Syquia vs.

Board of Power and Water Works

74 SCRA 212

Facts:

Ruiz, Enriquez and Moses filed three (3) separate complaints with Board of Power and Waterworks
charging Syquia as administrator of the South Syquia Apartments with the offense of selling electricity
without permit and franchise and alleging that Syquia billed them for their electricity consumption in
excess in the MERALCO rates. In her answer, Syquia questioned the jurisdiction of the Board, saying that
she is not engaged in the sale of the electric power but merely passes to the apartments tenants as the
end-users their legitimate electric current bills in accordance with their lease contracts.

Issue: Whether or not the Board Power and Waterworks has Jurisdiction over the said case.

Held:

Respondent Board as a regulatory board manifestly exceeded its jurisdiction in taking cognizance of and
adjudicating the complaints filed by the respondents against petitioner. Respondent Board acquired no
jurisdiction over petitioner’s contractual relations with respondents-complainants as her tenants, since
petitioner is not engaged in a public service nor in the sale of electricity without permit or franchise.
Respondents’ complaints against being charged the additional cost of electricity for common facilities
used by the tenants give rise to a question that is purely civil in character that is to be adjudged under
the applicable provision of the Civil Code and not by the respondent regulatory board which has no
jurisdiction but by the regular courts of general jurisdiction. Respondent board in resolving the
complaints against the petitioner and requiring her to absorb the additional rising cost of electricity
consumed for the common areas and elevator service even at a resultant loss of fifteen thousand
(15,000.00) a year arrogated the judicial function. Its orders were beyond its jurisdiction and must be set
aside as null and void.
GLOBE Wireless Ltd. vs. Public Service Commission

147 SCRA 269

Facts:

Private Respondent Antonio B. Arnaiz addressed a message to Maria Diaz in Madrid, Spain filed with the
Telegraph Office of the Bureau of Telecommunication which was forwarded to petitioner Globe Wireless
Ltd. for the transmission thereto. Petitioner sent it to American Cable and Radio Corporation in New
York which in turn transmitted to Empresa Nacional de Telecommunicaciones in Madrid. However, the
latter mislaid the message resulting to its non-delivery. Private Respondent sent to the Public Service
Commissioner, Enrique Medina an unverified letter-complaint relating the incident. Petitioner
questioned the PSC’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of the letter-complaint, even as it denied
liability for the non-delivery of the message to the addressee. PSC finds petitioner responsible for the
inadequate and unsatisfactory service complained which orders them to pay a fine amounting to
P200,000.00 and likewise required to refund to the remitter of the undelivered message.

Issue: Whether or not Public Service Commission has jurisdiction.

Held:

The Public Service Commission is hereby given jurisdiction over the grantee only with respect to the
rates which the grantee may charge the public subject to international commitments made or adhered
to by the Philippines under Section 5 of RA 4630. Jurisdiction and powers of administrative agencies
limited to those expressly granted or necessarily implied from those granted in the legislation creating
such body. Too basic in the administrative law to need citation of jurisprudence is the rule that the
jurisdiction and powers of administrative agencies, like respondent Commission, are limited to those
expressly granted or necessarily implied from those granted in the legislation creating such body, and
any order without or beyond such jurisdiction is void and ineffective.

Petition is granted. Order was set aside.

Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava

105 Phil. 173

FACTS:

A petition was filed by the petitioner for prohibition and injunction against Celedonio Agrava, in
his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office. On May 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a
circular announcing that he had scheduled for June 27, 1957 an examination for the purpose of
determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office. The
petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme Court
to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing, is duly qualified to practice before the
Philippines Patent Office and that the respondent Director’s holding an examination for the purpose is in
excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law. The respondent, in reply, maintains the
prosecution of patent cases “ does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the
application of scientific and technical knowledge and training as a matter of actual practice so as to
include engineers and other individuals who passed the examination can practice before the Patent
office. Furthermore, he stressed that for the long time he is holding tests, this is the first time that his
right has been questioned formally.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the
prosecution of patent application, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent
Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their
applications for patent, their opposition thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases.
Moreover, the practice before the patent Office involves the interpretation and application of other
laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of facts to be established in accordance with the law of
evidence and procedure. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court
but also embraces all other matters connected with the law and any work involving the determination
by the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions. Furthermore, the law provides that any
party may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final order or decision of the director. Thus, if the
transactions of business in the Patent Office involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific
knowledge and training, then logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body, but
rather to a board of scientists, engineers or technical men, which is not the case.
Political Case: JOSE L. GUEVARA vs. COMELEC G.R. No. L-12596 July 31, 1958

FACTS:

Guevara was ordered by the COMELEC to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for
having published in the newspaper an article which tended to interfere with and influence the COMELEC
awarding the contracts for the manufacture and supply of ballot boxes; and which article likewise
tended to degrade, bring into disrepute, and undermine the exclusive constitutional function of this
Commission and its Chairman

Petitioner, filed a motion to quash on the following ground that the Commission has no jurisdiction to
punish as contempt the publication of the alleged contemptuous article, as neither in the Constitution
nor in statutes is the Commission granted a power to so punish the same.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the COMELEC has the power and jurisdiction to conduct contempt proceedings against
Guevara in connection with the publication of an article.

RULING:

Although the negotiation conducted by the Commission has resulted in controversy between
several dealers, that however merely refers to a ministerial duty which the Commission has performed
in its administrative capacity. It only discharged a ministerial duty; it did not exercise any judicial
function. Such being the case, it could not exercise the power to punish for contempt as postulated in
the law, for such power is inherently judicial in nature. As this Court has aptly said: "The power to
punish for contempt is inherent in all courts; its existence is essential to the preservation of order in
judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of judgments, orders and mandates of courts, and,
consequently, in the administration of justice". We are therefore persuaded to conclude that the
Commission on Elections has no power nor authority to submit petitioner to contempt proceedings if its
purpose is to discipline him because of the publication of the article mentioned in the charge under
consideration.
Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relations

G.R. No. L-49496

FACTS:

This case involved a motion for new trial of the National Labor Union, Inc. The respondent
National Labor Union, Inc., prays for the vacation of the judgment rendered by the majority of the Court
and the remanding of the case to the Court of Industrial Relations for a new trial, and avers, among
others, that (1) Toribio Teodoro's claim that on September 26, 1938, there was shortage of leather soles
in ANG TIBAY making it necessary for him to temporarily lay off the members of the National Labor
Union Inc., is entirely false and unsupported by the records of the Bureau of Customs and the Books of
Accounts of native dealers in leather; (2) 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; (3) the National Worker's Brotherhood of ANG TIBAY is a company
or employer union dominated by Toribio Teodoro, the existence and functions of which are illegal; and
(4) the exhibits hereto attached are so inaccessible to the respondents that even with the exercise of
due diligence they could not be expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the Court of
Industrial Relations.

ISSUE: Whether or not the remanding of the case to the Court of Industrial Relations is granted.

HELD:

The Court ruled in the affirmative. The interest of justice would be better served if the movant is
given opportunity to present at the hearing the documents referred to in his motion and such other
evidence as may be relevant to the main issue involved. Thus, the failure to grasp the fundamental issue
involved is not entirely attributable to the parties adversely affected by the result. Accordingly, the
motion for a new trial should be and the same is hereby granted, and the entire record of this case shall
be remanded to the Court of Industrial Relations, with instruction that it reopen the case, receive all
such evidence as may be relevant and otherwise proceed in accordance with the requirements set forth.

There are primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character:

1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his
own case and submit evidence in support thereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. That of having something to support its decision;
4. The evidence must be substantial;
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained
in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
6. Judges 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; and

7. Should render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered.
Doctrine of Incorporation

G.R. No. L-139465 January 18, 2000

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, petitioner, vs.

HON. RALPH C. LANTION, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila

Facts:

This is a petition for review of a decision of the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC). The
Department of Justice received a request from the Department of Foreign Affairs for the extradition of
respondent Mark Jimenez to the U.S. The Grand Jury Indictment. The warrant for his arrest, and other
supporting documents for said extradition were attached along with the request.

Charges include:

Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the US

Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Fraud by wire, radio, or television
False statement or entries
Election contribution in name of another

The Department of Justice (DOJ), through a designated panel proceeded with the technical
evaluation and assessment of the extradition treaty which they found having matters needed to be
addressed. Respondent, then requested for copies of all the documents included in the extradition
request and for him to be given ample time to assess it. The Secretary of Justice denied request on the
following grounds:

He found it premature to secure him copies prior to the completion of the evaluation. At that
point in time, the DOJ is in the process of evaluating whether the procedures and requirements under
the relevant law (PD 1069 Philippine Extradition Law) and treaty (RP-US Extradition Treaty) have been
complied with by the Requesting Government. Evaluation by the DOJ of the documents is not a
preliminary investigation like in criminal cases making the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the
accused in criminal prosecution inapplicable.

The U.S. requested for the prevention of unauthorized disclosure of the information in the documents.

The department is not in position to hold in abeyance proceedings in connection with an extradition
request, as Philippines is bound to Vienna Convention on law of treaties such that every treaty in force is
binding upon the parties.

Mark Jimenez then filed a petition against the Secretary of Justice. RTC presiding Judge Lantion favored
Jimenez. Secretary of Justice was made to issue a copy of the requested papers, as well as conducting
further proceedings. Thus, this petition is now at bar.
Issue/s:

Whether or not respondent’s entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the Philippine Government under the RP-US
Extradition Treaty.

Discussions:

The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are confronted with situations
in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international law and the provisions of the
constitution or statute of a local state. Efforts should be done to harmonize them. In a situation,
however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be made between a rule of
international law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by
the municipal courts. The doctrine of incorporation decrees that rules of international law are given
equal standing, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments.

Ruling/s:

No. The human rights of person, Filipino or foreigner, and the rights of the accused guaranteed in our
Constitution should take precedence over treaty rights claimed by a contracting state. The duties of the
government to the individual deserve preferential consideration when they collide with its treaty
obligations to the government of another state. This is so although we recognize treaties as a source of
binding obligations under generally accepted principles of international law incorporated in our
Constitution as part of the law of the land.