, CSC correctly denied his permanent appointment.

VI. Republic vs. Lacap

- Doctrine of Exhaustion of administrative remedies: Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction

The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from
them and submitted to a court without first giving such administrative agency the opportunity to dispose
of the same after due deliberation. These doctrines are based on sound public policy and practical
considerations.

- Whether a contractor with an expired license at the time of the execution of its contract is entitled
to be paid for the completed projects is a question of law. A question of law could be resolved
ONLY TENTATIVELY by the administrative authorities. Exhaustion of administrative remedies
DOES NOT apply where nothing of administrative nature is to be or can be done, such as where
the issue DOES NOT require technical knowledge and experience but one that would involve the
interpretation and application of law. Question of law is when the doubt or difference arises as to
what the law is on certain state of facts, and not as to the truth or the falsehood of the alleged
facts.
- Verba Legis or “plain meaning rule”- if the statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must
be given its literal meaning and applied WITHOUT interpretation. “index animi sermo est”
(speech is the index of intention) rests on the valid presumption that the words employed by the
legislature in a statute correctly express its intention or will and preclude the court from
construing it differently.
- Article 22 of the Civil Code Nemo ex alterius incommode debet lecupletarti (No man ought to be
made rich out of another’s injury)

Facts:

The respondent is the contractor who completed project of the DPWH, however the final payment to the
former was withheld after the disapproval of COA due to the expiration of the contractor’s license at the
time of the execution of the contract. DPWH legal Department opined that though the expiry of license,
the Contractor’s License Law does not provide that such contract is void, thus recommended the final
payment to the respondent.
 The Respondent filed complaint for specific performance and Damages against petitioner before RTC,
which was subsequently moved by the petitioner for Dismissal on the grounds of lack of cause of action
and that the RTC has no jurisdiction.

RTC held that petitioner must be required to pay the contract price since it has accepted the completed
project and enjoyed the benefits thereof pursuant to the long standing and consistent pronouncement
against enriching oneself at the expense of other.

CA held that issue involved is purely a legal question, thus the exhaustion of administrative remedies
does not apply.

Issues:

WON the CA erred in finding that the respondent has cause of action against the petitioner considering
that:

a. Respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies

b. COA has the primary jurisdiction to resolve respondent money claim against Gov’t

Held:

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and doctrine of primary jurisdiction are flexible
rules, since the issue involved is purely a question of law, it is one of the exceptions why these doctrines
does not apply.

In addition, the wordings of RA No. 4566 are clear; it does not declare contracts entered by contractor
with expired license as void; however such contractor is liable for payment of fine prescribed therein.

VII. Maglalang vs. PAGCOR

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies- premature invocation of the intervention is FATAL

to one’s cause of action.

A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 lies ONLY when there is no appeal, or plain, speedy
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In addition, it is ONLY valid:

1. When the question involved is an error of jurisdiction

2. There is Grave abuse of Discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the
court or tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions.

Held:

The instant case distinguished appeal from certiorari and it remanded to the Court of Appeals for further
proceedings.
 VIII. UP vs Dizon
- UP is a government instrumentality, performing State’s constitutional mandate of performing the
State’s constitutional mandate of promoting quality and accessible education.
- Trust fund- a fund officially comes in the possession of an agency of the government or of a
public officer as a trustee, agent or administrator, or that is received for the fulfillment of some
obligation.
- No money shall be paid out of treasury except in pursuance in appropriation made by law
- Immutability of final judgment- a decision that has attained finality becomes immutable, and
cannot be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact and law, and whether the modification is made by the court that rendered it or
by the highest court of land. EXCEPTIONS:
o Correction of clerical errors
o Nunc pro tunc entries that causes no prejudice to any party
o Void judgments
o Whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision render its execution
unjust and inequitable.
- Where a party has appeared by counsel, service must be made upon such counsel.
- There are no vested rights in rules of procedure. A law is procedural when it prescribes rules and
forms of procedure in order that the courts may be able to administer justice.
IX. NEA vs. Villanueva
- Exhaustion of administrative remedies, non-observance leads to lack of cause of action leading to
the dismissal of the complaint
- If no action is taken of thee judge on the application for preliminary injunction within 20 days,
the TRO would automatically expire on the 20th day by the SHEER force of law, no judicial
declaration to that effect being necessary and the courts having no discretion to extend the same;
the rule against non-extendibility of 20 days limited period of effectivity of a TRO is
ABSOLUTE if issued by a RTC.

Held:

- The defendant failed to exhaust the administrative remedy by appealing the challenged order of
the NEA to the Office of the President, which exercises the power of supervision over it.
- To qualify as Board Of Director, one of the qualifications is that he must not hold elective office
in the government nor appointed to an elective position ABOVE the level of a barangay Captain.
- The purpose of disqualification is to prevent the incumbents of elective offices from exerting
political influence and pressure on the management of the affairs of the cooperative.
X. General Milling Corp vs. Spouses Ramos
- The Court of Appeals has a broad discretionary power in waiving the lack of assignment of
errors:
a. Grounds not assigned as errors but affecting the jurisdiction of the court over the subject
matter;
b. Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently pain or clerical error within the
contemplation of law;
c. Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at
a just decision and complete resolution of the case
 d. Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record
having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the
lower court ignored;
e. Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned
f. Matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question
properly assigned is dependent.
- Requisites of Default
a. Obligation is demandable and liquidated
b. Debtor delays performance, AND
c. Creditor judicially or extra judicially requires the debtor’s performance
- Foreclosure is valid only when the Debtor is in default in the payment of his obligation.

Question of Law Question of Fact

Resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the Involves the examination of the probative value of
law provides on the given set of circumstances. the evidence presented by the litigants or any of
them.

XI. Ynot vs. IAC

- Lower courts have the authority to resolve the issue of constitutionality of legislative measures
- The ban on transportation of carabaos from one province to another, their confiscation and
disposal without prior court hearing is violative of due process for lack or REASONABLE
connection between the means employed and the purpose to be achieved and for being
confiscatory.
- “may see fit” is an extremely generous and dangerous condition; it is laden with perilous
opportunities for partiality, abuse and even corruption.
- The challenged measure is an invalid exercise of police power since the method employed is not
reasonably necessary to the purpose of law and is unduly oppressive. In addition, due process is
violated since the owner of the property confiscated is denied he right to be heard in is defense
and immediately condemned and punished.
- Omission of right to a prior hearing can be justified ONLY where a problem needs immediate and
urgent correction.
- Police officer who confiscated such carabaos are not liable despite the declaration of the
unconstitutionality of EO 626-A
XII. Universal Robina Corp. vs. Laguna Lake Development Authority
- Courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their
responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. It entails lesser
expenses and provides for the speedier resolution of controversies