Lianga Bay vs Enage and Ago Timber Corp.
Dario vs Mison
Facts: ​Both parties in this case are companies connected to the
timber industry. They shared a common boundary along
Agusan-Surigao Province. Due to reports of encroachment by both
parties, the Director of Forestry ordered a survey to establish on the
ground the common boundary. It was ruled that the claim of
Respondent was far different in alignment with what was indicated
in their records. That to follow the claim of Respondent, would
increase its area from 9,000 to 12,000. When Respondent appealed
the case to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources he
set aside the decision of the Director of Forestry and ruled in favor
of Respondent. Petitioner then filed a motion of reconsideration with
the Office of the President which was granted. Respondent then
filed an action against Petitioner for the Determination of Correct
Boundary Line of License Timber Areas and Damages with
Preliminary Injunction and insisting that a judicial review is
necessary to determine the correct boundary. Petitioner then
contends that the Director of Forestry has the exclusive jurisdiction
to determine the common boundary.
Issue: ​W/N the Director of Forestry has exclusive jurisdiction to
determine the common boundary
Ruling: ​Yes it has exclusive jurisdiction. A doctrine long recognized
is that when the law confines in an administrative office the power
to determine particular questions, the jurisdiction of such office shall
prevail over the courts. The general rule is that decisions of
administrative officers shall not be disturbed by the courts except
when the former has acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion since they are experts in the field.
Here, there being no grave abuse of discretion, the decision of the
Director of Forestry must be respected.
Facts: ​Corazon Aquino promulgated Proclamation No.3 which
reorganized the government to promote economy, efficiency and
the eradication of graft and corruption. Any public officer separated
from the service as a result of the reorganization shall be entitled to
receive the retirement and other benefits accruing thereunder, if he
is entitled to such. More proclamations were passed which
reorganized the Ministry of Finance and the Bureau of Customs.
Mison was among those who were to be terminated in the Bureau
of Customs. Hence Dario filed a petition for reinstatement
contending that public officials enjoyed security of tenure under the
1987 Constitution. Mison on the other hand contends that Sec. 16,
Article XVIII allows reorganization of the Bureau of Customs under
EO 127 to continue even after the ratification of the 1987
Constitution. Hence there was no violation of security of tenure.
Meanwhile while the case was pending, the CSC ordered
reinstatement of Dario.
Issue: ​W/N Dario has the right to security of tenure
Ruling: ​Yes he has the right. It was held that EO 127 does not
allow the separation of Dario from office despite his right to security
of tenure. The Court maintained that when the reorganization
occurred there can be no dismissal since there is no office to be
separated from. However for reorganization to be valid it must be
done in good faith, which means that it must be done for efficiency
of both the economy and bureaucracy. Here, there is no show of
good faith since personnel were merely reduced. There was no
showing that it was done for economic or redundancy functions.
Thus since the dismissal was not done in good faith, there is no
valid reorganization.