Facts:

Eloy Miguel filed a homestead application for a parcel of public land with the Bureau of
Lands in Isabela. Thereafter, His son, Demetrio Miguel, declared for taxation purposes another
parcel of land in Isabela and had since then been in actual, open, peaceful, and continuous
possession of the same under a claim of ownership. Having informed that Anacleta M. Vda. De
Reyes had included both the abovementioned parcels of land in a sales application she filed
with the Bureau of Lands, Plaintiffs Eloy and Demetrio Miguel filed their protest with the said
bureau. Pending hearing, Reyes had successfully acquired the said parcels of land and an OCT
had been issued in her favor. Plaintiffs filed an action to the CFI, praying for judgement to void
the sales patent and cancel the said OCT. CFI dismissed the complaint, and thereupon brought
the case to the Supreme Court on appeal.
Issue:
Whether or not plaintiffs can maintain this action to the Supreme Court.
Held:
The Supreme Court held in the negative.
If plaintiffs were aggrieved by the action or decision of the Director of Lands, their
remedy was to appeal to the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce. It does not even appear
that they have pursued their protest to its conclusion in the Bureau of Lands itself. Having
failed to exhaust their remedy in the administrative branch of the Government, plaintiffs
cannot not now seek relief in the courts of justice.
FACTS:
Private respondent Smart Communications, Inc. (Smart) filed with the NTC a Complaint
to effect the interconnection of their SMS or texting services with petitioner Globe Telecom, Inc.
(Globe).  Smart alleged that Globe, with evident bad faith and malice, refused to grant Smart’s
request for the interconnection of SMS. Globe pointed out procedural defects in Smart’s
complaints and moved to dismiss the case.
NTC issued the Order where it ruled that both Smart and Globe were “equally
blameworthy” and issued an Order for their lack of cooperation in the submission of the
documentation required for interconnection and for having unduly maneuvered the situation into
the present impasse and penalized both on the ground of providing SMS under Value Added
Services (VAS) without prior approval from the NTC. NTC ordered Smart and Globe to secure
the requisite authority to provide SMS within 30 days, subject to payment of fine in the amount
of P200.00 from the date of violation and for every day during which such violation continues.
Globe filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition to nullify and set aside the Order.
Issue:
Whether or not NTC acted with due process in levying the fine against Globe.
Held:
No. (The order of the NTC is hereby SET ASIDE)
The assailed NTCs determination and corresponding penalty were rendered in the
exercise of quasi-judicial functions. Therefore, all the requirements of due process attendant to
the exercise of quasi-judicial power apply to the present case. The 7 Cardinal Primary Rights in
justiciable cases before an administrative tribunal in the case of Ang Tibal vs CIR are as follows:
The first of these rights is 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. Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to
adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must
consider the evidence presented. While the duty to deliberate does not impose the
obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded,
namely, that of having something to support its decision. Not only must there be some
evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. 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.
NTC violated several of these cardinal rights due Globe in the promulgation of the
assailed Order.
First. The NTC Order is not supported by substantial evidence. Neither does it
sufficiently explain the reasons for the decision rendered.
Second. Globe and Smart were denied opportunity to present evidence on the
issues relating to the nature of VAS and the prior approval.
Third. The imposition of fine is void for violation of due process. NTC cited Sec. 21
of Public Service Act as a basis for its imposition of fine on Globe. Section 21 requires notice
and hearing because fine is a sanction, regulatory and even punitive in character. Indeed, the
requirement is the essence of due process.