ADMIN LAW digests

PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota)

SY 2010-2011

D. LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION MAKING (by: DEAN SALVADOR CARLOTA) - - discussed November 30, 2010

MARY ANN JOY R. LEE

1

ADMIN LAW digests

PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota)

SY 2010-2011

GMA NETWORK, INC. V. MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD (MTRCB) GR No. 148579; February 5, 2007; J. Corona TOPIC: PART III. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES discussed DECEMBER 13, 2010, Tuesday A. LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION 4. PUBLICATION AND AFFECTIVITY Page 4 of syllabus NATURE: Petition for Review RULE 45 of the CA decision. FACTS: On January 11, 2000, MRTCB suspended for 7 days, GMA Network Inc.’s UHF television station EMC Channel 27, for airing “Muro Ami: The Making” without first securing a permit from it as provided in SECTION 7 1 of PD 1986: LAW CREATING THE MTRCB. The penalty of suspension was based on MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR 98-17 dated December 15, 1998. CA AFFIRMED MTRCB. ISSUE/S: 1.) WON MTRCB has the power or authority to review the show “Muro Ami: The Making” prior to broadcast by television? 2.) WON MC 98-17 was enforceable and binding on petitioner? HELD: 1.) YES PD 1986: LAW CREATING MTRCB SECTION 3: empowers the MRTCB to screen, review and examine all motion pictures, television programs including publicity materials.
1

“Muro Ami, The Making,” did not fall under any of the exemptions. In MTRCB V. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. (2005), SC held that even public affairs programs – a variety of news treatment; a cross between pure television news and news-related commercial analysis and/or exchange of opinions  Are within the MTRCB’s power of review. 2.) NO MC 98-17, was not binding, because it was not published or filed with the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR) as of January 27, 2000. The Administrative Code of 19872, expressly requires each agency to file with the ONAR of the UP Law Center, 3 certified copies of every rule adopted by it. Administrative issuances which are not published or filed with the ONAR are ineffective and may not be enforced. DISPOSITION: Petition PARTIALLY GRANTED. CA is affirmed as to MTRCB’s jurisdiction. Modification: suspension void. NOTE: this case is only 3 pages. 

2

SECTION 3. FILING – (1.) Every agency shall file with the UP Law Center 3 certified copies of every rule adopted by it.

Rules in force on the date of effectivity of this Code which are not filed within 3 months from that date shall not thereafter be the baiss of any sanction against any party or persons. (2.) The records officer of the agency, or his equivalent functionary, shall carry out the requirements of this section under pain of disciplinary action. (3.) A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and shall be open to public inspection. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVITY. – In addition to other rule—making requirements provided by law not inconsistent with this Book, each rule shall become effective 15 days from the date of filing as above provided unless a different date is fixed by law, or specified in the rule in cases of imminent danger to public health, safety and welfare, the existence of which must be expressed in a statement accompanying the rule. The agency shall take appropriate measures to make emergency rules known to persons who may be affected by them. MARY ANN JOY R. LEE 2

SECTION 7. REQUIREMENT OF PRIOR REVIEW: No motion picture, television program or related material shall be imported, exported, produced, copied, distributed, sold, leased, exhibited or broadcasted on television without prior permit issued by the BOARD after review of the motion picture, television program or publicity material. It is unlawful for any person or entity to exhibit or caused to be exhibited xxx by television in the Philippines any motion picture, television program xxx not duly authorized xxx and passed by the Board. The only exceptions are: a.) television programs imprinted or exhibited by the Philippine Government and/or departments and agencies; b.) newsreels.

ADMIN LAW digests

PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota)

SY 2010-2011

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) V. PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION GR No. 173918; April 8, 2008; J. Chico-Nazario TOPIC: PART III. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES discussed DECEMBER 13, 2010, TUESDAY A. LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION 4. PUBLICATION AND AFFECTIVITY Page 4 of syllabus NATURE: Petition for Review RULE 45 of the CA decision. FACTS: On October 10, 1984 the government created the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF). The Office of Energy Affairs (now DOE), informed Pilipinas Shell that their foreign exchange risk charge was insufficient: 1.) On December 4, 1991 – for the period December 1989 to March 1990:

DOE required Shell to pay the surcharges subject to proceeding against Shell’s Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit. Shell appealed to the Office of the President. The Office of the President affirmed DOE. CA reversed the Office of the President, MOF CIRCULAR 1-85 as amended was ineffective for failure to comply with the requirement to file with ONAR.3 Even if the Circular was issued before the effectivity of The Administrative Code of 1987, Book 7, Chapter 2, SECTION 3 specifies that rules already in force at the date of effectivity of the Administrative Code of 1987 must be filed within 3 months from the effectivity of the code. ISSUE: WON the MOF CIRC 1-85 was effective? HELD: No RATIO: Shell did not waive the requisite publication and filing of MOF CIRC 185 by paying the principal amount of its underpayment. Citing Tanada V. Tuvera (1986), SC enunciated that publication is indispensible in order that statures, including administrative rules that are intended to enforce or implement existing laws, attain binding force and effect: We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation. (Emphasis provided.) Publication and filing are safeguards against abuses on the part of lawmakers and as guarantees to the constitutional right to due process and to information on matters of public concern, and therefore, require compliance.
3

 P14, 414, 860. 75; 2.) On December 9, 1991 – for the period April 1991 – October 1991:
 P10, 139, 526. 56. They also charged surcharges of: 1) P11, 654, 782.31, 2) P 2, 806, 656. 65 pursuant to MOF CIRCULAR No. 1-85, as amended by DOF 2-94: 2. Remittance of paymjent to the OPSF as provided for under SECTION 5 of MOF Order No. 11-85 made not later than the 20 th of the month following the month of remittance of the foreign exchange payment of the import or the month of payment to thte domestic producers in case of locally produced crude. Period after the specified date shall be subject to a surcharge of 15% of the amount, id paid within 30 days from due date, plus 2% per month if paid after 30 days. Pilipinas Shell justified its calculations pursuant to a valid interpretation of the MOFs but nonetheless paid the principal amount of its underpayment: P24, 554, 387. 31 but not the surcharges.

ONAR Certification dated February 9 & 11, 2004. MARY ANN JOY R. LEE

3

ADMIN LAW digests

PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota)

SY 2010-2011

Citing: National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms V. Energy Regulatory Board (2006), SC emphasized that both publication and filing of administrative issuances intended to enforce existing laws are mandatory for the effectivity of said issuances: Nowhere from the above narration does it show that the GRAM Implementing Rules was published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. Significantly, the effectivity clauses of both the GRAM and ICERA Implementing Rules uniformly provide that they shall take effect immediately. These clauses made no mention of their publication in either the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. Moreover, per the Certification dated January 11, 2006 of the Office of the National Administrative Register (ONAR), the said implementing rules and regulations were not likewise filed with the said office in contravention of the Administrative Code of 1987. Applying the doctrine enunciated in Tañada v. Tuvera, the Court has previously declared as having no force and effect the following administrative issuances:

In all these cited cases, the administrative issuances questioned therein were uniformly struck down as they were not published or filed with the National Administrative Register. On the other hand, in Republic v. Express Telecommunications Co., Inc, the Court declared that the 1993 Revised Rules of the National Telecommunications Commission had not become effective despite the fact that it was filed with the National Administrative Register because the same had not been published at the time. The Court emphasized therein that publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation is a condition sine qua non before statutes, rules or regulations can take effect. In this case, the GRAM Implementing Rules must be declared ineffective as the same was never published or filed with the National Administrative Register. To show that there was compliance with the publication requirement, respondents MERALCO and the ERC dwell lengthily on the fact that parties, particularly the distribution utilities and consumer groups, were duly notified of the public consultation on the ERC’s proposed implementing rules. These parties participated in the said public consultation and even submitted their comments thereon. However, the fact that the parties participated in the public consultation and submitted their respective comments is not compliance with the fundamental rule that the GRAM Implementing Rules, or any administrative rules whose purpose is to enforce or implement existing law, must be published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. The requirement of publication of implementing rules of statutes is mandatory and may not be dispensed with altogether even if, as in this case, there was public consultation and submission by the parties of their comments. (Emphasis provided.) DISPOSITION: Petition is DENIED. CA is AFFIRMED.

(1.)

Rules and Regulations issued by the Joint Ministry of HealthMinistry of Labor and Employment Accreditation Committee regarding the accreditation of hospitals, medical clinics and laboratories; (2.) Letter of Instruction No. 1416 ordering the suspension of payments due and payable by distressed copper mining companies to the national government; (3.) Memorandum Circulars issued by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration regulating the recruitment of domestic helpers to Hong Kong; (4.) Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01 issued by the Philippine International Trading Corporation regulating applications for importation from the People’s Republic of China; (5.) Corporation Compensation Circular No. 10 issued by the Department of Budget and Management discontinuing the payment of other allowances and fringe benefits to government officials and employees; and (6.) POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2 Series of 1983 which provided for the schedule of placement and documentation fees for private employment agencies or authority holders.

ELISEO F. SORIANO V. LA GUARDIA
MARY ANN JOY R. LEE 4

Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito. the vulgar language petitioner used on prime-time television can in no way be characterized as suitable for all ages.) WON the program is denied due process. nothing furthering his avowed evangelical mission. J. 2010. FACTS: MTRCB imposed a 3 month suspension on the host: Eliseo F. 164785. x x x contain anything unsuitable for 4 On August 10. 2009. masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba.) WON Soriano’s utterances were in exercise of freedom of religion? 3. Even petitioner’s attempts to place his words in context show that he was moved by anger and the need to seek retribution. as host of the program Ang Dating Daan. and may be viewed without adult guidance or supervision. in the judgment of the [MTRCB]. ISSUE/S: 1. Soriano4 of Ang Dating Daan. that some INC ministers distorted his statements respecting amounts Ang Dating Daan owed to a TV station does not convert the foul language used in retaliation as religious speech. 2010 A. Ang Dating Daan has a "G" rating .the program must be "suitable for all ages. [dito] kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas.. EXAMPLES OF RULE-MAKING IN VARIOUS AGENCIES Page 5 of syllabus NATURE: Motion for Reconsideration of SC decision last April 29. Jr. Plain and simple insults directed at another person cannot be elevated to the status of religious speech. SC modified the MTRCB decision by imposing the suspension on the program. aired on UNTV 37. in turn. CA (1996) “We thus reject petitioner’s postulate that its religious program is per se beyond review by the respondent [MTRCB]. March 15. made the following remarks: Lehitimong anak ng demonyo. Petitioner could have chosen to contradict and disprove his detractors. The fact that he came out with his statements in a televised bible exposition program does not automatically accord them the character of a religious discourse. instead of on the host. and is wholly inappropriate for children. LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION 7. TOPIC: PART III. sinungaling. assuming its veracity. at around 10:00 p. We cannot accept that petitioner made his statements in defense of his reputation and religion. MARY ANN JOY R. Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan.) the sanction imposed on the TV program partakes of the nature of subsequent pusnishment for past violation committed by petitioner. as they constitute no intelligible defense or refutation of the alleged lies being spread by a rival religious group.m. not by any religious conviction. 2. for not being represented as a party? 4.) WON the suspension constitutes prior restraint (violation of freedom of expression? 2.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 GR No. LEE 5 . masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Citing INC V. Velasco." As previously discussed by the Court. means that the "material for television [does not]. but opted for the low road. His claim. 2004." which. They simply illustrate that petitioner had descended to the level of namecalling and foul-language discourse. Its public broadcast on TV of its religious program brings it out of the bosom of internal belief. x x x children and minors. Gago ka talaga Michael. Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba. petitioner. o di ba! O. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES assigned for JANUARY 4.) WON the utterances were obscene? HELD: 1.) There is nothing in petitioner’s statements subject of the complaints expressing any particular religious belief.

not on the censored to put up a defense against it. is believed inapplicable here. serious detriment to the more overriding interest of public health. Everyone is expected to bear the burden implicit in the exercise of these freedoms. the State should not stand still. responsibilities and obligations. public morals. Our country is still not safe from the recurrence of this stultifying strife considering our warring religious beliefs and the fanaticism with which some of us cling and claw to these beliefs.)” Freedoms encased in the Bill of Rights are far from absolute.) as lesson for the future. . ♥ ♥ ♥ The suspension of the program is sufficiently limited disciplinary action. Eliseo Soriano is “the Executive Producer of Ang Dating Daan” ♥ ♥ In Action for Children’s Television v. As it were. and (b.) No. The Court iterates the rule that the exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by the State when it will bring about the clear and present danger of some substantive evil which the State is duty bound to prevent. The threat of subsequent punishment itself would operate as a very effective prior restraint. But the mere prohibition of government interference before words are spoken is not an adequate protection of the freedom of expression if the government could arbitrarily punish after the words have been spoken. what is used in this jurisdiction is the system of classification of television programs. CARPIO. to 6:00 a.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 Television is a medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of children. DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED. Any form of prior restraint bears a presumption against its constitutional validity.e. the bloodiest and bitterest wars fought by men were caused by irreconcilable religious differences.m. A laissez faire policy on the exercise of religion can be seductive to the liberal mind but history counsels the Court against its blind adoption as religion is and continues to be a volatile area of concern in our country today.. LEE 6 4. there is no legislative enactment or executive issuance setting a similar period in the Philippines wherein indecent material may be broadcast. J. FCC (1995). Across the sea and in our shore.m. adverted to in Action for Children’s Television as the time wherein broadcast of indecent material may be permitted. 3. dissenting opinion: ♥ The freedom of expression clause is precisely a guarantee against both prior restraint and subsequent punishment.) to address the violation. Prior restraint has been defined as official governmental restrictions on any form of expression in advance of actual dissemination. not those for the average adult. both: (a. x x x For when religion divides and its exercise destroys. Each has its own limits. ♥ It protects from any undue interference by the government the people's right to freely speak their minds. The burden is on the censor to justify any imposition of prior restraint. i.) The defining standards to be employed in judging the harmful effects of the statements petitioner used would be those for the average child. or public welfare. Rather than fix a period for allowing indecent programming. MARY ANN JOY R. ♥ The guarantee rests on the principle that freedom of expression is essential to a functioning democracy and suppression of expression leads to authoritarianism. which the petitioner violated.8 (Emphasis added. a US case has a socalled "safe harbor" of 10:00 p.

lacks serious literary. and 2. LEE 7 ♥ . Hicklin(1868) case wherein Lord Cockburn enunciated thus: “I think the test of obscenity is this. extracts the essence of both Roth and Miller – that is. applying contemporary community standards.” ♥ ♥ One of the established EXCEPTIONS in freedom of expression is speech characterized as OBSCENE. (222 Phil. The test for limitations on freedom of expression continues to be the clear and present danger rule . more acceptable test for obscenity: "whether to the average person. The causal connection must be evident. however consonant it may be with mid-Victorian morals. the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest. whether print or broadcast. does not seem to me to answer to the understanding and morality of the present time. to determine whether freedom of expression may be limited is the clear and present danger of an evil of a substantive character that the State has a right to prevent. in Eastern Broadcasting Corporation v. or excretion. public health. taken as whole. in a patently offensive way. This Court.that words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the lawmaker has a right to prevent. The present controversy emanated from the alleged splicing of a video recording wherein petitioner was supposedly made to appear as if he was MARY ANN JOY R." Such material is defined as that which has "a tendency to excite lustful thoughts. as applied in our jurisprudence." and "prurient interest" as "a shameful or morbid interest in nudity. Nor does it suffice if such danger be only probable. to repeat.” ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ Chief Justice Fernando expounded on the meaning of the "clear and present danger" test in Gonzalez v. are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom of speech and expression clause. in United States v." ♥ Miller v. California (1973) merely expanded the Roth test to include two additional criteria: 1. There is the requirement of its being well-nigh inevitable. to wit: “The test.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 ♥ In the case of print media. as in the case at hand. sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law. whether the material appeals to prurient interest. political. Kennerly (1913). The settled rule is that any such abuse may be remedied by subsequent punishment. laid down the following guideline: “All forms of media. Chairman Katigbak (222 Phil 225). United States (1957) laid down the more reasonable and thus.) "the work depicts or describes.) the work. or any other legitimate public interest. whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. public morals. it has been held that just because press freedom may sometimes be abused does not mean that the press does not deserve immunity from prior restraint. and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall. artistic.” ♥ Roth v. sex. Where the medium of a television broadcast is concerned. Jr. well-entrenched is the rule that censorship is allowable only under the clearest proof of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil to public safety. The time element cannot be ignored." ♥ The basic test.” Judge Learned Hand. There should be no doubt that what is feared may be traced to the expression complained of. or scientific value. Dans. Also. Such danger must not only be clear but must also be present. there must be reasonable apprehension about its imminence. “I hope it is not improper for me to say that the rule as laid down. 151). The leading test for determining what material could be considered obscene was the famous Regina v. opposed the strictness of the Hicklin test even as he was obliged to follow the rule.

" a 12-minute monologue by American stand-up comedian and social critic. The highlighted portion of the verbal exchange between the two feuding religious groups is utterly bereft of any tendency to excite lustful thoughts as to be deemed obscene. Bro.S.m. sexual or excretory activities and organs.S. Appended to the decision was a verbatim transcript prepared by the Federal Communications Commission. Manny Catangay Jusay – wherein the excerpt was taken. motherfucker. Correctly applying Pacifica's context-based ruling. which has persuasive influence in our jurisprudence. at most. cunt. Eli Soriano and Bro. be said to appeal to any prurient interest. by any stretch of the imagination. fuck. Supreme Court merely considered indecent speech based on the context in which it was delivered. not a content-neutral regulation. when the number of children in the audience is at a minimum. if indeed indecent. onwards.S. and tits. The majority's finding of obscenity is clearly untenable. The concept of what is "indecent" is intimately connected with the exposure of children to language that describes. Supreme Court. FCC (1995). as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. Carpio cited the exchange between Bro. which the U. petitioner's speech. Indecent speech conveyed through the medium of broadcast is a case of first impression in our jurisdiction. establishes the safe harbor period to be from 10:00 in the evening to 6:00 in the morning. The monologue was broadcast at 2:00 p.6 million pesos. The case involved a radio broadcast of "Filthy Words. The original seven words were: shit. the subject speech by petitioner was broadcast starting 10:00 p. But such overbroad standard must be struck down for it indiscriminately infringes upon free speech. this issue has been settled in American case law. ♥ FCC v. the FCC did not resort to any subsequent punishment. ♥ ♥ The rule on this matter. piss. at times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.. the rule is that indecent speech is protected depending on the context in which it is spoken. in terms patently offensive. Josel Mallari. the monologue would have been protected were it delivered in another context. But should the majority still have any doubt in their minds. ♥ ♥ The video was played by ministers of Iglesia ni Cristo in their television program "Ang Tamang Daan. The subject speech in this case may. clearly within the safe harbor period as established in Action for Children's Television. ♥ MARY ANN JOY R. enjoys constitutional protection and may not be sanctioned. is crystal-clear. as laid down by Pacifica in relation to Action for Children's Television. In this case. There. in Pacifica. when children were presumptively in the audience. such doubt should be resolved in favor of free speech and against any interference by government.m. ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ A later case. much less any prior restraint.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 asking for contributions to raise 37 trillion pesos instead of the allegedly true amount of 3. Worthy of note. George Carlin. According to the U. LEE 8 . ♥ ♥ The subject speech cannot. Action for Children's Television v." J. The suspension of "Ang Dating Daan" by the MTRCB was a content-based. cocksucker. Pacifica Foundation (1978) is the landmark U. The station was not suspended for the broadcast of the monologue. However. case on the regulation of indecent speech in broadcast. be considered indecent speech.

♥ The majority's ruling in this case sets a dangerous precedent. Pacifica.S. the majority opinion held that even if petitioner's utterances were not obscene but merely indecent speech. which is television. The majority opinion attempts to assuage petitioner's misery by saying that petitioner can still exercise his right to speak his mind using other venues. even as the television station was fined. but mere indecent speech. On the contrary. suspension of a television program is a measure way too harsh that it would be inappropriate as the most reasonable means for averting a perceived harm to society. the program continued to be aired and was never suspended. to likewise face suspension. well within the safe harbor period for permissible television broadcast of speech which may be characterized as indecent.000. one of the episodes of "The Inside Story. The restriction on freedom need not be greater than is necessary to further the governmental interest ♥ The "balancing of interests" test requires that a determination must first be made whether the necessary safeguarding of the public interest involved may be achieved by some other measure less restrictive of the protected freedom. Prior restraint is simply uncalled for in this case where what is involved is not even obscene speech. would automatically be outside the constitutional protection. but also the other leaders of his congregation from exercising their constitutional right to free speech through their medium of choice. prior restraint by suspension is an extreme measure that may only be imposed after satisfying the "clear and present danger" test. television broadcast.m. that is. LEE 9 . However. Note too. they would still be outside of the constitutional protection because they were conveyed through a medium easily accessible to children. MARY ANN JOY R. not a prior restraint in the form of suspension as in this case. the MTRCB subsequently fined ABS-CBN in the amount of P20. ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ Indeed. But this proposition assumes that petitioner has access to other venues where he may continue his interrupted exercise of free speech using his chosen mode. The test should be strict because the regulation went into the very heart of the rationale for the right to free speech – that speech may not be prohibited just because government officials disapprove of the speaker's views. Gonzales (2008). when conveyed through a medium easily accessible to children. ♥ Suspension of the program stops not only petitioner. onwards. was aired without prior review and approval by the MTRCB. Granting without conceding that "balancing of interests" is the appropriate test in setting a limitation to free speech. In the cited case. It cites MTRCB v. Pacifica did not hold that indecent speech. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (2005) in justifying the government's exercise of regulatory power. the suspension should have been subjected to strict scrutiny following the rule in Chavez v. But the ABS-CBN case involved a mere fine as punishment. that the subject utterances in this case were broadcast starting 10:00 p.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 Thus. which requires the perceived danger to be both grave and imminent. The exacting "clear and present danger" test is dispensed with to give way to the "balancing of interests" test in favor of the government's exercise of its regulatory power. The majority immediately resorted to outright suspension without first exploring other measures less restrictive of freedom of speech. For this omission. the time of the day or the night when the indecent utterances were delivered. ♥ Further. The majority misapplied the doctrine of FCC v. Supreme Court emphasized the narrowness of its ruling in Pacifica." a television program of ABS-CBN. the U. on the slightest suspicion of being a danger to national security or on other pretexts. This decision makes it possible for any television or radio program. the leading jurisprudence on this matter. The guideline that Pacifica laid down is that the broadcast of a monologue containing indecent speech could be considered protected or unprotected depending on the context.

but we must defend to the death his right to say it. of expression. and Apollo Quiboloy’s The Kingdom of Jesus Christ. not just thoughts that are agreeable. LEE 10 . accused Michael of prostituting himself with his fabricated presentations. or of the press. Otherwise. or imprisonment. These movements have generated such tremendous following that they have been able to sustain daily television and radio programs that reach out to their members and followers all over the country. If its members get their spiritual nourishments from attending masses or novenas in their local churches. those of petitioner Soriano’s church tune in every night to listen to his televised Bible teachings and how these teachings apply to their lives. dissenting opinion: ♥ INC’s program Ang Tamang Daan host: Michael M. If Congress cannot pass such a law. such law would be abridging the freedom of speech. that all may be enlightened. To paraphrase Voltaire: We may disapprove of what petitioner has said. neither can this Court give its stamp of imprimatur to such an unconstitutional MTRCB rule or decision. And of course. In short. ♥ ♥ J. Ang Dating Daan is aired in the United States and Canada. let us not forget that freedom of speech includes the expression of thoughts that we do not approve of. but Congress has no power to suspend or suppress the people's right to speak freely because of such utterances. Sandoval (Michael) of the Iglesia ni Cristo attacked petitioner Soriano of the Ang Dating Daan for alleged inconsistencies in his Bible teachings. fine. neither can respondent MTRCB promulgate a rule or a decision suspending for three months petitioner's constitutional right to freedom of speech. ABAD. The three-month suspension cannot be passed off merely as a preventive suspension that does not partake of a penalty. Some of their programs are broadcast abroad. Eddie Villanueva’s Jesus is Lord. MARY ANN JOY R. ♥ Ang Dating Daan is a nationwide television ministry of a church organization officially known as "Members of the Church of God International" headed by petitioner Soriano. The market place of ideas makes freedom of speech robust and allows people to be more tolerant of opposing views. They hardly have places of worship like the Catholic Church or the mainstream protestant movements. It has been said that freedom of speech is not only to freely express oneself within the context of the law but also to hear what others say. Congress may pass a law punishing defamation or tortious speech but the punishment cannot be the suspension or suppression of the constitutional right to freedom of expression.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 ♥ While we may not agree with petitioner's choice of language in expressing his disgust in this word war between two feuding religious groups. with damages. Congress may punish such offensive or vulgar language after their utterance. ♥ Eliseo Soriano in apparent reaction to what he perceived as a malicious ♥ Even Congress cannot validly pass a law imposing a three-month preventive suspension on freedom of expression for offensive or vulgar language uttered in the past. regardless of how obnoxious or erroneous the opposing views may be. ♥ Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes – that the market place of ideas is still the best alternative to censorship. The Catholic Church is of course the largest religious organization in the Philippines. It is a vast religious movement not so far from those of Mike Velarde’s El Shadai. attack against him by the rival television program. The actual and real effect of the three-month suspension is a prior restraint on expression in violation of a fundamental constitutional right.

prurient materials to attract an audience to the program. the use of the words "puta" or "evil" helps people understand the values that compete in this world. Soriano actually exercised some restraints in the sense that he did not use the vernacular word for the female sexual organ when referring to it. instead of using the patently offensive vernacular equivalent of the word "fuck" that describes the sexual act in which the prostitute engages herself. taken as a whole. A policy that places these ordinary descriptive words beyond the hearing of children is unrealistic and is based on groundless fear. like the MTRCB read his few lines in isolation. The trouble is that the Court. "Evil" is bad but the word "evil" is not. LEE 11 ♥ Do they deserve this? No. Third. The world needs a word to describe it. He did not praise prostitutes as to make them attractive models to his listeners. suspending the Ang Dating Daan television program is the equivalent of closing down their churches to its followers. 2. it seems not fair for the Court to close down this Bible ministry to its large followers altogether for a full quarter of a year. his utterance merely bordered on the indecent. A quarter-of-a-year suspension would probably be justified when a general patronage program intentionally sneaks in snippets of lewd. First. He referred to it as "yung ibaba" or down below.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 ♥ Thus. This has not been the case here. which word even the published opinions of the Court avoided despite its adult readers. Soriano did not tell his viewers that being a prostitute was good. And. At most. . Petitioner Soriano’s Bible ministry has been on television continuously for 27 years since 1983 with no prior record of use of foul language. he condemned Michael for acting like a prostitute in attacking him on the air. Second. the test of obscenity is whether the average person. Surely no member of the Court will recall that when yet a child his or her hearing the word "puta" for the first time left him or her wounded for life. he instead used the word "gumagana lang doon yung ibaba" or what functions is only down below.) Not Obscene Primarily. Inside. the Court concedes that petitioner Soriano’s short outburst was not in the category of the obscene. would find the speech. the word "puta" or "prostitute" describes a bad trade but it is not a bad word. applying contemporary standards. 3. did he use the grossest language? He did not.) A tiny moment of lost temper. appeals to the prurient interest. A thing is prurient when it arouses lascivious thoughts or desires or tends to arouse sexual desire. MARY ANN JOY R. 1. It is like cutting the leg to cure a smelly foot. For a 15-second outburst of its head at his bitterest critics. Indeed. As the Court’s decision points out." But were his words and their meaning utterly indecent? In a scale of 10. the halls are empty. only to find its doors and windows heavily barred. It was just "indecent. it is obscenity on television that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech does not protect. Their inability to tune in on their Bible teaching program in the evening is for them like going to church on Sunday morning.) Merely Borders on “Indecent” Actually.

petitioner Soriano’s breach of the rule of decency is slight. This statement is much too sweeping. If Michael’s sin were true. using figure of speech. Bible teaching and interpretation is not the stuff of kids. Pacifica Foundation. It had no indecent meaning. "By their deeds they prostituted themselves. 4.” Soriano’s real message is that Michael prostituted himself by his calumny against him. Under this test.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 Actually. The average Filipino child would have been long in bed by the time Ang Dating Daan appeared on the television screen. The Court relies on the United States case of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) v. however. Michael was a man. Soriano was simply defending himself with justified anger. Here. the Court appears to have given a literal meaning to what Soriano said. uttered for its own sake with no social value at all. the duty of the courts is to determine which of the MARY ANN JOY R. Supreme Court held that the above is not protected speech and that the FCC could regulate its airing on radio." The Court has stretched the "child" angle beyond realistic proportions. Soriano’s speech no doubt caused harm to the children who watched the show. from the larger picture. Still. so he could not literally be a female prostitute. one on a scale of 10. 5. a 1978 landmark case. The Bible itself uses the word "prostitute" as a figure of speech. regarding a monologue aired on the radio at 2pm.) Disproportionate Penalty The Court applied the balancing of interest test in justifying the imposition of the penalty of suspension against Ang Dating Daan. And fourth. when particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order and the regulation results in an indirect. Its real meaning is that Michael was acting like a prostitute in mouthing the ideas of anyone who cared to pay him for such service. LEE 12 . not at 2:00 in the afternoon. It cannot compare to Soriano’s speech where the indecent words were slight and spoken as mere figure of speech to defend himself from what he perceived as malicious criticism. The U.) The Average Child is a listener The Court claims that. The U. at past 10:00 in the evening. partial abridgment of speech. The monologue in the FCC case that was broadcast at 2 in the afternoon was pure indecent and gross language. The MTRCB probably gave the program a general patronage rating simply because Ang Dating Daan had never before been involved in any questionable broadcast in the previous 27 years that it had been on the air. If at all. This was a figure of speech. since Ang Dating Daan carried a general patronage rating.S." said Psalm 106:39 of the Israelites who continued to worship idols after God had taken them out of Egyptian slavery. there is no question that Soriano attacked Michael. It is not likely that they would give up programs of interest to them just to listen to Soriano drawing a distinction between "faith" and "work or action. Soriano appears to have been provoked by Michael’s resort to splicing his speeches and making it appear that he had taught inconsistent and false doctrines to his listeners.S. conditional. Supreme Court was of course correct. the Court would deprive the Ang Dating Daan followers of their nightly bible teachings for a quarter of a year because their head teacher had used figures of speech to make his message vivid. What is more.

and total abridgment of the freedom of speech. if the violation is persistent. or partial. Katigbak (1985). The Court’s decision will not be a victory for the children but for the Iglesia ni Cristo. But here. An example of this is where an ordinance prohibits the making of loud noises from 9:00 p. no parent has in fact come forward with a complaint that his child had heard petitioner Soriano’s speech and was harmed by it. for a whole quarter of a year. It simply classified the picture as for adults only. The MTRCB classify programs to protect vulnerable audiences. In the American case of FCC. ♥ Here. the classification of his program will be permanently changed or.m.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 two conflicting interests demands the greater protection under the particular circumstances presented. The complaint here came from Iglesia ni Cristo preachers and members who deeply loathed Soriano and his church. In Gonzales v.m. MARY ANN JOY R. the abridgment of speech—three months total suspension of the Ang Dating Daan television bible teaching program—cannot be regarded as indirect. to which a religious organization is entitled. is to raise his program’s restriction classification. It can change the present G or General Patronage classification of Ang Dating Daan to PG or "with Parental Guidance only" for three months. ♥ This has precedent. It is a direct. and partial. LEE 13 . What is more. the more appropriate penalty. a parent complained. if Soriano’s speech during the program mentioned was indecent and had offended them. finally enabling it to silence an abhorred competing religious belief and its practices. conditional. the program will be altogether cancelled. unconditional. The Court would probably uphold the ordinance since public interest demands a quiet night’s rest for all and since the restraint on the freedom of speech is indirect. conditional. to 6:00 a. since this case is about protecting children. I vote to raise the program’s restriction classification from G or General Patronage to PG or with Parental Guidance for three months with warning that should petitioner Soriano commit the same violation. The Court cannot pretend that this is a case of angry or agitated parents against Ang Dating Daan. the Court did not ban the motion picture just because there were suggestive scenes in it that were not fit for children. He was riding with his son in the car at 2:00 in the afternoon and they heard the grossly indecent monologue on radio.

) Third. . MARY ANN JOY R. EIA has commanded a great deal of attention over the years. ♥ PD No. 3. 175220 TOPIC: PART III. (3.) Prohibited from Renewing their licenses.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 DAGAN V. Inc (PRCI) PHIL RA COM issued copies of the guidelines for monitoring and eradition of EIA. they alleged that there had been no prior consultation with horse owners. 4. 5. LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION 7. Teresa Trinidad and 8. GR No.) WON there were valid grounds for TRO NO 2. 5 Declaring it unlawful for any person. 7. Carmelita Florentino refused to comply with the directive. No vaccine or treatment exists for the disease. 6 Equine Infectious Anemia (EIA) is an infectious and potentially fatal viral disease of members of the horse family. Petitioners and racehorse owners: 1. the same are unfair – his horses are found positive with EIA.) Second. pursuant to ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER No. RTC issued TRO. which directed PHIL RA COM to investigate the matter. they claimed that neither official guidelines nor regulations had been issued relative to the taking of blood samples. The horses. EIAV is the first lentivirus-induced disease proven to be transmitted by insects. whose owners refused to comply were: (1. LEE 14 1: To immediately come up with their respective Clubs’ House Rule to 2: address Equine Infectious Anemia6 (EIA) problem and to rid their facilities of horses infected with EIA. firm or corporation to ship. This DNA is then incorporated into the genetic makeup of infected cells. 2009. RTC – 2 issues: 1.) Narciso Morales. EXAMPLES OF RULE-MAKING IN VARIOUS AGENCIES Page 5 of syllabus NATURE: Petition for Review RULE 45 of the CA decision. MJCI and PRCI ordered the owners of racehorses stables in their establishments to submit the horses to blood sampling and administration of the Coggins Test to determine whether they are with the EIA virus. 2010 A. 1. which it uses to produce DNA. valid exercise of police power CA affirmed RTC. 8.) Manila Jockey Club.) Cezar Azurin. 2. 2004.) Carlos Reyes. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES assigned for JANUARY 4.) First. Dagan refused to comply with the directives because according to him.) WON the Guidelines issued were valid YES. 6.) Banned from the races. Identified in France in 1843 and first tentatively diagnosed in the United States in 1888.) Bonifacio Montilla. Inc.) Evicted from their stables Racehorse owners filed a complaint with the Office of the President. they asserted that no documented case of EIA had been presented to justify the undertaking. 3. PHILIPPINE RACING COMMISSIONS February 12. drive or transport horses from any locality or place except when accompanied by a certificate issued by the authority of the Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI). 5 5 (March 28. SECTION 8 vested PHILRACOM with exclusive jurisdiction over and control of the horse racing industry. Tinga.) Weitong Lim.) Philippine Racing Club. Philippine Racing Commission (PHIL RA COM) issued a DIRECTIVE. (MJCI) and 2. The equine infectious anemia virus (EIAV) is categorized as a lentivirus: it contains genetic RNA material.) Removed from the actual day of the race.) William Dagan (Dagan). 1994) by the Department of Agriculture directing the: 1. (2. OR (4.) Ma. 2. J.) Ma. FACTS: On August 11.

No. THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE THE POWER: a. decrees and executive orders relating to horse-racing that are not expressly or implied repealed or modified by MARY ANN JOY R. SPECIFIC POWERS. This rule however admits of recognized exceptions7 such as: the grant of rule-making power to administrative agencies." Furthermore. potestas delegate non delegare potest This rule is based upon the ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate by the instrumentality of his own judgment acting immediately upon the matter of legislation and not through the intervening mind of another. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to be effected. the construction and safety of race tracks. P. and (b. SECTION 28 (2).) Delegation of tariff powers to the President under the CONSTITUTION. including the framing and scheduling of races. and to perform such duties and exercise all powers incidental or necessary to the accomplishment of its aims and objectives. ARTICLE VI.D. to wit: SECTION 9. In Abella. Philracom was granted exclusive jurisdiction and control over every aspect of the conduct of horse racing.) is complete in itself.) It must procedure. Delagation is valid only if the law: (a. SPECIFICALLY.) Delegation of Emergency Powers to the President under the CONSTITUTION. SECTION 23 (2). The Philracom directive is merely instructive in character. They have been granted by Congress with the authority to issue rules to regulate the implementation of a law entrusted to them. and the security of racing. marks its limits. PHILRACOM was created for the purpose of carrying out the declared policy in PD 420 SECTION 1 – to promote and direct the accelerated development and continued growth of horse racing not only in pursuance of the sports development program but also in order to insure the full exploitation of the sport as a source of revenue and employment. v. Section 9 of the law fixes the standards and limitations to which Philracom must conform in the performance of its functions. Delegated rule-making has become a practical necessity in modern governance due to the increasing complexity and variety of public functions. . (d. (e. maps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. Civil Service Commission (2004). ARTICLE VI. 420 is already complete in itself. setting forth therein the policy to be executed.) Its promulgation must be authorized by legislature. LEE 15 Complied with by PD 420. 7 be promulgated in accordance with prescribed OTHER EXCEPTIONS: (b.) Delegation to the People at large. REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY: (a. ISSUE/S: WON the Directive and the Guidelines are valid? HELD: Yes RATIO: There is no delegation of power to speak of between Philracom.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 ♥ PD 420 – endows PHILRACOM with the power to prescribe Rules and Regulations not otherwise inconsistent with the PD. (b. A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy. this Court had the occasion to rule that prior notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of rules or regulations issued in the exercise of quasi-legislative powers since there is no determination of past events or facts that have to be established or ascertained. or implemented by the delegate. as the delegator and MJCI and PRCI as delegates. To enforce all laws.) fixes a standard—the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable—to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. (c. carried out.) Delegation to local governments. Jr.

The administrative body may not make rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or a statute. i.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 this Decree. as it may be deem necessary in the exercise and performance of its powers and duties. and j.e. its discretion to rid the facilities of MJCI and PRCI of horses afflicted with EIA is aimed at preserving the security and integrity of horse races. f. It can order the suspension of any racing event in case of violation of any law. the complete riddance of horses infected with EIA. While it is conceded that the guidelines were issued a month after Philracom’s directive. or defeat. To issue.) It must be reasonable. or which are in derogation of. drugs. Philracom has every right to issue directives to MJCI and PRCI with respect to the conduct of horse racing. stimulants or other means to enhance or diminish the speed of horse or materially harm their condition. i. The guidelines implemented were undoubtedly reasonable as they bear a reasonable relation to the purpose sought to be accomplished. horse owners or associations or federations thereof. (c. d. b. approve or disapprove the rules and regulations issued by any person or entity concerning the conduct of horse races held by them. for its part Philracom has exercised its rule-making power in a proper and reasonable manner. e. LEE 16 . c. These guidelines are in accord with Philracom’s mandate under the law to regulate the conduct of horse racing in the country. h. all horses stabled at the MJCI and PRCI’s premises underwent the same procedure. The assailed guidelines discriminatory. The directive’s validity and effectivity are not dependent on any supplemental guidelines. (d. this circumstance does not render the directive nor the guidelines void. To register race horses. To review. with or without implementing guidelines. More specifically. modify. suspend or revoke permits and licenses and to impose or collect fees for the issuance of such licenses and permits to persons required to obtain the same. To enter into contracts involving obligations chargeable to or against the funds of the Commission. Clearly too. MARY ANN JOY R. ordinance or rules and regulations. including an Executive Director of the Commission.) It must be within the scope of the authority given by the legislature. To appoint all personnel. and to regulate the construction of race tracks and to grant permit for the holding of races. To approve the annual budget of the omission and such supplemental budgets as may be necessary.. To prescribe additional rules and regulations not otherwise inconsistent with this Decree. the purpose of a statute. including all such existing rules and regulations until otherwise modified or amended by the Commission. do not appear to be unreasonable or In fact. there is a proper legislative delegation of rule-making power to Philracom. particularly the statute it is administering or which created it. The assailed guidelines prescribe the procedure for monitoring and eradicating EIA. g. To prohibit the use of improper devices. To supervise all such race meeting to assure integrity at all times. (Emphasis supplied) Clearly.

ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 DISPOSITION: Petition DISMISSED. LEE 17 . MARY ANN JOY R.

2004. LEE 18 . LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION 7. 2010 A. May hard copy nung original from blessings – no need to print orig case TOPIC: PART III. EXAMPLES OF RULE-MAKING IN VARIOUS AGENCIES FIXING OF RATES. WAGES. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES assigned for JANUARY 4.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIROPRT AUTHORITY V. PRICES Page 5 of syllabus MARY ANN JOY R. AIRSPAN CORPORATION 445 SCRA 471.

ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 CARINO V. JURISDICTION Page 9 of syllabus NOTE: may digest sa page 53 ng B2005 reviewer MARY ANN JOY R. 1991 TOPIC: PART IV. LEE 19 . 2010 C. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 204 SCRA 483. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUE assigned for JANUARY 4. IN ADJUDICATION OF CASES 3.

CAB 270 SCRA 538. 1997. LEE 20 . IN ADJUDICATION OF CASES 3. V. INC. 2011 C. TOPIC: PART IV.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUE assigned for . 55 ng B2005 reviewer MARY ANN JOY R. JURISDICTION Page 9 of syllabus NOTE: may digest sa p.

ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 PHILIPPINE MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS ASS’N V. LEE 21 . 2011 C. TOPIC: PART IV. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDUE assigned for: . 1953. RULES OF EVIDENCE Page 10 of syllabus NOTE: may digest sa p. 844. PREMIER PRODUCTION 92 PHIL. IN ADJUDICATION OF CASES 5. 59 ng B2005 reviewer MARY ANN JOY R.

FACTORS AFFECTING FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS Page 10 of syllabus NATURE: 2 Consolidated Petitions for Review RULE 45 of CA decision. the person or persons responsible for such violation shall unless otherwise provided in this Act be punished by a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50. or violation of. rule or regulation issued by the Monetary Board. MARY ANN JOY R. their directors and/or officers. 168859. BSP dismissed the complaint. 052. EGI filed with the BSP an administrative complaint for violations of SECTIONS 368 and 379 of RA 6753: NEW CENTRAL BANK ACT.1 (a. whenever applicable: (a. EGI transferred additional properties by way of dacion en pago to UCPB but noted an increase of the balance remaining. FACTS: Beginning 1995. ORDERS OR INSTRUCTIONS. in relation to RA 8791: GENERAL BANKING LAW OF 2000. June 30. for any willful violation of its charter or by-laws.)10. instruction. E. Whenever a bank or quasi-bank persists in carrying on its business in an unlawful or unsafe manner. said director or officer shall be reinstated in his position: Provided. The case was dismissed by the Office of the Prosecutor of Makati and DOJ. 9 SECTION 37. taking into consideration the attendant circumstances.) (c. preventively suspend any director or officer of a bank or quasi-bank pending an investigation: Provided.) fines in amounts as may be determined by the Monetary Board to be appropriate. 000 which was applied to the principal. 592. 2009. or both. impose upon any bank or quasi-bank. 35. at its discretion. and/or conducting business in an unsafe or unsound manner as may be determined by the Monetary Board. GR No. any banking law or any order. GUANZON. willful delay in the submission of reports or publications thereof as required by law. EGI and UCPB entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to settle the loans of P915.) Thirty thousand pesos (P30. any refusal to permit examination into the affairs of the institution. or any order. That should the case be not finally decided by the Bangko Sentral within a period of one hundred twenty (120) days after the date of suspension. 491. PROCEEDINGS UPON VIOLATION OF THIS ACT AND OTHER BANKING LAWS. and/or revocation of quasi-banking license. — Whenever a bank or quasi-bank. EGI defaulted in payments. or any commission of irregularities. 8 SECTION 36.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 UPCB V. suspension of rediscounting privileges or access to Bangko Sentral credit facilities. suspension of lending or foreign exchange operations or authority to accept new deposits or make new investments. and for the commission of irregularities and conducting business in an unsafe or unsound manner. the following administrative sanctions. without prejudice to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraph of this section and the administrative sanctions provided in Section 37 of this Act. EGI discovered a UCPB Internal Memorandum whereby there are 2 columns: “ACTUAL” vs. INC. 202. EGI availed of credit facilities from UCPB to finance their expansion. “DISCLOSED TO EGI. The Monetary Board may. — Without prejudice to the criminal sanctions against the culpable persons provided in Sections 34. UCPB proceeded to foreclose the properties but the proceeds amounted to only P723. Chico-Nazario TOPIC: PART V. rules and regulations. take action under Section 30 of this Act. instruction or regulation issued by the Monetary Board. REGULATIONS.000) nor more than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200. CA reversed the BSP dismissal remanding the case for further proceedings.) (e. any willful making of a false or misleading statement to the Board or the appropriate supervising and examining department or its examiners. but in no case to exceed (b. whenever warranted by circumstances. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS assigned for . suspension of interbank clearing privileges. 838. ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS ON BANKS AND QUASI-BANKS. any willful failure or refusal to comply with.50 through dacion en pago of the mortgaged properties valued at P904. That when the delay in the disposition of the case is due to the fault. The above administrative sanctions need not be applied in the order of their severity. negligence or petition of the director or officer. ARTICLE IV. the Monetary Board may. LEE 22 . SECTION 55. instruction or ruling by the Governor. or whenever any person or entity willfully violates this Act or other pertinent banking laws being enforced or implemented by the Bangko Sentral or any order. 822. 2011 A. such as the nature and gravity of the violation or irregularity and the size of the bank or quasibank. at the discretion of the court. mortgaging its condo unit inventories as security. MANUAL OF REGULATIONS OF BANKS and BSP CIRCULAR No. J. the period of delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided.000) or by imprisonment of not less than two (2) years nor more than ten (10) years.” UCPB claims that the “ACTUAL” column was how the amounts were recorded in accordance with the MANUAL OF ACCOUNTS FOR BANKS. the Board may.000) a day for each violation. RULES. further. Resignation or termination from office shall not exempt such director or officer from administrative or criminal sanctions.) (d. UCPB filed a criminal case for theft and/or discovery of secrets against EGI. and 36 of this Act.

Trademarks and Technology Transfer.) WON CA erred in holding that BSP MB “summarily dismissed” the complaint EGI: 3. the Monetary Board may issue an order requiring the institution and/or the directors and/or officers concerned to cease and desist from the indicated practice or violation.000) a day for each violation. resolutions. otherwise known as The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. and/or instructions issued by the Monetary Board or by the Governor. The cease and desist order shall be immediately effective upon service on the respondents. LEE 23 Whether or not there is an administrative proceeding. the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. necessarily conveys the very idea of nonexclusivity of the enumeration. on Appeals from the Court of Tax Appeals and QuasiJudicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals. judgments. Office of the President. Social Security Commission. Section 9(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. Insurance Commission. and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law. Philippine Atomic Energy Commission. as amended. National Telecommunications Commission. the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission. Board of Investments. If no such hearing is requested within said period. 129.) YES BSP is a quasi-judicial body exercising quasi-judicial functions. instrumentalities. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission. SECTION 1 generally refers to quasi-judicial agencies. for any failure to comply with the requirements of law.1. reads: SEC.This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appealsand from awards. Agricultural Inventions Board. 10 SECTION 55. JURISDICTION. NO DIRECTOR. or commissions. the order shall be final. the imposition of which shall be final and executory until reversed.) WON CA should have directed BSP MB to implement appropriate penalties instead of remanding the case for further proceedings HELD: 1. if the institution and/or the directors and/or officers concerned continue with or otherwise persist in the commission of the indicated practice or violation.) Even if BSP MB is not in the lists.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 ISSUE/S: UCPB: 1. 442. – The Court of Appeals shall exercise: xxxx (3) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments. SECTIOn 9 (3) & RULE 43. the bank or any person. modified or lifted by the Monetary Board on appeal. including the Securities and Exchange Commission. Land Registration Authority. The Governor is hereby authorized. Monetary Board regulations and policies. MARY ANN JOY R. except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution. (Emphasis ours. all issues shall be determined on the basis of records. Central Board of Assessment Appeals. CA’s appellate jurisdiction in BP 129. and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. the Social Security Commission. at his discretion. orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies. fines not in excess of Ten thousand pesos (P10. SCOPE. . Securities and Exchange Commission. boards. National Electrification Administration. OFFICER. PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS. defines its scope as follows: SECTION 1. instrumentalities. OR AGENT OF ANY BANK SHALL — (a) Make false entries in any bank report or statement or participate in any fraudulent transaction.) In accordance with the afore-quoted provision. Bureau of Patents. EMPLOYEE. final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. . — 55. Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Employees Compensation Commission. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. Civil Aeronautics Board. decisions. and may further order that immediate action be taken to correct the conditions resulting from such practice or violation. 9. If a hearing is conducted. prior to the naming of several quasi-judicial agencies. The introductory phrase "[a]mong these agencies are" preceding the enumeration of specific quasi-judicial agencies only highlights the fact that the list is not meant to be exclusive or conclusive.) WON CA has jurisdiction to review decisions of the BSP MB? 2. after which the Monetary Board may either reconsider or make final its order. The use of the word "including" in the said provision. Energy Regulatory Board. to impose upon banking institutions. or causing damage to. upon request made by the respondents within five (5) days from their receipt of the order. boards or commissions. as amended. thereby affecting the financial interest of. 6657. (Emphasis ours. it does not mean that CA is bereft of appellate jurisdiction over it. the provisions of this Act. Government Service Insurance System. The respondents shall be afforded an opportunity to defend their action in a hearing before the Monetary Board or any committee chaired by any Monetary Board member created for the purpose.

Central Bank of the Philippines (1986)11 which SC held to be misplaced. orders. discretion. otherwise known as The New Central Bank Act. 11 Although in Salud. Without being explicitly excepted or exempted. etc. A "quasi-judicial function" is a term which applies to the action. orders. it is apparent that our ruling therein is limited to cases of insolvency. or where the enumeration is by way of example only. this Court declared that the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) has no appellate jurisdiction over resolutions or orders of the Monetary Board of the Central Bank of the Philippines (CBP. mandated to provide policy directions in the areas of money. The said Section 29 of the old Central Bank Act was explicit that the determination by the Monetary Board of whether a banking institution is insolvent. As aptly observed by the Court of Appeals. Section 30 of Republic Act No. said determination could be set aside by the trial court if there was convincing proof that the Monetary Board acted arbitrarily or in bad faith. to sue for contempt those refusing to obey the subpoena without justifiable reason. because no law prescribes any mode of appeal therefrom. There is nothing in the aforesaid laws which state that the final judgments. and for the commission of irregularity and unsafe or unsound banking practice. is final and executory. resolutions or awards of the BSP Monetary Board on administrative complaints against banks or quasi-banks shall be final and executory and beyond the subject of judicial review. hold hearings. 7653. 265. needed in its examination. of public administrative officers or bodies. the order of the BSP Monetary Board. as provided in Section 9(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. the factual settings of the said case are totally different from the one presently before us. the BSP Monetary Board is an independent central monetary authority and a body corporate with fiscal and administrative autonomy. pursuant to Section 29 of Republic Act No. and draw conclusions from them. UCPB also cited: Salud v. to impose fines and other sanctions and to issue cease and desist order. The present case involves a decision of the BSP Monetary Board as regards an administrative complaint against a bank and its corporate officers for the alleged violation of Sections 36 and 37. otherwise known as the old Central Bank Act.. Salud involved a resolution issued by the Monetary Board.." or appointing a receiver to take charge of the assets and liabilities of the bank. to administer oaths and compel presentation of books. 8791.e. It has power to issue subpoena. i. under the new law. even regarding the liquidation of a bank. or determining whether the banking institutions should be rehabilitated or liquidated. However. can be questioned via a Petition for Certiorari before a court when the same was issued in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. and not to all cases cognizable by the Monetary Board. At any rate. in relation to Section 55. records and others. and if in the latter case. or should be rehabilitated or liquidated. which took effect on 3 July 1993. forbidding banking institutions to do business on account of a "condition of insolvency" or because "its continuance in business would involve probable loss to depositors or creditors. now BSP). LEE 24 . the final judgments. who are required to investigate facts. the overture stresses and acknowledges the existence of other quasijudicial agencies not included in the enumeration but should be deemed included. as amended. and Section 1. banking and credit. Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. appointing a liquidator towards this end. resolutions or awards of the BSP Monetary Board are among those appealable to the Court of Appeals by way of Petition for Review. which affects the rights of private parties through either adjudication or rule-making. The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not apply where other circumstances indicate that the enumeration was not intended to be exclusive. MARY ANN JOY R. A quasi-judicial agency or body is an organ of government other than a court and other than a legislature.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 Further. 7653.1(a) of Republic Act No. 129. as a basis for their official action and to exercise discretion of a judicial nature. or ascertain the existence of facts. Article IV of Republic Act No. Under the circumstances obtaining in Salud.

is affirmed in BSP Circular No.163.000. The Court once more agrees in the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the MOA entered into by EGI and UCPB serves as a contract between them. Moreover. (2) fair market value of assets to be foreclosed is different from the bid price submitted during foreclosure and there is no statutory obligation for the latter to be equivalent to the former. MARY ANN JOY R. The said BSP Circular expressly provides that the resolution rendered by the BSP Monetary Board in administrative cases may be appealed to the Court of Appeals within the period and the manner provided under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.) NO Given the gravity and seriousness of the charges of EGI against UCPB. and without requiring additional security. or disregard. violate.) whether the differences between the figures in the "ACTUAL" and "DISCLOSED TO EGI" columns indeed corresponded to the interest that should be excluded from the figures in the first column per BSP rules and regulations.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 The court referred to therein can be construed to mean the Court of Appeals because it is in the said court where a Petition for Certiorari can be filed following the hierarchy of courts. and it is the law that should govern their relationship. Examples of some of these questions would be: 1. such as UCPB granting EGI said loan even when the latter was already in default on its prior loan obligations. the BSP Monetary Board merely presented the following conclusions without bothering to explain its bases for the same: (1) UCPB computed interest on loans based on BSP rules and regulations which prohibit banks from accruing interest on loans that have become non-performing (BSP Circular No. The disregard by BSP Monetary Board of all the foregoing facts and issues in its letter-decision dated 16 September 2003 leads this Court to declare that it summarily dismissed the administrative complaint of EGI against UCPB. there is absolute lack of explanation by the BSP Monetary Board as to why said documents deserved more weight vis-à-vis evidence of EGI of suspicious circumstances surrounding the said loan. 477. Moreover. one higher than the other. and trust entities. the BSP Monetary Board found that the P145. and Loan Agreement stating the proceeds shall be used to pay outstanding availments and interest servicing.. and (4) there is no finding by Supervision and Examination Department I on the alleged double charging and/or padding of transaction costs.00 fabricated loan. et al. the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals over the final judgments. However. 202). which was the heart of the administrative complaint of EGI against UCPB. et al.000. The BSP Monetary Board similarly failed to clarify whether UCPB can foreclose the mortgaged properties of EGI in amounts that were less than the values of the said properties as determined and stipulated by EGI and UCPB in their amended MOA. The BSP Monetary Board did not even attempt to establish whether it was regular or sound practice for a bank to keep a record of its borrower’s loan obligations with two different sets of figures. the BSP Monetary Board never considered the UCPB Internal Memorandum dated 22 February 2001.) whether the loan obligations of EGI have become non-performing. (3) regarding the alleged P145. 2. LEE 25 . the BSP Monetary Board never even referred to the MOA executed by the parties in its letter-decision dated 16 September 2003.163. et al.) whether the computations of the figures in both columns should have been freely disclosed and sufficiently explained to EGI in the name of transparency. Worse. detailed business plan. promissory note signed by Mr. the sweeping statement of the BSP Monetary Board that it was inclined to dismiss the complaint of EGI based on the evaluation made by its Supervision and Examination Department I and Office of the General Counsel and Legal Services.. the documents showed that there were the EGI Board resolution to borrow. resolutions or awards of the BSP Monetary Board in administrative cases involving directors and officers of banks. Further. The explanation of UCPB. quasi-banks. and financial projections from EGI. and 3. 2. Eulalio Ganzon. which neither of the parties can simply abrogate. et al. Unfortunately. and to disclose to the borrower only the higher figures. adopted by the BSP Monetary Board – that the figures in the "ACTUAL" column were lower than those in the "DISCLOSED TO EGI" column because the former was computed in accordance with BSP rules and regulations prohibiting the accrual of interest on loans that have become non-performing – gives rise to more questions than answers. in resolving the matter before it. is simply insufficient and unsatisfactory.00 loan of EGI from UCPB was not fabricated based on several documents. Series of 2005. orders.

DISPOSITION: Petitions DENIED.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 There can be no complete resolution of the administrative complaint of EGI without consideration of these facts and judgment on said issues. the CA only acted in accordance with RA 7653 & RA 8791. with its specialized knowledge and expertise on banking matters. such rule cannot be applied with respect to the assailed findings of the BSP Monetary Board in this case. While rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be controlling. is more up to task to receive evidence.) most of the findings were not supported by references to specific evidence. arguments and evidence. and 2. BSP.e. Although. MARY ANN JOY R. are accorded great weight on appeal.. The standard of substantial evidence required in administrative proceedings is more than a mere scintilla. It cannot be convincingly said herein that the factual findings of the BSP Monetary Board in its letter-decision dated 16 September 2003 was supported by substantial evidence since 1. summarily dismissing the same in its 16 September 2003 letter-decision. what applies is the recognized exception that if such findings are not supported by substantial evidence. only that BSP NV shall accord all parties concerned to equal opportunity for presentation and consideration of their allegations. findings of facts of an administrative agency. as a general rule.) NO CA did not yet make conclusive findings in its decision. or trust entities. CA never meant to give assurance to EGI of favorable judgment. may be deemed as conducting business in an unsafe or unsound manner. this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so far as to justify orders without basis in evidence having rational probative force. the Court can make its own independent evaluation of the facts. LEE 26 . which has acquired expertise in the particular field of its endeavor.) the findings were made without consideration of the primary evidence presented by EGI (i. nor did it find enough evidence on record to already resolve the complaint – precisely why the case is remanded to BSP MB for further proceedings. 3. which is not otherwise prohibited by any law. to determine whether a particular act or omission. Also BSP is the proper body to impose the necessary administrative sanctions for the erring bank and its directors or officers. By remanding the case to the BSP MB. rule or regulation affecting banks. through the MB. Rather. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. What the Court of Appeals positively pronounced was that the BSP Monetary Board failed to give the necessary consideration to the administrative complaint of EGI. the MOA and its amendments and the UCPB Internal Memorandum dated 22 February 2001). quasi-banks. CA held that BSP MB did not have sufficient basis for dismissing the administrative complaint. and thereafter resolve the issues based on its findings of fact and law. hold hearings. the obvious purpose being to free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order. It is the paramount duty of the courts and quasi-judicial bodies to render justice by following the basic rules and principles of due process and fair play. CA AFFIRMED. it only adjudged that BSP MB summarily dismissed the administrative complaint. which tasked the BSP.

64 ng B2005 reviewer MARY ANN JOY R. CLORIVEL G.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 DE LARA V. No. 2011 B. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS assigned for . May 13. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES Page 10 of syllabus NOTE: may digest sa p. 14 SCRA 269 TOPIC: PART V. 1965. L-21653.R. LEE 27 .

2011 D. 1983 TOPIC: PART V. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS assigned for . STANDING TO CHALLENGE Page 11 of syllabus NOTE: may digest sa p. LEE 28 . CTA 102 PHIL 244.70 ng B2005 reviewer MARY ANN JOY R.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 ACTING COLLECTOR V.

73 ng B2005 reviewer MARY ANN JOY R.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 JOYA V. 1993 TOPIC: PART V. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS assigned for . 2011 D. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT 225 SCRA 568. STANDING TO CHALLENGE Page 11 of syllabus NOTE: may digest sa p. LEE 29 .

S.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 ASSOCIATION OF DATA PROCESSING SERVICE ORGANIZATION V. 25 L. 2d 184. Ed. 827. 1970. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS assigned for . 2011 D. 90 S Ct. LEE 30 . CAMP 397 U. STANDING TO CHALLENGE Page 11 of syllabus NOTE: may digest sa p.76 ng B2005 reviewer MARY ANN JOY R. TOPIC: PART V. 150.

No. LEE 31 . MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW assigned for . G. 143403. http://www. January 22.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2003/jan2 003/143403.R. GANGAN 395 SCRA 711. 2003.chanrobles. CERTIORARI Page 12 of syllabus MARY ANN JOY R. 2011 B.php TOPIC: PART VI.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 CRUZ V.

) voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.) Employees Compensation Commission. CSC GR No. 3. J. 18.) Grave Misconduct 3. provide that final orders or resolutions of the CSC are appealable to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review. 12 Sections 1 and 5.) CA was correct: Petition for Review under RULE 43 Section 50.) What is the proper remedy? 2. The original copy of the petition intended for the Court of Appeals shall be indicated as such by the petitioner.) Energy Regulatory Board. No. Formerly Pagayanan Romero – another person took the Civil Service Examinations on her behalf.) National Telecommunications Commission. CSC RO found Pagayanan Romero Hadji-Sarad guilty. (affirmed by CSC) CA dismissed Hadji-Sarad’s Petition for Certiorari under RULE 65 for being the wrong mode of appeal. final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of quasi judicial functions.) Civil Aeronautics Board.) WON technicality brushed aside.) Construction Industry Arbitration Commission.  SECTION 50.) National Electrification Administration.) Government Service Insurance System. XII with: 1.) Civil Service Commission. 19. judgments. 9. 182267.) Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic Act. SEC. 2011 B. should be RULE 43 daw.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 PAGAYANAN R. ISSUE/S: 1. MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW assigned for .) Social Security Commission. Aug. . 2. 2009. HADJI-SIRAD V. the judgment can be reversed? HELD: 1. 6657. MARY ANN JOY R. Hadji-Sarad. 5. Among these agencies are the: 1. FACTS: On Feb. 12. SCOPE. an employee of the Commission on Audit (COA) in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was formally charged by CSC RO No. – Appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review in seven (7) legible copies with the Court of Appeals. 7. Hadji-Sarad had 15 days after receiving the denial to file a petition for review. 11.This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards. 6. 16. 5. as amended. and DISMISSED her from service. 4. 14.) Dishonesty 2. CERTIORARI Page 12 of syllabus NATURE: Petition for Review RULE 45 of the CA decision. PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS.) Central Board of Assessment Appeals. 15. HOW APPEAL TAKEN.) Insurance Commission. A special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost or lapsed remedy of appeal. 8. 17.) Philippine Atomic Energy Commission.) Bureau of Patents. LEE 32 . 13. Rule III of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the CSC12 plainly states that a party may elevate a decision of the Commission before the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court.) Office of the President.) Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. 10. – A party may elevate a decision of the Commission before the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court. and 20.) Board of Investments. Chico-Nazario TOPIC: PART VI. with proof of service of a copy thereof on the adverse party and on the court or agency a quo. 4. Trademarks and Technology Transfer.) Agricultural Inventions Board. 28. 2002. to wit: SECTION 1.) Land Registration Authority.) Securities and Exchange Commission. Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

of the same rules. was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was received. LEE 33 . Rule 46. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive. The Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply disregarded. the CA also noted petitioner’s failure to comply with the requirements for petitions under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. for these prescribed procedures insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. The other requisite number of copies of the petition shall be accompanied by clearly legible plain copies of all documents attached to the original. order. EFFECT OF NONCOMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS. or by the proper officer of the court. – xxxx In actions filed under Rule 65. mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties’ right to an opportunity to be heard. In this case. thus. the second and third paragraphs of Section 3. resolution.) SC found her GUILTY. the petition shall further indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final order or resolution subject thereof was received. Rules of procedure are tools designed to promote efficiency and orderliness as well as to facilitate attainment of justice. which read: SEC. and other documents relevant or pertinent thereto. the ends of justice would be better served. Technicality and procedural imperfection should. It shall be filed in seven (7) clearly legible copies together with proof of service thereof on the respondent with the original copy intended for the court indicated as such by the petitioner. not serve as basis of decisions. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. tribunal. agency or office involved or by his duly authorized representative. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character. CONTENTS AND FILING OF PETITION.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011  We have often enough reminded members of the bench and bar that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure lies only when there is no appeal or plain. technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. 3. Certiorari is not allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment or final order despite the availability of that remedy.    In addition to being the wrong mode of appeal. petitioner utterly failed to provide any justification for her resort to a special civil action for certiorari. if any. particularly. Petitioner failed to indicate in her Petition for Certiorari the material date when she filed her Motion for Reconsideration. However. and to append to the same Petition a certified true copy or duplicate original of the said Motion for Reconsideration. it is equally true that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. The certification shall be accomplished by the proper clerk of court or by his duly authorized representative. (Emphasis supplied. when a motion for new trial or reconsideration. exigencies and situations might occasionally demand flexibility in their application. This is in line with the time-honored principle that cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses.) MARY ANN JOY R. In that way. However. This is not to say that adherence to the Rules could be dispensed with. the Court relaxed the rigid application of the rules of procedure to afford the parties the opportunity to fully ventilate their cases on the merit. such that strict adherence thereto is required. In not a few instances. such material portions of the record as referred to therein. The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition. when the remedy of appeal by petition for review was clearly available. or ruling subject thereof. 2. and shall be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy of the judgment. However.

we have held that lower courts are in a better position to determine the truth of the matter in litigation. such as: a. Furthermore. In administrative proceedings. XII. to present witnesses and evidence in one’s favor.) the existence of special or compelling circumstances.) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules. 2. such as in the case at bar. MARY ANN JOY R.) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected. its findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court. d. there is no denial of procedural due process. e. reveals their marked differences from one another. and his participation therein renders him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position. and in the AF and PSP for the CS Professional Examination of 29 November 1992. In a plethora of cases.) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings. It can be observed by the naked eye that the pictures and signatures bear little resemblance/similitude. In administrative proceedings. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct. procedural due process has been recognized to include the following: 1. which may affect a respondent’s legal rights. is supported by competent and credible evidence. which dismissed petitioner from service for Dishonesty. Even only a cursory examination of petitioner’s pictures and signatures in her PDS dated 10 November 1994.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 In Sanchez v. and not clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt. Well-entrenched is the rule that substantial proof. b. is sufficient basis for the imposition of any disciplinary action upon an employee. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court. There is such substantial evidence herein to prove petitioner guilty of the administrative offenses for which she was charged.) the merits of the case. or none at all. As a general rule. honor or property. nor could the signatures have been made by the same person. and they are able to look into the credibility and the demeanor of the witnesses on the witness stand. on the other. Grave Misconduct. c.) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality. and f. The pictures could not have been those of the same individual.) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory. "To be heard" does not mean only verbal arguments in court.) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby. and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Court of Appeals (2003). Factual findings of administrative agencies are generally held to be binding and final so long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record of the case. is accorded. The Decision dated 27 February 2006 of CSCRO No. Where opportunity to be heard. procedural due process simply means the opportunity to explain one’s side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. affirmed by the CSC. liberty. LEE 34 .) matters of life. and petitioner’s purported pictures and signatures in the AF and PSP for the CSC Professional Examination of 17 October 1993. and to defend one’s rights. and 4. 3. on one hand.) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel. the findings of fact of the CSC and the Court of Appeals are accorded great weight. the Court restated the reasons that may provide justification for a court to suspend a strict adherence to procedural rules. quasi-judicial bodies like the CSC are better-equipped in handling cases involving the employment status of employees as those in the Civil Service since it is within the field of their expertise. either through oral arguments or pleadings. one may be heard also thru pleadings. since the pieces of evidence are presented before them. The law requires that the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in administrative cases is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

actually signed the AF and took the CS Professional Examination on 17 October 1993. Jaime A. it was made clear that he only saw the name of Hadji Sirad in the list of examinees posted outside Room 003.” The only logical scenario is that another person.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED. it is stressed that the fact that Yasa is a long-time employee of the Commission does not render his statements relative to the conduct of the 1993 CS Professional examination in Iligan City as gospel truth. Further. Clearly. who matched the picture in the PSP. Civil Service Commission (2001). that the only time he saw Hadji Sirad was prior to the start of the examination. Further. in petitioner’s name. On the witness stand. The examiners carefully compare the appearance of each of the examinees with the person in the picture submitted and affixed on the PSP. Ma. to wit: “It should be stressed that as a matter of procedure. 95-5195. the examiner will not allow the said person to take the examination (CSC Resolution No. Besides. he did not see Hadji Sirad actually take the exam nor hand in her examination papers after she finished the examination. We cannot even consider the possibility that the CSC officials who supervised the examinations committed a mistake in matching the pictures and signatures vis-à-vis the examinees. In cases where the examinee does not look like the person in the picture submitted and attached on the PSP. 95-3694. Finally. Theresa). MARY ANN JOY R. such a mix-up is highly unlikely due to the strict procedures followed during civil service examinations. Obedencio. as the said CSC officials enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duty. described in detail in Cruz v. Taguinay. the room examiners assigned to supervise the conduct of a Civil Service examination closely examine the pictures submitted and affixed on the Picture Seat Plan (CSC Resolution No. CA AFFIRMED.). testimonies of witnesses Casanguan and Yasa do not stand conclusive of the fact that it was indeed respondent who took the said examination. LEE 35 .

ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 NATIONAL DENTAL SUPPLY CO. 1951 TOPIC: PART VI. 2011 E. LEE 36 .90 ng B2005 reviewer MARY ANN JOY R. DECLARATORY RELIEF Page 13 of syllabus NOTE: may digest sa p. V. MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW assigned for . MEER 90 PHIL 265.

ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 MEJOFF V. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS 90 PHIL 70. 2011 F. MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW assigned for . 1951 TOPIC: PART VI. HABEAS CORPUS Page 13 of syllabus NOTE: may digest sa p. LEE 37 . 91 ng B2005 reviewer MARY ANN JOY R.

22756. 2011 G. INJUNCTION AS PROVISIONAL REMEDY Page 13 of syllabus NOTE: may digest sa p. 1966. MODES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW assigned for . SAN DIEGO GR No.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 HONDA V. LEE 38 . March 18. 93 ng B2005 reviewer MARY ANN JOY R. 16 SCRA 406 TOPIC: PART VI.

FINALITY OF JUDGMENT Page 15 of syllabus MARY ANN JOY R. V. ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY ACTION assigned for . INC. 2011 A. 1993 TOPIC: PART VIII.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY. CA 222 SCRA 155. LEE 39 . RES JUDICATA.

No. PCFI filed and was denied motion for reconsideration hence the instant petition for certiorari which was also denied by the SC In 1991. 2011 A. 101783. subject matter and causes of action. V. 551 ISSUES: 1..com/gr_101783. LEE 40 o “SEC. Thus. PCFI sought for the immediate refund by Meralco to its customers of all the savings it realized under P.htm http://www. 2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. A final judgment. and for the payment of damages and a fine in the amount of P 50.chanrobles. AL. through the reduction of its franchise tax from 5% to 2%. D.” . FINALITY OF JUDGMENT Page 15 of syllabus NATURE: FACTS: • President Marcos issued PD 551 providing for the reduction from 5% to 2% of the franchise tax paid by electric companies • • Philippine Consumers Foundation (PCFI) filed a petition to the Board of Energy (BOE) against Meralco. it is the duty of the lower courts to obey the Decisions of this Court and render obeisance to its status as the apex of the hierarchy of courts. RES JUDICATA. Salvador-Gutierrez • Meralco contends that it is authorized by the BOE to retain its savings. D. 23. It moored its petition on Section 4 of P. “A becoming modesty of inferior courts demands conscious realization of the position that they occupy in the interrelation and operation of the integrated judicial system of the nation. beyond dispute.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 MANILA ELECTRIC CO. D. the following requisites must concur: 1) there must be a final judgment or order. 551.” MARY ANN JOY R.html • • TOPIC: PART VIII. All the savings realized by electric franchise holders from the reduction of the franchise tax under Section 1 and tariff reductions and tax credits under Sections 2 and 3. D. ET.00 for violating P. 551. especially of this Court. with interest at the legal rate. is binding on the whole world. J. GR No. shall be passed on to the ultimate consumer. For a claim of res judicata to prosper. WON private respondents can no longer avail of the remedy of an action for declaratory relief in view of the rule that such action should be filed before a violation of the statute occurred HELD: The first contention has already been settled and cannot anymore be sanctioned under the principle of res judicata. PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS FOUNDATION. albeit erroneous. 551 2. for to do so will negate the principle of hierarchy of courts and nullify the essence of review. 000. 4. A lower court cannot reverse or set aside decisions or orders of a superior court. ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY ACTION assigned for . Jan. No.abernales. between the two cases identity of parties. No. BOE supported the contention of Meralco. WON RTC can annul decision already rendered by the SC 3. All the above requisites are extant in the records and thus. WON Meralco is duly authorized to retain the savings resulting from the reduction of the franchise tax under P. 2002. RTC declared the decision of the SC null and void based on the dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice Meralco moved for motion for reconsideration but was denied by the same RTC hence the instant petition http://www. and 4) there must be. The Secretary of Finance shall promulgate rules and regulations and devise a reporting system to carry out the provisions of this Decree. 3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits.com/cralawgrno101783jan232002.

” as eloquently declared by Justice J. Reyes. judicial error should be corrected through appeals. all lower courts. B. Although judicial determinations are not infallible. Respondent RTC. ought to be reminded that a final and executory decision or order can no longer be disturbed or reopened no matter how erroneous it may be. L.ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 “There is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts should take their bearings. not through repeated suits on the same claim DISPOSITION: NOTES: MARY ANN JOY R. and for this matter. LEE 41 .

THE COMMANDING GENERAL.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1978/sep1 978/gr_44077_1978. DE CORPUZ V.R. ENFORCEMENT OF AGENCY ACTION assigned for . 2011 B.chanrobles.php TOPIC: PART VIII. Sept. LEE 42 .ADMIN LAW digests PROF JARDELEZA (syllabus: Dean Carlota) SY 2010-2011 VDA. 30. No.net/judjuris/juri1978/sep1978/gr_44077_197 8. ARMY G.lawphil. PHIL. http://www. MANDAMUS Page 15 of syllabus MARY ANN JOY R.html http://www. L-44077.com/Jurisprudence/1978/gr_44077_1978. WRIT OF EXECUTION. php http://www.ustcivillaw. 1989.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful