I.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
What is Administrative law?
That branch of public law which fixes the organization,
determines the competence of administrative
authorities who executes the law, and indicates to the
individual remedies for the violation of his right.
What is Public law?
It governs the relationship between the State and its
citizens and inhabitants. Examples: Constitutional Law,
Public International Law, Administrative Law, and
Criminal Law. (TIMOTEO B. AQUINO, REVIEWER ON
CIVIL LAW, 2014)
What are the Scope of Administrative law?
Broadly conceived, administrative law covers the
following:
(1) the law which fixes the administrative organization
and structure of the government;
(2) the law, the execution or enforcement of which is
entrusted to administrative authorities;
(3) the law which governs public officers including their
competence (to act), rights, duties, liabilities, election,
etc.;
(4) the law which creates administrative agencies,
defines their powers and functions, prescribes their
procedures, including the adjudication or settlement by
them of contested matters involving private interests;
(5) the law which provides the remedies, administrative
or judicial, available to those aggrieved by
administrative actions or decisions;
(6) the law which governs judicial review of, or relief
against, administrative actions or decisions;
(7) the rules, regulations, orders and decisions
(including presidential proclamations) made by
administrative authorities dealing with the
interpretation and enforcement of the laws entrusted
to their administration; and
(8) the body of judicial decisions and doctrines dealing
with any of the above.
Thus, administrative law embraces not only the law that
governs administrative authorities, i.e., the Constitution
(pertinent provisions thereof), statutes, and judicial
decisions that construe and apply them as well as
appropriate principles of justice and equity in particular
cases, but also the law made by administrative
authorities, i.e., rules, regulations, orders and decisions,
whether of general or particular applicability.
Distinguish between Administrative agency and Court?
(1) An administrative body is generally a large
organization staffed by men who are deemed to
become something of experts in their particular fields,
while a court is a tribunal which is presided by one or
more jurists learned in the law;
(2) The first performs a variety of functions, while the
second, has only one function — judicial; and
(3) The first uses a varying degree of discretion in
arriving at decisions and often proceeds without being
bound by technical rules of evidence or procedure,
while the second is more or less governed by fixed rules
in arriving at its decisions and bound by the rules that
no final adjudication is to be made until after due notice
to the parties with opportunity for a full and fair
hearing.
Can the Supreme Court review election cases?
The Supreme Court under the 1987 Constitution, has
been given an expanded jurisdiction, so to speak, to
review the decisions of the other branches and agencies
of the government to determine whether or not they
have acted within bounds of the Constitution (See Article
VIII, Section 1, Constitution). Yet, in the exercise thereof,
the Court is to merely check whether or not the
government branch or agency has gone beyond the
Constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or
has a different view. Co vs. HRET [G.R. Nos. 92191-92.
July 30, 1991.]
Distinguish between Administrative law and
International law?
Administrative law lays down the rules which shall guide
the officers of the administration in their actions as
agents of the government.
International law, on the other hand, cannot be
regarded as binding upon the officers of any
government considered in their relation to their own
government except insofar as it has been adopted into
the administrative law of the state.
Distinguish between Administrative law and
Constitutional law?
(1) Constitutional law prescribes the general plan or
framework of governmental organization, while
administrative law gives and carries out this plan in its
minutest details;
(2) Constitutional law treats of the rights of the
individual, while administrative law treats them from
the standpoint of the powers of the government; the
first lays stress upon rights, the second emphasizes the
powers of government and duties of the citizens; (3)
Constitutional law prescribes limitations on the powers
of the government to protect the rights of individuals
against abuse in their exercise, while administrative law
indicates to individuals, remedies for the violation of
their rights.
Insofar as it fixes or regulates the administrative
organization of the government, administrative law is
the necessary supplement of constitutional law. But
administrative law not only supplements constitutional
law; it also complements Constitutional law insofar as it
determines the rules relative to the activity of the
administrative authorities.
Distinguish between Administrative law and Criminal
law?
Criminal law or penal laws consist really of a body of
penal sanctions which are applied to all branches of the
law, including administrative law.
A rule of law protected or enforced by a penal sanction
may be really administrative in character, for indeed,
one of the most common and efficient means of
enforcing a rule of administrative law is to give it a
penal sanction, and the mere affixing of a penalty to the
violation of a rule of administrative law does not
deprive such rule of its administrative character.
What is Administrative Agency? What are its powers?
Administrative agency is the term used generally to
describe an agency exercising some significant
combination of executive, legislative, and judicial
powers. It is a government body charged with
administering and implementing particular legislation.
Administrative agencies have powers or functions which
are administrative and sometimes ministerial in
character as well as quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial
power, as may be conferred by the Constitution or by
law. They have only such powers as are expressly
granted to them by law and those that are necessarily
implied in the exercise thereof.
What are the two aspects of Administration?
i) Internal: legal side of public administration, e. g.,
matters concerning personnel, fiscal and planning
activities.
ii) External: deals with problems of government
regulations, e. g., regulation of lawful calling or
profession, industries or businesses.
Distinguish between Administration and Government?
Government: Agency or instrumentality of through
which the will of the State is formulated, expressed and
realized.
Administration: The group of persons in whose hands
the reins of government are for the time being.
Government is Permanent, while Administration is
Transitional.
What law governs the Administrative Agencies?
The Admistrative Code of 1987 is a general law and
incorporates in a unified document the major
structural, functional and procedural principles of
governance and embodies changes in administrative
structures and procedures designed to serve the
people. It covers the internal administration, i.e.,
internal organization, personnel and recruitment,
supervision and discipline, and the effects of the
functions performed by administrative officials on
private individuals or parties outside government.
What is Instrumentality?
Any agency of the National Government, not integrated
within the department framework, vested with special
functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if
not all corporate powers, administering special funds,
and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a
charter. This term includes regulatory agencies,
chartered institutions and government-owned and
controlled corporations.
What is a regulatory agency?
Any agency expressly vested with jurisdiction to
regulate, administer or adjudicate matters affecting
substantial rights and interests of private persons, the
principal powers of which are exercised by a collective
body, such as a commission, board or council.
Is GOCC an administrative agency?
Yes. As provided under PD 2029, series of 1986, the
term GOCCs is defined-as a stock or non-stock
corporation, whether performing governmental or
proprietary functions, which is directly chartered by a
special law or if organized under the general
corporation law, is owned or controlled by the
government directly, or indirectly, through a parent
corporation or subsidiary corporation, to the extent of
at least a majority of its outstanding capital stock or of
its outstanding voting capital stock.
A. Organization of Departments
What is a Department?
Department refers to an executive department created
by law. It includes any instrumentality having or
assigned the rank of a department, regardless of its
name or designation.
What is the purpose of a department?
The Departments shall be organized and maintained to
insure their capacity to plan and implement programs in
accordance with established national policies.
How are bureaus and offices organized under each
Department?
Bureaus and offices under each Department shall be
grouped primarily on the basis of major functions to
achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency in
government operations and minimize duplication and
overlapping of activities. [Sec. 2, Book IV, Admin. Code
of 1987]
What is the organizational structure of each
department?
(1) Unless otherwise provided in this Code or by law,
the Department proper shall include the Office of the
Secretary and the staff consist of the Secretary and the
Undersecretary or Undersecretaries, together with the
personnel in their immediate offices;
(2) Every Secretary shall be assisted by such number of
Undersecretaries as may be provided for by this Code or
by law; The Undersecretary shall perform the functions
as provided in Chapter 2 of this Book;
(3) Whenever necessary, Assistant Secretary position or
positions may be created to form part of the
Department proper; and
(4) In the absence of special provisions, the major staff
units of each department shall be the services which
shall include: the Planning Service, the Financial and
Management Service, the Administrative Service, and
when necessary, the Technical and Legal Services. [Sec.
3, Book IV, Admin. Code of 1987]
What is the jurisdiction of each department?
Each Department shall have jurisdiction over bureaus,
offices, regulatory agencies and government
corporations assigned to it by law, in accordance with
the applicable relationships as defined in Chapters 7,8,
and 9 of this book. [Sec. 4, Book IV, Admin. Code of
1987]
What are the Powers and functions of Department
Secretary?
The Secretary shall:
(1) Advise the President in issuing executive orders,
regulations, proclamations and other issuances, the
promulgation of which is expressly vested by law in the
President relative to matters under the jurisdiction of
the Department;
(2) Establish the policies and standards for the
operation of the Department pursuant to the approved
programs of governments;
(3) Promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry
out department objectives, policies, functions, plans,
programs and projects;
(4) Promulgate administrative issuances necessary for
the efficient administration of the offices under the
Secretary and for proper execution of the laws relative
thereto. These issuances shall not prescribe penalties
for their violation, except when expressly authorized by
law;
(5) Exercise disciplinary powers over officers and
employees under the Secretary in accordance with law,
including their investigation and the designation of a
committee or officer to conduct such investigation;
(6) Appoint all officers and employees of the
Department except those whose appointments are
vested in the President or in some other appointing
authority. Where the Department is regionalized on a
department-wide basis, the Secretary shall appoint
employees to positions in the second level in the
regional offices as defined in the Administrative Code;
(7) Exercise jurisdiction over all bureaus, offices,
agencies and corporations under the Department as
provided by law and in accordance with the applicable
relationships as specified in Chapters 7,8, and 9 of Book
IV of the Code (infra.);
(8) Delegate authority to officers and employees under
the Secretary's direction in accordance with the Code;
and
(9) Perform such other functions as may be provided by
law.
What is the Authority of a Department Secretary?
The Secretary of a Department shall have supervision
and control over the bureaus, offices, and agencies
under him, subject to the following guidelines:
(1) Initiative and freedom of action on the part of
subordinate units shall be encouraged and promoted
rather than curtailed, and reasonable opportunity to act
shall be afforded these units before control is exercised;
(2) With respect to functions involving discretion,
experienced judgment or expertise vested by the law
upon a subordinate agency, control shall be exercised in
accordance with said law; and
(3) With respect to any regulatory function of an agency
subject to department control, the authority of the
department shall be governed by the provisions of the
Code. The Secretary's authority as provided above shall
not apply to chartered institutions or government-
owned or controlled corporations attached to the
department. (Admin. Code, Book IV, Chap. 8, Sec. 39.)
Can the President assign offices and agencies not
assigned by law to any department?
Yes. The President shall, by executive order, assign
offices and agencies not otherwise assigned by law to
any department, or indicate to which department a
government corporation or board may be attached.
[Sec. 5, Book IV, Admin. Code of 1987]
What is the relationship of regulatory agencies to the
Department?
A regulatory agency refers to any agency expressly
vested with jurisdiction to regulate, administer or
adjudicate matters affecting substantial rights and
interest of private persons, the principal powers of
which are exercised by a collective body, such as
commission, board, or council. (Admin. Code,
Introductory Provisions, Sec. 2(11)
(1) It shall be subject to the administrative supervision
of the department under which they are placed, except
when they are government corporations in which case
they shall be governed as provided above.
(2) The heads of regulatory agencies shall submit
annually, for the approval of the Secretary concerned,
their budgets and work plans which shall be the basis of
their day-to-day operations.
(3) The regulatory agencies may avail themselves of the
common auxiliary and management services of the
department as may be convenient and economical for
their operations. (Admin. Code, Book IV, Chap. 9, Sec.
43.)
B. Organization of Bureaus
What is a Bureau?
A Bureau is any principal subdivision of the department
performing a single major function or closely related
functions.
What is the organizational structure of each bureau?
Each Bureau shall be headed by a Director who may
have one or more Assistant Directors as provided by
law. It may have as many divisions as are provided by
law for the economical, efficient and effective
performance of its functions.
What are the powers and duties of heads of bureaus
or offices?
(a) The head of bureau or office shall be its chief
executive officer. He shall exercise overall authority in
matters within the jurisdiction of the bureau, office or
agency, including those relating to its operations, and
enforce all laws and regulations pertaining to it;
(b) He shall appoint personnel to all positions in his
bureau or office, in accordance with law. In the case of
the line bureau or office, the head shall also appoint the
second level personnel of the regional offices, unless
such power has been delegated. He shall have the
authority to discipline employees in accordance with
the Civil Service Law;
(c) He may, in the interest of economy, designate the
assistant head to act as chief of any division or unit
within the organization, in addition to his duties,
without additional compensation;
(d) He shall, consistent with law, rules and regulations,
prescribe the form and fix the amount of all bonds
executed by private parties to the government under
the laws pertaining to his bureau or office. He shall pass
on the sufficiency of the security and retain possession
of the bond;
(e) He shall prescribe forms and issue circulars or orders
to secure the harmonious and efficient administration
of his bureau or office and to carry into full effect the
laws relating to matters within his jurisdiction. Penalties
shall not be prescribed in any circular or order for its
violation, except as expressly allowed by law; and
(f) He is authorized to issue orders regarding the
administration of its internal affairs for the guidance of
or compliance by its officers and employees.
What are the duties and responsibilities of a Director
of a staff bureau?
The Director of a staff bureau shall:
1) Advise and assist the Office of the Secretary on
matters pertaining to the Bureau's area of
specialization;
2) Provide consultative and advisory services to the
regional offices of the department;
3) Develop plans, programs, operating standards, and
administrative techniques for the attainment of the
objectives and functions of the bureau; and
4) Perform such other duties as may be provided by
law.
What are the duties and responsibilities of a Line
Bureau?
A line bureau shall directly implement programs
adopted pursuant to department policies and plans. It
may have staff units, as may be necessary,
corresponding to the services of the department
proper. If the Bureau is small, only a single unit
performing combined staff functions may be provided.
The Director of a line bureau shall:
1) Exercise supervision and control over all divisions and
other units, including regional offices, under the
bureau;
2) Establish policies and standards for the operations of
the bureau pursuant to the plans and programs of the
department;
3) Promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry
out bureau objectives, policies and functions; 4)
Perform such other duties as may be provided by law.
(Admin. Code, Book IV, Chap. 4, Secs. 18-20; Chap. 6,
Secs. 29,31,35-36.)
C. Organization of Field Offices
How are Regional Offices established?
They shall be established according to law defining field
service areas. The administrative regions shall be
composed of the National Capital Region and Regions I
to XII. Provincial and district offices may be established
only by law whenever necessary. Except as otherwise
provided by law and when the needs of the service so
require, the department or agency shall organize an
integrated regional office on a department or agency-
wide basis. [Sec. 21, Book IV, Admin. Code of 1987]
What is the organizational structure of each regional
office?
The regional office shall be headed by a Regional
Director who may be assisted by one (1) Assistant
Regional Director, except as may otherwise be provided
by law. The Regional Director shall be responsible for
department or agency functions performed in the
region under his jurisdiction. [Sec. 23, Book IV, Admin.
Code of 1987]
Regional Offices organized on a department-wide basis
shall have units or personnel in which the functional
areas of the staff bureaus and services in the
department shall be represented. Regional offices of a
line bureau may have units or personnel in which the
functional areas of the primary units of the bureau are
represented. Related functions of regional units shall be
consolidated. [Sec. 25, Book IV, Admin. Code of 1987]
What is the authority of Secretary or the head of an
agency?
The Secretary or the head of an agency shall have
authority over and responsibility for its operation. He
shall delegate such authority to the bureau and regional
directors as may be necessary for them to implement
plans and programs adequately.
(1) Delegated authority shall be to the extent necessary
for economical, efficient and effective implementation
of national and local programs in accordance with
policies and standards developed by each department
or agency with the participation of the regional
directors.
(2) The delegation shall be in writing; shall indicate to
which officer or class of officers and employees the
delegation Ik made; and shall vest sufficient authority to
enable the delegate to discharge his assigned
responsibility. (Ad. Code, Book IV, Chap. 8)
Distinguish between supervision and control?
Supervision means overseeing or the power or authority
of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform
their duties. If the latter fails or neglects to fulfill them,
the former may take such action or steps as prescribed
by law to make them perform their duties. Control, on
the other hand means the power of an official to alter
or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate
officer had done in the performance of his duties and to
substitute the judgment of the former for that of the
latter. (Hebron vs. Reyes, L-9124, July 28, 1958)
II. CREATION, REORGANIZATION AND ABOLITION
OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES
How are administrative agencies created?
1. Some administrative agencies are created by or
receive their powers from constitutional provisions
which may be self-executing, but most of them have
their source in legislative enactments. The Executive
also may create administrative agencies, especially
investigative agencies, and particularly under statutes
so providing.
2. Administrative agencies of statutory origin. — These
agencies are subject to expansion or contraction of their
powers and functions, or to reorganization or abolition
at the will of Congress, hamstrung only by constitutional
limitations. At various times, Congress has vested power
in the President to reorganize executive agencies and
redistribute functions, and particular transfers under
such statutes have been held to be within the authority
of the President.
How are administrative agencies abolished?
When the purpose of a statute is to abolish a
department or an office or an organization and to
replace it with another one, the lawmaking authority
says so (e.g., is abolished; shall cease to exist).
Does a change of name of administrative agency lose
its existence thus, abolished?
In Crisostomo vs. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA134
(1996), the Supreme Court ruled in a case, that PD No.
1341 which "converted" the former Philippine College
of Commerce into a University to be known as
Polytechnic University of the Philippines, did not
abolish the PCC. If the law intended the PCC to lose its
existence, it would have specified that the PCC was
being "abolished," and the PUP to be a new institution,
it would have said that PUP was being "created." What
took place was a change in academic status of [PCC].
Hence, the change in its name, the expansion of its
curricular offerings, and the changes in its structure
and organization.
Can the President create, abolish or merge offices in
the executive department?
In Viola vs. Alunan III, 277 SCRA 409 (1997), it has been
settled by decisions upholding the validity of
reorganization statutes authorizing the President to
create, abolish or merge offices in the executive
department. While the President's power cannot be
denied, this does not mean that the reorganization itself
is properly made in accordance with law. Well-settled is
the rule that reorganization is regarded as valid
provided it is pursued in good faith.
Does the power to reorganize includes power to create
or abolish offices?
Yes. Reorganization is the means used by the legislature
to reorganize or abolish offices, which it may do so by
law directly or indirectly by authorizing an executive
department or agency to reorganize its office. The
legislative power to reorganize — and therefore to
abolish offices — applies to all offices, including lower
courts, except only those created by the Constitution
itself. (National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
Administration v. Civil Service Commission, 221 SCRA
145 [1993])
What are the reasons for creation of administrative
agencies?
The reasons why there has been a need for, and a
growing number of, specialized administrative agencies
are as follows:
1. To unclog court dockets. To relieve courts of the
burden of resolving all controversies, specialized
agencies have been created to hear and decide
particular disputes.
2. To meet the growing complexities of modern society.
As problems of modem society multiply, which can
hardly be met by the legislature, administrative
agencies are established to promptly cope up with such
problems.
3. To help in the regulation of ramified activities of a
developing country.
4. To entrust to specialized agencies in specified fields
with their special knowledge, experience, and capability
the task of dealing with problems thereof as they have
the experience, expertise and power of dispatch to
provide solutions thereto. (Solid Homes, Inc. v. Teresita
Payawal, Aug. 29,1989.)
III. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE
AGENCIES
a. Distinguish between powers and functions?
While the words "powers" and "functions" are used
conjunctively above, they are interchangeable, and if
there is any distinction, the latter term denotes a
broader field of activities than the former.
(1) "Function" is that which one is bound or which it is
one's business to do.
(2) So far as "power" differs from this meaning, it would
appear to refer to the means by which a function is
fulfilled.
b. What are the sources powers of an administrative
agency?
The powers of an administrative agency do not always
come from a single source. Aside from the instances in
which an administrative agency is created and
empowered by a provision of the Constitution, the
source of the powers of administrative agencies lies in
statutes under which they claim to act.
i. Hijo Plantation v. Central Bank
G.R. No. L-34526 August 9, 1988
Hijo Plantation, Inc., Davao Fruits Corporation, Twin
Rivers Plantation, Inc. and Marsman Plantation, are
domestic corporations duly organized and existing
under the laws of the Philippines, all of which are
engaged in the production and exportation of bananas
in and from Mindanao.
Owing to the difficulty of determining the exchange
rate of the peso to the dollar because of the floating
rate and the promulgation of Central Bank Circular No.
289 which imposes an 80% retention scheme on all
dollar earners, Congress passed RA 6125 entitled "an
act imposing STABILIZATION TAX ON CONSIGNMENTS
ABROAD TO ACCELERATE THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES,," approved and made effective on May 1,
1970, to eliminate the necessity for said circular and to
stabilize the peso.
Petitioners contend that the Banana Exports reached
the aggregate annual F.O.B. value of US $5 million in
August 1971, the stabilization tax on banana should be
imposed only on July 1, 1972, the fiscal year following
the calendar year during which the industry attained
the $5 million mark.
Can the Central Bank issue a Monetary Board
Resolution to give retroactive effect of a Law?
No. The Monetary Board clearly overstepped RA 6125
which empowered it to promulgate rules and
regulations for the purpose of carrying out the
provisions of said act, because while Section 1 of the
law authorizes it to levy a stabilization tax on petitioners
only in the fiscal year following their reaching the
aggregate annual F.O.B. value of US $5 million, that is,
the fiscal year July 1, 1972 to June 30, 1973, at a tax
rate of 4% of the F.O.B. peso proceeds, respondent in
gross violation of the law, instead issued Resolution No.
1995 which impose a 6% stabilization tax for the
calendar year January 1, 1972 to June 30, 1972, which
obviously is in excess of its jurisdiction. It was further
argued that in directing its agent bank to collect the
stabilization tax in accordance with Monetary Board
Resolution No. 1995, it acted whimsically and
capriciously.
 ii. Tayug Rural Bank v. Central Bank
G.R. No. L-46158 November 28, 1986
Tayug Rural Bank obtained 13 loans from Central Bank
by way of rediscounting, at the rate of 1/2 of 1% per
annum from 1962 to March 28, 1963 and thereafter at
the rate of 2-1/2% per anum. The loans, amounting to
P813,000.00 as of July 30, 1963, were all covered by
corresponding promissory notes prescribing the terms
and conditions of the aforesaid loans, the outstanding
balance was P 444,809.45.
The Director of the Department of Loans and Credit,
issued Memorandum Circular No. DLC-8, informing all
rural banks that an additional penalty interest rate of
ten per cent (10%) per annum would be assessed on all
past due loans beginning January 4, 1965. Said
Memorandum Circular was actually enforced on all
rural banks effective July 4, 1965.
Which shall prevail in case of discrepancy between the
basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement
said law?
In case of discrepancy, the basic law prevails because
said rule or regulation cannot go beyond the terms and
provisions of the basic law. Hence an administrative
agency cannot impose a penalty not so provided in the
law authorizing the promulgation of the rules and
regulations, much less one that is applied retroactively.
Can an administrative agency retroactively impose
administrative penalties?
No. The Monetary Board possesses broad supervisory
powers, nonetheless, the retroactive imposition of
administrative penalties cannot be taken as a measure
supervisory in character.
An administrative agency cannot impose a penalty not
so provided in the law authorizing the promulgation of
the rules and regulations, much less one that is applied
retroactively.
c. What is the scope of powers of an administrative
agency?
The jurisdiction and powers of administrative agencies
are measured and limited by the Constitution or law
creating them or granting their powers, to those
conferred expressly or by necessary or fair implication.
i. What are the express and implied powers of
administrative agencies?
Basic in administrative law is the doctrine that a
government agency or office has express and implied
powers based on its charter and other pertinent
statutes. Express powers are those powers granted,
allocated, and delegated to a government agency or
office by express provisions of law. On the other hand,
implied powers are those that can be inferred or are
implicit in the wordings of the law or conferred by
necessary or fair implication in the enabling act. In
Angara v. Electoral Commission, the Court clarified and
stressed that when a general grant of power is
conferred or duty enjoined, every particular power
necessary for the exercise of the one or the
performance of the other is also conferred by necessary
implication. It was also explicated that when the statute
does not specify the particular method to be followed
or used by a government agency in the exercise of the
power vested in it by law, said agency has the authority
to adopt any reasonable method to carry out its
functions.
1. Makati Stock Exchange v. SEC
G.R. No. L-23004 June 30, 1965
The Securities and Exchange Commission denied the
Makati Stock Exchange, Inc., permission to operate a
stock exchange unless it agreed not to list for trading on
its board, securities already listed in the Manila Stock
Exchange.
Can the SEC may “in the public interest” validly impose
such a condition?
NO. It is fundamental that an administrative officer has
only such powers as are expressly granted to him by the
statue, and those necessarily implied in the exercise
thereof. The SEC cites no provision of law supporting its
rule. Neither did the Commission make any explanation
on how it could be necessary in the performance of its
functions. For all practical purposes the SEC’s order
would make it impossible for MSEI to operate. So its
permission would really amount to a prohibition. The
Legislature has specified the conditions under which a
stock exchange may legally obtain a permit; it is not for
the SEC to impose others.
2. Republic v. CA G.R. No. 90482 Aug. 5, 1991
On May 16,1986, Republic Planters Bank (RPB) and in
representation of other sugar producers" filed a Complaint
with the respondent court, RTC Branch 26, "For Sum of
Money and/or Delivery of Personal Property with
Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction" against
against the Philippine Sugar Commission (PHILSUCOM) and
the National Sugar Trading Corporation (NASUTRA).
Private respondents assert that the Sugar Regulatory
Administration (SRA) and RPB do not have the legal
authority to sue for and in behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines.
RPB maintain that it "is a government-controlled
corporation (GOCC) engaged in the banking business with
corporate powers vested in a Board of Directors," hence, it
is "legally untenable for such a banking

institution, even assuming that it is government-
controlled, to initiate suits for and in behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines.
May RPB being a GOCC bring an action on behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines?
No. SRA may not lawfully bring an action on behalf of
the Republic of the Philippines and that the Office of the
Government Corporate Counsel does not have the
authority to represent said petitioner in this case.
This conclusion does not, however, mean that the SRA
cannot sued and be sued. This power can be implied
from its powers to make and execute routinary
contracts as may be necessary for or incidental to the
attainment of its purposes between any persons, firms
public or private, and the Government of the Philippines
and to do all such other things, transact such other
businesses and perform such other functions directly or
indirectly incidental or conducive to the attainment of
the purposes of the SRA and the powers of its governing
board to enter into contracts, transactions, or
undertaking of whatever nature which are necessary or
incidental to its functions and objectives with any
natural or juridical persons and with any foreign
government institutions, private corporations,
partnership or private individuals.
3. Chavez vs NHA G.R. No. 164527
President Corazon C. Aquino ordered NHA to conduct
feasibility studies and develop low-cost housing projects
at the dumpsite and absorb scavengers in NHA
resettlement/low-cost housing projects. On October 7,
1992, President Ramos authorized NHA to enter into a
Joint Venture Agreement with RBI subject to final review
and approval of the Joint Venture Agreement by the
Office of the President.
Whether NHA have been granted the power to reclaim
lands of the public domain?
Yes. While PD 757, the charter of NHA, does not
explicitly mention reclamation in any of the listed
powers of the agency, we rule that the NHA has an
implied power to reclaim land as this is vital or
incidental to effectively, logically, and successfully
implement an urban land reform and housing program
enunciated in Sec. 9 of Article XIII of the 1987
Constitution.
Even without an implied power to reclaim lands under
NHAs charter, we rule that the authority granted to
NHA, a national government agency, by the President
under PD 3-A reinforced by EO 525 is more than
sufficient statutory basis for the reclamation of lands
under the SMDRP.
The power to reclaim on the part of the NHA is implicit
from PD 757, RA 7279, MO 415, RA 6957, and PD 3-A.
The Presidents delegation to NHA, a national
government agency, to reclaim lands under the SMDRP,
is legal and valid, firmly anchored on PD 3-A buttressed
by EO 525 notwithstanding the absence of any specific
grant of power under its charter, PD 757.
4. Radio Communications v. NTC
G.R. No. 93237 November 6, 1992
Private respondent Juan A. Alegre's wife, Dr. Jimena
Alegre, sent two rush telegrams through petitioner
RCPI's facilities in Taft Ave., Manila on 17 March 1989
to his sister and brother-in-law in Valencia, Bohol and
another sister-in-law in Espiritu, Ilocos Norte.
Both telegrams did not reach their destinations on the
expected dates. So, private respondent filed a letter-
complaint against RCPI with National
Telecommunications Commission (NTC) for poor
service, with a request for the imposition of the
appropriate punitive sanction against the company.
Taking cognizance of the complaint, NTC directed RCPI
to answer the complaint and set the initial hearing.
NTC held that RCPI was administratively liable for
deficient and inadequate service under Section 19(a)
of C.A. 146 and imposed the penalty of fine payable
within 30 days from receipt in the aggregate amount
of P1, 000.
Can NTC administratively impose fines to RCPI?
No. NTC has no jurisdiction to impose a fine. Under
Section 21 of C. A. 146, as amended, the Commission
was empowered to impose an administrative fine in
cases of violation of or failure by a public service to
comply with the terms and conditions of any certificate
or any orders, decisions or regulations of the
Commission. Petitioner operated under a legislative
franchise, so there were no terms nor conditions of any
certificate issued by the Commission to violate. Neither
was there any order, decision or regulation from the
Commission applicable to petitioner that the latter had
allegedly violated, disobeyed, defied or disregarded.
Too basic in administrative law to need citation of
jurisprudence is the rule that jurisdiction and powers of
administrative agencies, like NTC, 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.

4a. Radio Communications v. Santiago
G.R. No. L-29236 November 6, 1992
On July 12, 1966, a telegram was filed with
respondent-company and the amount of P1.50 was
paid for the transmission of said telegram to
Zamboanga City .... The telegram, however, was never
transmitted until now. The respondent not only did
not give any valid explanation, but did not present any
evidence to explain why the said telegram was not
forwarded to the addressee until now.
Can administrative agencies exceed lawful limits in the
exercise of their power?
Except for constitutional officials who can trace their
competence to act to the fundamental law itself, a
public official must locate in the statute relied upon a
grant of power before he can exercise it. It need not be
express. It may be implied from the wording of the law.
The government itself is merely an agency through
which the will of the state is expressed and enforced. Its
officers therefore are likewise agents entrusted with the
responsibility of discharging its functions. As such there
is no presumption that they are empowered to act.
There must be a delegation of such authority, either
express or implied. In the absence of a valid grant, they
are devoid of power.
4c. Globe Wireless LTD v. PSC
G.R. No. L-27520 Jan 21, 1987
A message addressed to Maria Diaz, Monte Esquina 30,
Madrid, Spain, filed by private respondent Antonio B.
Arnaiz with the telegraph office of the Bureau of
Telecommunications in Dumaguete City was transmitted
to the Bureau of Telecommunications in Manila. It was
forwarded to petitioner Globe Wireless Ltd. for
transmission to Madrid. Petitioner sent the message to
the American Cable and Radio Corporation in New York,
which, in turn, transmitted the same to the Empresa
Nacional de Telecomunicaciones in Madrid. The latter,
however, mislaid said message, resulting in its non-
delivery to the addressee.
The PSC issued an order finding petitioner "responsible
for the inadequate and unsatisfactory service
complained of, in violation of the Public Service Act", and
ordering it "to pay a fine of P200 under Sec. 21 of Com.
Act 146, as amended."
Can PSC impose fine to Globe Wireless?
No. The imputed negligence had nothing whatsoever to
do with the subject matter of the very limited
jurisdiction of the Commission over petitioner. Under
Section 21 of C.A. No. 146, as amended, the
Commission was empowered to impose an
administrative fine in cases of violation of or failure by a
public service to comply with the terms and conditions
of any certificate or any orders, decisions or regulations
of the Commission. Petitioner operated under a
legislative franchise, so there were no terms nor
conditions of any certificate issued by the Commission
to violate. Neither was there any order, decision or
regulation from the Commission applicable to petitioner
that the latter had allegedly violated, disobeyed, defied
or disregarded.
Too basic in 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.
5a. Solid Homes v. Payawal
G.R. No. 84811 August 29, 1989
The complaint was filed on August 31, 1982, by Teresita
Payawal against Solid Homes, Inc. before the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City alleging that the defendant
contracted to sell to her a subdivision lot in Marikina on
June 9, 1975, for the agreed price of P 28,080.00, and that
by September 10, 1981, she had already paid the
defendant the total amount of P 38,949.87 in monthly
installments and interests.
Solid Homes subsequently executed a deed of sale over the
land but failed to deliver the corresponding certificate of
title despite her repeated demands because, as it appeared
later, the defendant had mortgaged the property in bad
faith to a financing company. The plaintiff asked for
delivery of the title to the lot or, alternatively, the return of
all the amounts paid by her plus interest. She also claimed
moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and the
costs of the suit.
Solid Homes moved to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the court had no jurisdiction, this being vested
in the National Housing Authority under PD No. 957.
Does NHA has jurisdiction over a contract to sell a
subdivision lot?
Yes. Statutes conferring powers on their administrative
agencies must be liberally construed to enable them to
discharge their assigned duties in accordance with the
legislative purpose. The Court sustained the
competence of the respondent administrative body, in
the exercise of the exclusive jurisdiction vested in it by
PD No. 957 and PD No. 1344, to determine the rights of
the parties under a contract to sell a subdivision lot.
May NHA award damages under PD 1344?
Yes. SC finds that this is part of the exclusive power
conferred upon it by PD No. 1344 to hear and decide
"claims involving refund and any other claims filed by
subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers against the
project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman."
It was therefore erroneous for the respondent to brush
aside the well-taken opinion of the Secretary of Justice
that-
Such claim for damages which the
subdivision/condominium buyer may have against the
owner, developer, dealer or salesman, being a
necessary consequence of an adjudication of liability for
non-performance of contractual or statutory obligation,
may be deemed necessarily included in the phrase
"claims involving refund and any other claims" used in
the aforequoted subparagraph C of Section 1 of PD No.
1344. The phrase "any other claims" is, SC believe,
sufficiently broad to include any and all claims which
are incidental to or a necessary consequence of the
claims/cases specifically included in the grant of
jurisdiction to the National Housing Authority under the
subject provisions.
The same may be said with respect to claims for
attorney's fees which are recoverable either by
agreement of the parties or pursuant to Art. 2208 of the
Civil Code (1) when exemplary damages are awarded
and (2) where the defendant acted in gross and evident
bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff 's plainly
valid, just and demandable claim.
Besides, a strict construction of the subject provisions of
PD No. 1344 which would deny the HSRC the authority
to adjudicate claims for damages and for damages and
for attorney's fees would result in multiplicity of suits in
that the subdivision condominium buyer who wins a
case in the HSRC and who is thereby deemed entitled to
claim damages and attorney's fees would be forced to
litigate in the regular courts for the purpose, a situation
which is obviously not in the contemplation of the law.
5b. Antipolo Real Corp v. NHA
G.R. No. L-50444) Aug 31, 1987
On 28 August 1974, Mr. Hernando transferred his
rights over Lot No. 15 to private respondent Virgilio
Yuson. The transfer was embodied in a Deed of
Assignment and Substitution of Obligor (Delegacion),
executed with the consent of Antipolo Realty, in which
Mr. Yuson assumed the performance of the vendee's
obligations under the original contract, including
payment of his predecessor's installments in arrears.
However, for failure of Antipolo Realty to develop the
subdivision project in accordance with its undertaking
under Clause 17 of the Contract to Sell, Mr. Yuson paid
only the arrearages pertaining to the period up to, and
including, the month of August 1972.
Aggrieved by the rescission of the Contract to Sell, Mr.
Yuson brought his dispute with Antipolo Realty before
public respondent NHA through a letter-complaint dated
10 May 1977.
Antipolo Realty filed a Motion for Reconsideration
asserting: (a) that it had been denied due process of law
since it had not been served with notice of the scheduled
hearing; and (b) that the jurisdiction to hear and decide
Mr. Yuson's complaint was lodged in the regular courts,
not in the NHA, since that complaint involved the
interpretation and application of the Contract to Sell.
Can NHA perform adjudicatory powers and functions?
It is by now commonplace learning that many
administrative agencies exercise and perform
adjudicatory powers and functions, though to a limited
extent only. Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-
judicial authority to administrative agencies (e.g., the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the National
Labor Relations Commission) is well recognized in our
jurisdiction, basically because the need for special
competence and experience has been recognized as
essential in the resolution of questions of complex or
specialized character and because of a companion
recognition that the dockets of our regular courts have
remained crowded and clogged.
There is no question that a statute may vest exclusive
original jurisdiction in an administrative agency over
certain disputes and controversies falling within the
agency's special expertise. The very definition of an
administrative agency includes its being vested with
quasi-judicial powers. The ever increasing variety of
powers and functions given to administrative agencies
recognizes the need for the active intervention of
administrative agencies in matters calling for technical
knowledge and speed in countless controversies which
cannot possibly be handled by regular courts.
5c. LLDA v. CA G.R. No. 110120 March 16, 1994
On March 8, 1991, the Task Force of City Government
Caloocan City (CGC), filed a letter-complaint with the
Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) seeking to
stop the operation of the 8.6-hectare open garbage
dumpsite CGC due to its harmful effects on the health of
the residents and the possibility of pollution of the water
content of the surrounding area.
On December 5, 1991, the LLDA issued a Cease and Desist
Order ordering the CGC, their contractors, and other
entities, to completely halt, stop and desist from dumping
any form or kind of garbage and other waste matter at
the Camarin dumpsite.
The dumping operation was forthwith stopped by CGC.
However, sometime in August 1992 the dumping
operation was resumed after a meeting held in July 1992.

In its complaint, CGC sought to be declared as the sole
authority empowered to promote the health and safety
and enhance the right of the people in Caloocan City to
a balanced ecology within its territorial jurisdiction.
Does LLDA have the authority to issue a cease and
desist order?
Yes. The cease and desist order issued by the LLDA
requiring the CGC to stop dumping its garbage in the
Camarin open dumpsite found by the LLDA to have
been done in violation of Republic Act No. 4850, as
amended, and other relevant environment laws, cannot
be stamped as an unauthorized exercise by the LLDA of
injunctive powers. By its express terms, RA 4850, as
amended by P.D. No. 813 and EO 927, series of 1983,
authorizes the LLDA to "make, alter or modify order
requiring the discontinuance or pollution." Section 4,
par. (d) explicitly authorizes the LLDA to make whatever
order may be necessary in the exercise of its
jurisdiction.
Assuming arguendo that the authority to issue a "cease
and desist order" were not expressly conferred by law,
there is jurisprudence enough to the effect that the rule
granting such authority need not necessarily be express.
While it is a fundamental rule that an administrative
agency has only such powers as are expressly granted to
it by law, it is likewise a settled rule that an
administrative agency has also such powers as are
necessarily implied in the exercise of its express powers.
In the exercise, therefore, of its express powers under
its charter as a regulatory and quasi-judicial body with
respect to pollution cases in the Laguna Lake region, the
authority of the LLDA to issue a "cease and desist order"
is, perforce, implied. Otherwise, it may well be reduced
to a "toothless" paper agency.
5d. Buenaseda v. Flavier
G.R. No. 106719 Sept 21, 1993
The petition seeks to nullify the Order of the Ombudsman
dated January 7, 1992, directing the preventive suspension
of petitioners, Dr. Brigida S. Buenaseda other
administrative officer and all of the National Center for
Mental Health.
Petitioners claim that under the 1987 Constitution, the
Ombudsman can only recommend to the heads of the
departments and other agencies the preventive suspension
of officials and employees facing administrative
investigation conducted by his office.
Respondents argue that the power of preventive
suspension given the Ombudsman under Section 24 of R.A.
No. 6770 was contemplated by Section 13 (8) of Article XI
of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that the
Ombudsman shall exercise such other power or perform
such functions or duties as may be provided by law.
Does the Ombudsman has the power to suspend
government officials and employees working in offices
other than the Office of the Ombudsman?
Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, which grants the
Ombudsman the power to preventively suspend public
officials and employees facing administrative charges
before him, is a procedural, not a penal statute. The
preventive suspension is imposed after compliance with
the requisites therein set forth, as an aid in the
investigation of the administrative charges.
The purpose of R.A. No. 6770 is to give the Ombudsman
such powers as he may need to perform efficiently the
task committed to him by the Constitution. Such being
the case, said statute, particularly its provisions dealing
with procedure, should be given such interpretation
that will effectuate the purposes and objectives of the
Constitution. Any interpretation that will hamper the
work of the Ombudsman should be avoided.
What is the intention of the Congress under the
Ombudsman Law when it advisedly deleted the words
"subordinate" and "in his bureau," leaving the phrase
"suspend any officer or employee under his authority
pending an investigation”?
The conclusion that can be deduced from the deletion
of the word "subordinate" before and the words "in his
bureau" after "officer or employee" is that the Congress
intended to empower the Ombudsman to preventively
suspend all officials and employees under investigation
by his office, irrespective of whether they are employed
"in his office" or in other offices of the government. The
moment a criminal or administrative complaint is filed
with the Ombudsman, the respondent therein is
deemed to be "in his authority" and he can proceed to
determine whether said respondent should be placed
under preventive suspension.
ii. What is the inherent powers of administrative
agencies?
An administrative agency has no inherent powers,
although implied powers may sometimes be spoken of
as "inherent". In the absence of any provision of law,
administrative agencies do not possess the inherent
power to punish for contempt which has always been
regarded as a necessary incident and attribute of the
courts.
1. Masangcay v. COMELEC G.R. No. L-13827 Sept 28 1962
Benjamin Masangcay, with several others, was on October
14, 1957 charged before the Commission on Election with
contempt for having opened three containing official and
sample ballots for the municipalities of the province of
Aklan.
On December 16, 1957 the Commission rendered its
decision finding Masangcay guilty as charged and
sentencing each of them to suffer three months
imprisonment and pay a fine of P500, with subsidiary
imprisonment of two months in case of insolvency.
Masangcay contended that, even if petitioner can be held
guilty of the act of contempt charged, the decision is null
and void for lack of valid power on the part of the
Commission to impose such disciplinary penalty under the
principle of separation of powers of the Government.
Can COMELEC impose disciplinary penalty?
No. In the instant case, the resolutions which the
Commission tried to enforce and for whose violation
the charge for contempt was filed against petitioner
Masangcay merely call for the exercise of an
administrative or ministerial function for they merely
concern the procedure to be followed in the
distribution of ballots and other election paraphernalia
among the different municipalities.
Comelec has a ministerial duty; it did not exercise any
judicial function. Such being the case, Comelec could
not exercise the power to punish Masangcay for
contempt as postulated in the law, for such power is
inherently judicial in nature. As SC 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 courts, and,
consequently, in the administration of justice.
iii. What is a quasi-judicial power?
It is a power that rests in judgment or discretion, so that
it is of judicial nature or character, but does not involve
the exercise of functions of a judge, or is conferred
upon an officer other than a judicial officer. (Federico S.
Sandoval vs. Commission on Elections, et al., G. R. No.
133842, January 26, 2000)
1. Taule vs Santos G.R. No. 90336 August 12, 1991
On June 18,1989, the Federation of Associations of
Barangay Councils (FABC) of Catanduanes, composed of
11 members, in their capacities as Presidents of the
Association of Barangay Councils in their respective
municipalities, convened in Virac, Catanduanes with six
members in attendance for the purpose of holding the
election of its officers. When the group decided to hold
the election despite the absence of five of its members,
the Provincial Treasurer and the Provincial Election
Supervisor walked out. The election nevertheless
proceeded with PGOO Alberto P. Molina, Jr. as presiding
officer.
On June 19, 1989, respondent Leandro I. Verceles,
Governor of Catanduanes, sent a letter to respondent Luis
T. Santos, the Secretary of Local Government (LG),
protesting the election of the officers of the FABC and
seeking its nullification in view of several flagrant
irregularities in the manner it was conducted.
On August 4, 1989, respondent Secretary issued a
resolution nullifying the election of the officers of the
FABC in Catanduanes held on June 18, 1989 and ordering
a new one to be conducted as early as possible to be
presided by the Regional Director of Region V of LG.
Can Secretary of Local Government entertain any
protest involving the election of officers of the FABC?
No. Under Book IV, Title XII, Chapter 1, See. 3(2) of the
Administrative Code of 1987, the respondent Secretary
has the power to "establish and prescribe rules,
regulations and other issuances and implementing laws
on the general supervision of local government units
and on the promotion of local autonomy and monitor
compliance thereof by said units."
Construing the constitutional limitation on the power of
general supervision of the President over local
governments, the SC hold that respondent Secretary
has no authority to pass upon the validity or regularity
of the election of the officers of the katipunan. To allow
respondent Secretary to do so will give him more power
than the law or the Constitution grants. It will in effect
give him control over local government officials for it
will permit him to interfere in a purely democratic and
non-partisan activity aimed at strengthening the
barangay as the basic component of local governments
so that the ultimate goal of fullest autonomy may be
achieved. In fact, his order that the new elections to be
conducted be presided by the Regional Director is a
clear and direct interference by the Department with
the political affairs of the barangays which is not
permitted by the limitation of presidential power to
general supervision over local governments.
May the President interfere with LG so long as the
same or its officers act within scope of their authority?
Presidential power over LG is limited by the
Constitution to the exercise of general supervision ‘to
ensure that local affairs are administered according to
law.’ The general supervision is exercised by the
President through the Secretary of LG.” “The
fundamental law permits the Chief Executive to wield
no more authority than that of checking whether said
LG or the officers thereof perform their duties as
provided by statutory enactments. Supervisory power,
when contracted with control, is the power of mere
oversight over an inferior body; it does not include any
restraining authority over such body.” “(A)lthough the
Department (of LG) is given the power to prescribe
rules, regulations and other issuances, the
Administrative Code limits its authority to merely
‘monitoring compliance’ by local government units of
such issuances. To monitor means ‘to watch, observe or
check.’ This is compatible with the power of supervision
of the Secretary over LG which as earlier discussed is
limited to checking whether LGU concerned or the
officers thereof perform their duties as provided by
statutory enactments.
Does COMELEC has jurisdiction over contests involving
elective barangay officials?
The jurisdiction of the COMELEC over contests involving
elective barangay officials is limited to appellate
jurisdiction from decisions of the trial courts. Under the
law, the sworn petition contesting the election of a
barangay officer shall be filed with the proper Municipal
or Metropolitan Trial Court by any candidate who has
duly filed a certificate of candidacy and has been voted
for the same office within 10 days after the
proclamation of the results. A voter may also contest
the election of any barangay officer on the ground of
ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines by filing a sworn petition for quo warranto
with the Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court within 10
days after the proclamation of the results of the
election. Only appeals from decisions of inferior courts
on election matters as aforestated may be decided by
the COMELEC.
The jurisdiction of the COMELEC is over popular
elections, the elected officials of which are determined
through the will of the electorate. An election is the
embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the
sovereign power of the people. It involves the choice or
selection of candidates to public office by popular vote.
Specifically, the term "election," in the context of the
Constitution, may refer to the conduct of the polls,
including the listing of voters, the holding of the
electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of the
votes which do not characterize the election of officers
in the Katipunan ng mga barangay. "Election contests"
would refer to adversary proceedings by which matters
involving the title or claim of title to an elective office,
made before or after proclamation of the winner, is
settled whether or not the contestant is claiming the
office in dispute and in the case of elections of barangay
officials, it is restricted to proceedings after the
proclamation of the winners as no pre-proclamation
controversies are allowed.
Distinguish between supervision and control?
In administrative law, supervision means overseeing or
the power or authority of an officer to see that the
subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter
fails or neglects to fulfill them the former may take such
action or step as prescribed by law to make them
perform their duties. Control, on the other hand, means
the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or
set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the
performance of his duties and to substitute the
judgment of the former for that of the latter. The
fundamental law permits the Chief Executive to wield
no more authority than that of checking whether said
local government or the officers thereof perform their
duties as provided by statutory enactments. Supervisory
power, when contrasted with control, is the power of
mere oversight over an inferior body; it does not
include any restraining authority over such body.
2. Guerzon vs CA G.R. No. 77707 August 8, 1988
On January 9, 1981 petitioner Pedro Guerzon
executed with Basic Landoil Energy Corporation,
which was later acquired by respondent Pilipinas Shell
Petroleum Corporation, a contract denominated as
"Service Station Lease" for the use and operation of
respondent SHELL's properties, facilities and
equipment, for a period of five (5) years from January
15, 1981 and ending on January 14, 1986.
On January 7, 1981 petitioner likewise executed with
the same Corporation a "Dealer's Sales Contract" for
the sale by petitioner of respondent SHELL's
petroleum and other products in the leased service
station which contract expired April 12,1986.
As early as January 2, 1986 respondent SHELL through
its District Manager—Reseller Mindanao wrote to
petitioner informing him that the Company was not
renewing the Dealer's Sales Contract which was to
expire on April 12, 1986 together with the service
station lease and reminding him to take appropriate
steps to wind up his business activities at the station
and, on the appropriate date to hand over the station
with all its facilities and equipment to the
representative of respondent.
Does Bureau of Energy Utilization has jurisdiction to
order a lessee to vacate the leased premises?
Even on the assumption that petitioner's continued
occupancy and operation of the service station
constituted a violation of a law or regulation, still the
Court has no recourse but to rule against the legality of
the order, the BEU not being empowered to issue it.
Section 7 of P.D. No. 1206, as amended, is very clear as
to the courses of action that the BEU may take in case
of a violation or non-compliance with any term or
condition of any certificate, license or permit issued by
the Bureau or any of its orders, decisions, rules or
regulations. The Bureau may: (1) impose a fine not
exceeding P1,000.00; and (2) in case of failure to pay
the fine imposed or to cease and discontinue the
violation or non-compliance, order the suspension,
closure or stoppage of operations of the establishment
of the guilty party. Its authority is limited to these two
(2) options. It can do no more, as there is nothing in P.D.
No. 1206, as amended, which empowers the Bureau to
issue an order to vacate in case of a violation.
As it is, jurisdiction to order a lessee to vacate the
leased premises is vested in the civil courts in an
appropriate case for unlawful detainer or accion
publiciana. There is nothing in P.D. No. 1206, as
amended, that would suggest that the same or similar
jurisdiction has been granted to theBEU. It is a
fundamental rule that an administrative agency has
only such powers as are expressly granted to it by law
and those that are necessarily implied in the exercise
thereof.
3. Freeman vs SEC G.R. No. 110265 July 7, 1994
Sometime in 1986 and 1987, Freeman, Inc.
(FREEMAN), was granted a loan by Equitable Banking
Corporation (EQUITABLE) P1,700,000.00 payable in 8
December 1987 and P6,000,000.00 payable in 24
April 1988.
When FREEMAN failed to pay its obligations,
EQUITABLE instituted collection suit against
FREEMAN. The collection case was terminated when
the parties entered into a compromise agreement
duly approved by the court and a decision rendered
thereon on 5 December 1988.
On 30 January 1989, a writ of execution was issued.
Two parcels of land belonging to FREEMAN were
levied upon and sold at public auction on 31 March
1989. The highest bidder was one of the petitioners,
Freeman Management and Development Corporation
(FMDC), which thereafter registered its certificate of
sale with the Register of Deeds.
SEC Case No. 3577 arose from the action filed by
private respondents as minority shareholders of
petitioner FREEMAN for the dissolution of the
corporation and reconveyance of the properties
conveyed to another petitioner FMDC in a public
auction.
Did SEC exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued a writ
of injunction enjoining FMDC?
The action for dissolution of FREEMAN filed by its
minority stockholders is well within the jurisdiction of
the SEC to resolve in accordance with P.D. No. 902-A.
However, the inclusion in the SEC case of FMDC of
which private respondents are not stockholders for the
purpose of compelling it to reconvey to FREEMAN the
properties originally owned by the latter but were
levied upon and sold to FMDC in a public auction is a
matter outside of the limited jurisdiction of the SEC. The
petition for reconveyance of properties against FMDC is
not an intra-corporate controversy since private
respondents have no shares or interests whatsoever in
FMDC, a corporation separate and distinct from
FREEMAN, which is undergoing dissolution proceedings
in the SEC.
The judgment was fully satisfied and a certificate of sale
was issued to FMDC. It is axiomatic that after a
judgment has been fully satisfied, the case is deemed
terminated once and for all. It cannot be modified or
altered. Hence, the properties sold to FMDC are now
considered excluded from the corporate assets of
FREEMAN and can no longer be the subject of the
proceedings in the SEC for the dissolution of the latter.
4. City of Baguio v. Nino G.R. No. 161811 April 12,
2006
The Bureau of Lands awarded on May 13, 1966 to
Narcisa A. Placino (Narcisa) a parcel of land
identified as Lot No. 10 (the lot) located at Saint
Anthony Road, Dominican-Mirador Barangay, Baguio
City.
Francisco Nio (Nio), one of the herein respondents,
who has been occupying the lot, contested the
award by filing a Petition Protest on December 23,
1975 before the Bureau of Lands.
The decision of the Director of Lands dated
November 11, 1976 having become final and
executory, the then-Executive Director of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources-
Cordillera Autonomous Region (DENR-CAR), on
petition of Narcisa, issued an Order of Execution
dated February 1, 1993 directing the Community
Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO)
Officer to enforce the decision by ordering Petitioner
Nio and those acting in his behalf to refrain from
continuously occupying the area and remove
whatever improvements they may have introduced
thereto.
Narcisas counsel, Atty. Edilberto Claravall (Atty.
Claravall), later petitioned the DENR-CAR for the
issuance of a Special Order authorizing the City Sheriff
of Baguio, the City Police Station, and the Demolition
Team of the City Government to demolish or remove
the improvements on the lot introduced by Nio. The
DENR-CAR denied the petition, citing lack of
jurisdiction over the City Sheriff of Baguio, the City
Police Station, and the Demolition Team of the City
Government.

Can Bureau of Lands order a demolition of a house

without a special court order?
While the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands is confined
to the determination of the respective rights of rival
claimants to public lands or to cases which involve the
disposition of public lands, the power to determine who
has the actual, physical possession or occupation or the
better right of possession over public lands remains
with the courts.
The rationale is evident. The Bureau of Lands does not
have the wherewithal to police public lands. Neither
does it have the means to prevent disorders or
breaches of peace among the occupants. Its power is
clearly limited to disposition and alienation and while it
may decide disputes over possession, this is but in aid of
making the proper awards. The ultimate power to
resolve conflicts of possession is recognized to be within
the legal competence of the civil courts and its purpose
is to extend protection to the actual possessors and
occupants with a view to quell social unrest.