Case Title: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, petitioner, vs.

PEDRO O. DACOYCOY, respondent.

G.R. No. 135805, April 29, 1999
Ponente: PARDO, J.
Topic: Nepotism
Doctrine: Sec. 59. Nepotism. (1) All appointments to the national,
provincial, city and municipal governments or in any branch or
instrumentality thereof, including government owned or controlled
corporations, made in favor of a relative of the appointing or
recommending authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office, or of
the persons exercising immediate supervision over him, are hereby
prohibited.
FACTS:
George Suan president of Citizens Crime Watch in Allen Northern Samar
filed before the Civil Service Commission a complaint against Pedro
Dacoycoy for habitual drunkenness, misconduct and nepotism. After a fact-
finding investigation the Regional Office 8 finds a prima facie case against
him, thus a corresponding criminal case was filed against him. In a formal
investigation however, CSC resolves that there was no substantial evidence
to support the charge of habitual drunkenness and misconduct but was
guilty of nepotism due to appointment of his 2 sons who were assigned at
Balicuarto College of Arts and Trades, in which a penalty of dismissal was
meted to him.

Dacoycoy filed a motion for reconsideration but was denies. Dacoyocy then
filed a special civil action for certiorari. In a decision rendered by the Court
of Appeals it was held that Dacoycoy was not guilty of nepotism and
recommends that the appointing officer should be sanctioned. Hence an
appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Dacoycoy is Guilty of Nepotism.

RULING:

Yes, under the definition of Nepotism, one is guilty of nepotism if an

appointment is issued in favor of a relative within the 3 rd civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity of the following:

a. appointing authority
b. recommending authority
c. chief of the bureau of or office, and
d. person exercising immediate supervision over the appointee.

In the four situations, the last two it is immaterial who the appointing or
recommending authority is, what is important is that appointment is
extended to a relative within that degree of consanguinity or affinity. It is
true that Dacoycoy is not the appointing or the recommending authority in
this case, but however, he is the one who certifies the existence of budget
for the said positions. Thus the Court, revived the decision of the CSC and
upheld the dismissal of DACOYCOY.

Page 1 of 8
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby GRANTS the petition and REVERSES the
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 44711.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court REVIVES and AFFIRMS the resolutions of the

Civil Service Commission dated January 28, 1998 and September 30, 1998,
dismissing respondent Pedro O. Dacoycoy from the service.

No costs. SO ORDERED.

Case Title: ERNESTO M. MACEDA, petitioner, vs.

ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, CALTEX (Philippines), INC.,
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND PETRON
CORPORATION, respondents.

G.R. No. 96266 July 18, 1991

PONENTE: MEDIALDEA, J.

Topic: Necessity of Notice and Public Hearing

Doctrine: In fact, Section 2, Rule I of the Rules of Practice and

Procedure Governing Hearings Before the ERB provides that —

These Rules shall govern pleadings, practice and procedure

before the Energy Regulatory Board in all matters of inquiry,
study, hearing, investigation and/or any other proceedings within
the jurisdiction of the Board. However, in the broader interest of
justice, the Board may, in any particular matter, except itself from
these rules and apply such suitable procedure as shall promote
the objectives of the Order.

FACTS:
Petroleum companies Caltex, Shell and Petron filed separate applications
with the Energy Regulatory Board for permission to increase the wholesale
prices of petroleum products, and meanwhile, for provisional authority to
increase temporarily such prices pending further proceedings.
The Energy Regulatory Board, in a joint order granted provisional relief and
authorizes said applicants a provisional increase. The petitioners, Senator
Ernesto Maceda and Atty. Oliver Lozano submits that the same was issued
without proper notice and hearing in violation of Section 3, paragraph (e),
of Executive Order No. 172, and has been issued with grave abuse of
discretion, tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.
Hence, this petition praying for injunctive relief, to stop the Energy
Regulatory Board from implementing its order mandating a provisional
increase in the prices of petroleum and petroleum products.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Order of the Energy Regulatory Board is valid?
RULING:

Page 2 of 8
YES. Senator Maceda and Atty. Lozano, in questioning the lack of a hearing,
have overlooked the provisions of Section 8 of Executive Order No. 172
which authorizes the Board to grant provisional relief on motion of a party
in the case or on its own initiative, without prejudice to a final decision after
hearing, should the Board find that the documentary evidences substantially
support the provisional order. Provided, That the Board shall immediately
schedule and conduct a hearing thereon within thirty (30) days thereafter,
upon publication and notice to all affected parties.:
Section 3, paragraph (e) and Section 8 do not negate each other, or
otherwise, operate exclusively of the other, in that the Board may resort to
one but not to both at the same time. Section 3(e) outlines the jurisdiction of
the Board and the grounds for which it may decree a price adjustment,
subject to the requirements of notice and hearing. Pending that, however, it
may order, under Section 8, an authority to increase provisionally, without
need of a hearing, subject to the final outcome of the proceeding.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
ACCORDINGLY, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

Case Title: PROSECUTOR LEO C. TABAO, Regional Chairman,

Special Task Force on Environment and Natural Resources (STF-
ENR) of Region 8, Tacloban City, complainant, vs. JUDGE FRISCO T.
LILAGAN, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Leyte, Branch 34,
and SHERIFF IV LEONARDO V. AGUILAR, Office of the Clerk of
Court, Regional Trial Court, Tacloban City, respondents.

A.M. No. RTJ-01-1651. September 4, 2001.

PONENTE: QUISUMBING, J.

Topic: Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction

Doctrine: The enforcement of forestry laws, rules and regulations

and the protection, development and management of forest lands
fall within the primary and special responsibilities of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. By the very
nature of its function, the DENR should be given a free hand
unperturbed by judicial intrusion to determine a controversy which
is well within its jurisdiction. The assumption by the trial court,
therefore, of the replevin suit filed by private respondents
constitutes an unjustified encroachment into the domain of the
administrative agency’s prerogative. The doctrine of primary
jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the
authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is
initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.

FACTS:
A water craft registered under the name M/L Hadija, from Bongao, Tawi-
tawi, was docked at the port area of Tacloban City with a load of around
100 tons of tanbark. Due to previous irregular and illegal shipments of
tanbark from Bongao, agents of the National Bureau of Investigation in
Region 8 decided to verify the shipment’s accompanying documents as the
M/LHadija was unloading its cargo to its consignee, a certain Robert
Hernandez. The NBI agents found the documents irregular and incomplete,

Page 3 of 8
and consequently they ordered the unloading of the cargo stopped. The
tanbark, the boat M/L Hadija, and three cargo trucks were seized and
impounded.

A criminal complaint for violation of Section 68 (now Section 78) of P.D. No.
705, the Forestry Reform Code of the Philippines (as amended), against the
captain and crew of the M/LHadija, Robert Hernandez and some DENR
personnel - Bautista was a forester while Dalimot was a Community
Environment and Natural Resources Officer (CENRO) DENR office in
Tacloban City. Bautista and Dalimot were, thus, also charged with violation
of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
complainant directed the seizure by the DENR of the M/L Hadija, its cargo,
and the three trucks pending preliminary investigation of the case. DENR
thus took possession of the aforesaid items with notice to the consignee
Robert Hernandez and the NBI Regional Director.

Hernandez filed in the Regional Trial Court of Leyte a case for replevin to
recover the items seized by the DENR. Herein respondent Judge Frisco T.
Lilagan issued a writ of replevin and directed respondent Sheriff IV
Leonardo V. Aguilar to take possession of the items seized by the DENR and
to deliver them to Hernandez after the expiration of five days.

Respondent sheriff served a copy of the writ to the Philippine Coast Guard
station in Tacloban City Complainant avers that replevin is not available
where the properties sought to be recovered are involved in criminal
proceedings for illegal logging. He argues that respondent judge should
have known of the existing jurisprudence on this issue, particularly since
they are subject to mandatory judicial notice per Section 1, Rule 129 of the
Revised Rules of Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the civil courts have jurisdiction over this case.

RULING:
Respondent judge’s act of taking cognizance of the subject replevin suit
clearly demonstrates ignorance of the law. He has fallen short of the
standard set forth in Canon 1, Rule1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, that
a judge must be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and
independence.

To measure up to this standard, judges are expected to keep abreast of all

laws and prevailing jurisprudence. Judges are duty bound to have more than
just a cursory acquaintance with laws and jurisprudence. Failure to follow
basic legal commands constitutes gross ignorance of the law from which no
one may be excused, not even a judge.

Under Section 78-A of the Revised Forestry Code, the DENR secretary or
his authorized representatives may order the confiscation of forest products
illegally cut, gathered, removed, or possessed or abandoned, including the
conveyances used in the commission of the offense.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Frisco T. Lilagan is hereby found liable for
gross ignorance of the law and is accordingly ordered to pay a FINE of
P10,000.00, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar

Page 4 of 8
offense will be dealt with more severely. The complaint against respondent
Sheriff IV Leonardo V. Aguilar is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Case Title: LA BUGAL-BLAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Represented by its Chairman FLONG MIGUEL M. LUMAYONG;
WIGBERTO E. TAADA; PONCIANO BENNAGEN; JAIME TADEO;
RENATO R. CONSTANTINO JR.; FLONG AGUSTIN M. DABIE;
ROBERTO P. AMLOY; RAQIM L. DABIE; SIMEON H. DOLOJO;
IMELDA M. GANDON; LENY B. GUSANAN; MARCELO L. GUSANAN;
QUINTOL A. LABUAYAN; LOMINGGES D. LAWAY; BENITA P.
TACUAYAN; Minors JOLY L. BUGOY, Represented by His Father
UNDERO D. BUGOY and ROGER M. DADING; Represented by His
Father ANTONIO L. DADING; ROMY M. LAGARO, Represented by
His Father TOTING A. LAGARO; MIKENY JONG B. LUMAYONG,
Represented by His Father MIGUEL M. LUMAYONG; RENE T.
MIGUEL, Represented by His Mother EDITHA T. MIGUEL; ALDEMAR
L. SAL, Represented by His Father DANNY M. SAL; DAISY RECARSE,
Represented by Her Mother LYDIA S. SANTOS; EDWARD M. EMUY;
ALAN P. MAMPARAIR; MARIO L. MANGCAL; ALDEN S. TUSAN;
AMPARO S. YAP; VIRGILIO CULAR; MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN; JULIA
REGINA CULAR, GIAN CARLO CULAR, VIRGILIO CULAR JR.,
Represented by Their Father VIRGILIO CULAR; PAUL ANTONIO P.
VILLAMOR, Represented by His Parents JOSE VILLAMOR and
ELIZABETH PUA-VILLAMOR; ANA GININA R. TALJA, Represented by
Her Father MARIO JOSE B. TALJA; SHARMAINE R. CUNANAN,
Represented by Her Father ALFREDO M. CUNANAN; ANTONIO JOSE
A. VITUG III, Represented by His Mother ANNALIZA A. VITUG, LEAN
D. NARVADEZ, Represented by His Father MANUEL E. NARVADEZ
JR.; ROSERIO MARALAG LINGATING, Represented by Her Father
RIO OLIMPIO A. LINGATING; MARIO JOSE B. TALJA; DAVID E. DE
VERA; MARIA MILAGROS L. SAN JOSE; Sr. SUSAN O. BOLANIO,
OND; LOLITA G. DEMONTEVERDE; BENJIE L. NEQUINTO;[1] ROSE
LILIA S. ROMANO; ROBERTO S. VERZOLA; EDUARDO AURELIO C.
REYES; LEAN LOUEL A. PERIA, Represented by His Father ELPIDIO
V. PERIA; GREEN FORUM PHILIPPINES; GREEN FORUM WESTERN
VISAYAS (GF-WV); ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE CENTER
(ELAC); KAISAHAN TUNGO SA KAUNLARAN NG KANAYUNAN AT
REPORMANG PANSAKAHAN (KAISAHAN); PARTNERSHIP FOR
AGRARIAN REFORM and RURAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC.
(PARRDS); PHILIPPINE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN THE RURAL AREAS, INC.
(PHILDHRRA); WOMENS LEGAL BUREAU (WLB); CENTER FOR
ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES, INC. (CADI); UPLAND
DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE (UDI); KINAIYAHAN FOUNDATION,
INC.; SENTRO NG ALTERNATIBONG LINGAP PANLIGAL (SALIGAN);
and LEGAL RIGHTS AND NATURAL RESOURCES CENTER, INC.
(LRC), petitioners, vs.

VICTOR O. RAMOS, Secretary, Department of Environment and

Natural Resources (DENR); HORACIO RAMOS, Director, Mines and

Page 5 of 8
Geosciences Bureau (MGB-DENR); RUBEN TORRES, Executive
Secretary; and WMC (PHILIPPINES), INC., respondents.

G.R. No. 127882. December 1, 2004

PONENTE: PANGANIBAN, J.

Topic: Exploration, Development and Utilization of Natural

Resources

Doctrine: The constitutional provision at the nucleus of the

controversy is paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article XII of the 1987
Constitution. In order to appreciate its context, Section 2 is
reproduced in full:

Sec. 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal,

petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy,
fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of
agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated.
The exploration, development and utilization of natural resources
shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The
State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-
production, joint venture or production-sharing agreements with
Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements
may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for
not more than twenty-five years, and under such terms and
conditions as may be provided by law. In cases of water rights for
irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the
development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and
limit of the grant.

The State shall protect the nations marine wealth in its archipelagic
waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its
use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.

The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural

resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming,
with priority to subsistence fishermen and fish-workers in rivers,
lakes, bays and lagoons.

The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned

corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms
and conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the
economic growth and general welfare of the country. In such
agreements, the State shall promote the development and use of
local scientific and technical resources.

The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered

into in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its
execution.

FACTS:

Page 6 of 8
The Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus before the Court challenges the
constitutionality of the following:
(1) Republic Act No. [RA] 7942 (The Philippine Mining Act of 1995);
(2) its Implementing Rules and Regulations (DENR Administrative Order
No. [DAO] 96-40); and
(3) the FTAA dated March 30, 1995 executed by the government with
Western Mining Corporation (Philippines), Inc. (WMCP).

On January 27, 2004, the Court en banc promulgated its Decision granting
the Petition and declaring the unconstitutionality of certain provisions of RA
7942, DAO 96-40, as well as of the entire FTAA executed between the
government and WMCP, mainly on the finding that FTAAs are service
contracts prohibited by the 1987 Constitution. The Decision struck down
the subject FTAA for being similar to service contracts, which, though
permitted under the 1973 Constitution, were subsequently denounced for
being antithetical to the principle of sovereignty over our natural resources,
because they allowed foreign control over the exploitation of our natural
resources, to the prejudice of the Filipino nation.

The Decision quoted several legal scholars and authors who had criticized
service contracts for, inter alia, vesting in the foreign contractor exclusive
management and control of the enterprise, including operation of the field
in the event petroleum was discovered; control of production, expansion
and development; nearly unfettered control over the disposition and sale of
the products discovered/extracted; effective ownership of the natural
resource at the point of extraction; and beneficial ownership of our
economic resources.

According to the Decision, the 1987 Constitution (Section 2 of Article XII)

effectively banned such service contracts. Subsequently, respondents filed
separate Motions for Reconsideration. In a Resolution dated March 9, 2004,
the Court required petitioners to comment thereon. In the Resolution of
June 8, 2004, it set the case for Oral Argument on June 29, 2004.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the FTAA issued were valid.

RULING:
Yes. The notion that the deliberations reflect only the views of those
members who spoke out and not the views of the majority who remained
silent should be clarified. We must never forget that those who spoke out
were heard by those who remained silent and did not react. If the latter
were silent because they happened not to be present at the time, they are
presumed to have read the minutes and kept abreast of the deliberations.
By remaining silent, they are deemed to have signified their assent to
and/or conformity with at least some of the views propounded or their lack
of objections thereto. It was incumbent upon them, as representatives of the
entire Filipino people, to follow the deliberations closely and to speak their
minds on the matter if they did not see eye to eye with the proponents of
the draft provisions.

In any event, each and every one of the commissioners had the opportunity
to speak out and to vote on the matter. Moreover, the individual
explanations of votes are on record, and they show where each delegate
stood on the issues. In sum, we cannot completely denigrate the value or

Page 7 of 8
usefulness of the record of the ConCom, simply because certain members
chose not to speak out.

However, it is of common knowledge, and of judicial notice as well, that the

government is and has for many many years been financially strapped, to
the point that even the most essential services have suffered serious
curtailments — education and health care, for instance, not to mention
judicial services — have had to make do with inadequate budgetary
allocations. Thus, government has had to resort to build-operate-transfer
and similar arrangements with the private sector, in order to get vital
infrastructure projects built without any governmental outlay.

The drafters — whose ranks included many academicians, economists,

businessmen, lawyers, politicians and government officials — were not
unfamiliar with the practices of foreign corporations and multinationals.

Neither were they so naïve as to believe that these entities would provide
“assistance” without conditionalities or some quid pro quo. Definitely, as
business persons well know and as a matter of judicial notice, this matter is
not just a question of signing a promissory note or executing a technology
transfer agreement. Foreign corporations usually require that they be given
a say in the management, for instance, of day-to-day operations of the joint
venture. They would demand the appointment of their own men as, for
example, operations managers, technical experts, quality control heads,
internal auditors or comptrollers. Furthermore, they would probably require
seats on the Board of Directors — all these to ensure the success of the
enterprise and the repayment of the loans and other financial assistance
and to make certain that the funding and the technology they supply would
not go to waste. Ultimately, they would also want to protect their business
reputation and bottom lines.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to GRANT the respondents and the
intervenors Motions for Reconsideration; to REVERSE and SET ASIDE this
Courts January 27, 2004 Decision; to DISMISS the Petition; and to issue this
new judgment declaring CONSTITUTIONAL (1) Republic Act No. 7942 (the
Philippine Mining Law), (2) its Implementing Rules and Regulations
contained in DENR Administrative Order (DAO) No. 9640 -- insofar as they
relate to financial and technical assistance agreements referred to in
paragraph 4 of Section 2 of Article XII of the Constitution; and (3) the
Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) dated March 30,
1995 executed by the government and Western Mining Corporation
Philippines Inc. (WMCP), except Sections 7.8 and 7.9 of the subject FTAA
which are hereby INVALIDATED for being contrary to public policy and for
being grossly disadvantageous to the government.

SO ORDERED.

Page 8 of 8