SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR.

y ASUELA, Petitioner,

vs.

HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 226679 August 15, 2017

TOPIC: Section 23 of RA 9165, rule-making power of Supreme Court, equal

protection clause

PONENTE: Peralta

FACTS:

Petitioner Estipona, Jr. was charged with violation of Section 11 of RA 9165.

On June 15, 2016, Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea
Bargaining Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty plea and, instead, to enter
a plea of guilty for violation of Section 12 (NOTE: should have been Section 15?) of
the same law, with a penalty of rehabilitation in view of his being a first-time
offender and the minimal quantity of the dangerous drug seized in his possession.

Petitioner argues that Section 23 of RA 9165 which prohibits plea bargaining in all
violations of said law violates:

1. The intent of the law expressed in paragraph 3, Section 2 thereof;

2. The rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of
the 1987 Constitution; and
3. The principle of separation of powers among the three equal branches of the
government.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional as it encroached upon the

power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure.

HELD:

FIRST ISSUE: YES

The Supreme Court held that the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and
procedure is now Their exclusive domain and no longer shared with the Executive
and Legislative departments.

The Court further held that the separation of powers among the three co-equal
branches of our government has erected an impregnable wall that keeps the power to
 promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province of this
Court. The other branches trespass upon this prerogative if they enact laws or issue
orders that effectively repeal, alter or modify any of the procedural rules promulgated
by the Court.

Viewed from this perspective, the Court had rejected previous attempts on the part of
the Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power, to amend the Rules of Court
(Rules), to wit:

1. Fabian v. Desierto -Appeal from the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in
an administrative disciplinary case should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the
provisions of Rule 43 of the Rules instead of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 as
provided in Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770.
2. Cathay Metal Corporation v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative,
Inc. – The Cooperative Code provisions on notices cannot replace the rules on
summons under Rule 14 of the Rules.
3. RE: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the GSIS from Payment
of Legal Fees; Baguio Market Vendors
MultiPurpose Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO) v. Hon. Judge Cabato-
Cortes; In Re: Exemption of the National Power Corporation from
Payment of Filing/Docket Fees; and Rep. of the Phils. v. Hon. Mangotara,
et al. – Despite statutory provisions, the GSIS, BAMARVEMPCO, and NPC are not
exempt from the payment of legal fees imposed by Rule 141 of the Rules.
4. Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division) – The first paragraph of
Section 14 of R.A. No. 6770, which prohibits courts except the Supreme Court from
issuing temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin
an investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, is unconstitutional as it contravenes
Rule 58 of the Rules.

Considering that the aforesaid laws effectively modified the Rules, this Court
asserted its discretion to amend, repeal or even establish new rules of procedure, to
the exclusion of the legislative and executive branches of government. To reiterate,
the Court’s authority to promulgate rules on pleading, practice, and procedure is
exclusive and one of the safeguards of Our institutional independence.
 G.R. No. L-46496 February 27, 1940

ANG TIBAY, represented by TORIBIO TEODORO, manager and propietor,

and NATIONAL WORKERS BROTHERHOOD, petitioners,
vs.

THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL LABOR

UNION, INC., respondents
Facts:
The Solicitor General in behalf of the respondent Court of Industrial
Relations has filed a motion for reconsideration wherein the court has
considered the legal conclusions stated in Spanish language.

The respondent National Labor Union, Inc., on the other hand, prays for the
vacation of the judgment of the majority of this court and remanded the
case to the Court of Industrial Relations for new trial averring among other
issues that Toribio Teodoro claimed that there was shortage of Ang Tibay
leather shoes thus it made him necessary to lay off the members of the
National Labor Union, Inc.

That the supposed lack of leather materials claimed by Toribio Teodoro

was but a scheme to systematically prevent the forfeiture of this bond
despite the breach of his contract with the Philippine Army.

That the employer Toribio Teodoro was guilty of unfair labor practice for
discriminating against the National Labor Union, Inc. and unjustly favoring
the National Workers’ Brotherhood.

Issue:
Whether or not the issues should be properly directed, resolved or
determined by the Court of Industrial Relation.

Held:
Yes, The CIR is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in
the law of its creation. It is more an administrative than part of the
integrated judicial system of the nation. It is not intended to be a more
receptive organ of the Government.

The CIR or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not
simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.

The CIR should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a
manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues
involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered. The performance of
this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.

Accordingly, the motion for new trial should be and the same is hereby
granted, and the entire record of this case shall be remanded to the CIR
with instruction that it reopen the case, receive all such evidence as may be
relevant and otherwise proceed in accordance w/ the requirements set forth
herein above.