1. US VS.

PANLILIO The orders (rules and regulations) of an administrative officers or body issued pursuant to a statute have the force of law but are not penal in nature and a violation of such orders is not an offense punishable by law unless the statute expressly penalizes such violation. FACTS: The accused was convicted of violation of Act 1760 relating to the quarantining of animals suffering from dangerous communicable or contagious diseases and sentencing him to pay a fine of P40 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs of trial. It is alleged that the accused illegally and without being authorized to do so, and while quarantine against the said carabaos exposed to rinder pest was still in effect, permitted and ordered said carabaos to be taken from the corral in which they were quarantined and drove them from one place to another. The accused contends that the facts alleged in the information and proved on the trial do not constitute a violation of Act No. 1760 ISSUE: Whether accused can be penalized for violation of the order of the Bureau of Agriculture? HELD: NO. Nowhere in the law is the violation of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture prohibited or made unlawful, nor is there provided any punishment for a violation of such orders. Section 8 of Act No. 1760 provides that any person violating any of the provisions of the Act shall, upon conviction, be punished. However, the only sections of the Act which prohibit acts and pronounce them as unlawful are Sections 3, 4 and 5. This case does not fall within any of them. A violation of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture, as authorized by paragraph, is not a violation of the provision of the Act. The orders of the Bureau of Agriculture, while they may possibly be said to have the force of law, are statutes and particularly not penal statutes, and a violation of such orders is not a penal offense unless the statute itself somewhere makes a violation thereof unlawful and penalizes it. Nowhere in Act No. 1760 is a violation of the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture made a penal offense, nor is such violation punished in any way therein. However, the accused did violate Art. 581, ¶2 of the Penal Code which punishes any person who violates regulations or ordinances with reference to epidemic disease among animals.

2. PEOPLE VS. MACEREN Administrative regulations adopted under legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general provisions. By such regulations, the law itself cannot be extended. An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress. FACTS: The respondents were charged with violating Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1 which penalizes electro fishing in fresh water fisheries. This was promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries under the old Fisheries Law and the law creating the Fisheries Commission. The municipal court quashed the complaint and held that the law does not clearly prohibit electro fishing, hence the executive and judicial departments cannot consider the same. On appeal, the CFI affirmed the dismissal. Hence, this appeal to the SC. ISSUE: Whether the administrative order penalizing electro fishing is valid? HELD: NO. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries exceeded their authority in issuing the administrative order. The old Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit electro fishing. As electro fishing is not banned under that law, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissioner of Fisheries are powerless to penalize it. Had the lawmaking body intended to punish electro fishing, a penal provision to that effect could have been easily embodied in the old Fisheries Law. The lawmaking body cannot delegate to an executive official the power to declare what acts should constitute an offense. It can authorize the issuance of regulations and the imposition of the penalty provided for in the law itself. Where the legislature has delegated to executive or administrative officers and boards authority to promulgate rules to carry out an express legislative purpose, the rules of administrative officers and boards, which have the effect of extending, or which conflict with the authority granting statute, do not represent a valid precise of the rule-making power.

Circular No. it thus became necessary for the SSS to interpret the effect of such deletion through Circular No. 22. administrative interpretation of the law is at best merely advisory. it "makes" a new law with the force and effect of a valid law. SSS When an administrative agency promulgates rules and regulations. while when it renders an opinion or gives a statement of policy. it merely interprets a pre-existing law.3. but a mere administrative interpretation in light of the amendments introduced by an amendatory law. Circular No. bonuses and overtime pay were expressly exclude. Hence. There is a distinction between an administrative rule or regulation and an administrative interpretation of a law whose enforcement is entrusted to an administrative body. When an administrative agency promulgates rules and regulations. in view of the amendment of the provisions of the Social Security Law defining the term compensation. it "makes" a new law with the force and effect of a valid law. In this case. A rule is binding on the courts so long as the procedure fixed for its promulgation is followed and its scope is within the statutory authority granted by the legislature. partake of the nature of a statute. Victorias questioned its validity for lack of authority on the part of the SSS to promulgate it without the approval of the President and for lack of publication in the OG. 22 is a rule or regulation? HELD: NO. Hence. and compliance therewith may be enforced by a penal sanction provided in the law. there is no need for approval of the President and publication in the OG to be effective. SSS argues that Circular No. Rules and regulations when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred upon the administrative agency by law. VICTORIAS MILLING VS. 22 was issued by the SSS. 22 which provides that. all employers will include in the employee s remuneration all bonuses and overtime pay. . Victorias Milling Company protested the circular as being contradictory to its previous Circular which expressly excluded overtime pay and bonus in the computation of premium contributions. On the other hand. in computing the premiums due. While prior to the amendment. it merely interprets a pre-existing law. 22 is not a rule or regulation. 22 is an administrative interpretation. while when it renders an opinion or gives a statement of policy. ISSUE: Whether Circular No. FACTS: The SSS issued Circular No. for it is the courts that finally determine what the law means. such exemption was deleted by the amendatory law.

the Order was modified reducing the increases to a lower ceiling of 10% to 15%. FACTS: The Task Force on Private Higher Education created by DECS submitted a report recommending an increase in school fees. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION. the grant of prior notice and hearing to the affected parties is not a requirement of due process. Petitioner sought for reconsideration on the ground that the increases were too high.4. Where the rules and the rates imposed apply exclusively to a particular party. PHILIPPINE CONSUMERS FOUNDATION. VS. Thereafter. No other government agency has been vested with the authority to fix school fees and as such. the Department Order prescribes the maximum school fees that may be charged by all private schools in the country for the school year 1987 to 1988. In this case. This being so. DECS took note of the report and issued an Order authorizing a 15% to 20% increase as recommended. When the rules and/or rates laid down by an administrative agency are meant to apply to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the country. as granted by law. then its function is quasi-judicial in character. they may partake of a legislative character. The function of prescribing rates by an administrative agency may be either a legislative or an adjudicative function. ISSUE: Whether the Department Order is valid? HELD: YES. prior notice and hearing is not essential to the validity of its issuance. The power of the DECS. the power should be considered lodged with the DECS if it is to properly and effectively discharge its functions and duties under the law. prior notice and hearing are essential to the validity of such rates. based upon a finding of fact. As regards rates prescribed by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial function. prior notice and hearing is not essential to the validity of its issuance. Petitioner still protested the increases and filed a petition for prohibition. . INC. it applies to all enterprises of a given kind throughout the country and the issuance of the department order is in the exercise of DEC s quasi-legislative power. Hence. As to the issue of due process. CULTURE AND SPORTS If the rates prescribed by an administrative agency is in the exercise of its quasi-legislative powers. If it were a legislative function. to regulate school fees include the power to prescribe school fees. there is no such violation. seeking to declare the questioned Department Order unconstitutional for it was issued without any legal basis and for violation of the due process clause for lack of due notice and hearing before issuance.

(6) when irreparable damage will be suffered. Zamboanga del Sur. carried out by petitioner. of the same question by a court of justice. Sunville has stopped its operations in compliance with the order of the DENR. The respondent court found that in the case before it. the Forest Management Bureau of the DENR should be allowed to rule in the first instance on this controversy coming under its express powers before the courts of justice may intervene. (5) when the claim involved is small. . (4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention. and 10) in quo warranto proceedings. FACTS: Sunville was granted a Timber License Agreement (TLA) authorizing it to exploit timber in Lison Valley. the applicable exception was the urgent need for judicial intervention given the petitioner s operations have caused heavy siltation in various rivers. based on the same causes of action. In this case. (9) when the subject of the controversy is private land. The motion was denied by Judge Abad of the RTC. if still necessary. Sunville filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction of the court and non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The CA affirmed and held that the the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was not without exception and pointed to the several instances approved by this Court where it could be dispensed with. SUNVILLE vs. Respondents filed a petition with the DENR to annul the said TLA due to some serious violations of its conditions and provisions of forestry laws. speedy and adequate remedy. JUDGE ABAD The application of the expertise of the administrative agency in the resolution of the issue raised is a condition precedent for the eventual examination. Among these exceptional cases are: (1) when the question raised is purely legal. (8) when strong public interest is involved. which enjoins upon the Judiciary a becoming policy of non-interference with matters coming primarily (albeit not exclusively) within the competence of the other departments. They likewise filed a complaint for injunction in the RTC. The respondents have failed to satisfactorily establish that the extraordinary circumstances to justify deviation from the doctrine by exhaustion of administrative remedies and immediate resort to the courts.5. In fact. ISSUE: Whether the respondents should first exhaust administrative remedies? HELD: YES. there are a number of instances when the doctrine may be dispensed with and judicial action validly resorted to immediately. (3) when the act complained of is patently illegal. however. One of the reasons for the doctrine of exhaustion is the separation of powers. (2) when the administrative body is in estoppel. As correctly suggested by the respondent court. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review. (7) when there is no other plain.

. The plaintiffs have sufficiently established that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the land in question under claim of ownership for a very long period of time. the trial court correctly adjudged Tirol as the rightful owner thereof. The trial court ruled in favor of Tirol. MORCOSO V. ISSUE: Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the case? HELD: YES. As an exception to the general rule. The fishpond not having been part of the public domain. Morcoso was later informed by the BFAR that the land Tirol leased to him is within the area of alienable and disposable public land. She alleged that the said fishpond is part of the land she inherited from her father and that she entered into a lease agreement with Morcoso allowing him to lease a portion and develop it into a fishpond. CA affirmed said decision. administrative remedies need not be exhausted if the agency has no longer jurisdiction. FACTS: Respondent Tirol filed a complaint against Morcoso for recovery of possession of a fishpond situated in Ibajay. CA As an exception to the general rule. Morcoso assailed the jurisdiction of the trial court because of a pending administrative case before the BFAR regarding their conflicting claims. thus Morcoso applied for a fishpond permit. Aklan.6. administrative remedies need not be exhausted if the agency has no longer jurisdiction. Morcoso refused to surrender possession of the fishpond. The doctrine requiring prior exhaustion of administrative remedies before recourse to courts is inapplicable because the fishpond in dispute is private and not public land.

An appeal to the NFA Board or Council of Trustees and the Secretary of Agriculture as mandated by the provisions of the Administrative Code was not a plain. NFA VS. the NFA contends that respondents did not exhaust administrative remedies and hence. In the case at bar. the NFA conducted a public bidding to award security contracts for the protection of its facilities. ISSUE: Whether the Respondents should have first exhausted administrative remedies? HELD: NO. When the time of the bidding came. speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. On appeal to the SC. David terminated the contracts of the security agencies and engaged the services of seven new agencies. some bids were disqualified for failure to comply with documentary requirements including those of Respondents. he caused the review of all security contracts and created a Prequalification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC). The lower court ruled in favor of Respondents. Among those awarded were the private respondents. . When David became the new Administrator of the NFA. CA The doctrine of administrative remedies is inapplicable where there is urgency or irreparable damage. During the pendency of the writ of preliminary injunction. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is subject to some limitations and exceptions. Respondents Lanting Security and Watchman Agency filed complaints with the RTC to restrain the Administrator from proceeding with the public bidding. their complaint is premature. FACTS: Earlier. Respondents filed another complaint to restrain the NFA from terminating their services. respondent s contracts were terminated in the midst of bidding preparations and their replacements hired barely five days after. The urgency of the situation which necessitated a recourse to the courts is justified.7.

MELGAR AND JUDGE VIROLA Absent any of the exceptions to the rule. ESPIRITU vs. the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Oriental Mindoro passed Resolution No. 55 recommending that the Provincial Governor place the Mayor under preventive suspension pending investigation of the administrative complaint. (3) When the gravity of the offense so warrants. he should have sought relief first from the Secretary DILG and not from the courts. After evaluating the complaint. If the Mayor thought that preventive suspension was unjustified and politically motivated. As a general rule. (2) When the evidence of culpability is strong. or (4) When the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. ISSUE: (1) Whether the Provincial Governor committed GADLEJ by placing the Mayor under preventive suspension? (2) Whether the Judge committed GADLEJ in issuing the TRO HELD: NO. The Provincial Governor concurred. This was based on reasonable grounds in the complaint corroborated by several witnesses.8. FACTS: Mayor Melgar allegedly attacked one Ramir Garing and had him arrested and detained in abuse of his position as Mayor in Oriental Mindoro. There is nothing improper in suspending an officer before the charges against him are heard and before he is given an opportunity to prove his innocence. the doctrine of administrative remedies cannot be disregarded. Judge Virola granted the TRO. Mayor Melgar's direct recourse to the courts without exhausting administrative remedies was premature. Mayor Melgar resorted to the RTC to issue a TRO on the Provincial Governor and alleged that the Provincial Governor committed GADLEJ. the office or body that is invested with the power of removal or suspension should be the sole judge of the necessity and sufficiency of the cause. Ramir Garing filed a complaint and asked that Provincial Governor Espiritu to be placed under preventive suspension. (2) The regional trial court had no jurisdiction over the special civil action and gravely abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss the case. The Governor appealed to the SC. Preventive suspension is allowed so that the respondent may not hamper the normal course of the investigation through the use of his influence and authority over possible witnesses. citing that the judge committed GADLEJ in issuing the TRO. The provincial governor of is authorized by law to preventively suspend the municipal mayor at anytime after the issues had been joined and any of the following grounds were shown to exist: (1) When there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts complained of. .

It has been the jurisprudential trend to apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in many cases involving matters that demand the special competence of administrative agencies. Jesus S. . it is the BED that has the power to decide controversies relative to the exploration.9. does not call for the dismissal of the case below. Trial Court ordered the rescission and declared the continued efficacy of the coal contract in favor of IEI and ordered the BED to issue its written affirmation of the contract and to give due course to IEI s application. It need only be suspended until after the matters within the competence of the BED are threshed out and determined. FACTS: Petitioner Industrial Enterprises Inc. It may occur that the Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular case. However. have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body. Cabarrus is the President of both IEI and MMIC. which means that the matter involved is also judicial in character. exploitation and development of coal blocks. if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise. Strangely enough. in such case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view. INC VS. the doctrine of primary jurisdiction finds application in this case since the question of what coal areas should be exploited and developed and which entity should be granted coal operating contracts over said areas involves a technical determination by the BED as the administrative agency in possession of the specialized expertise to act on the matter. IEI was later advised that in line with the objective of rationalizing the country s coal supply-demand balance. and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which. then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved. IEI prayed that the Energy Minister approve the return of the contract from MMIC to IEI. CA The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts. It was also granted a coal operating contract in the so-called Giporlos Area. Mr. CA reversed the decision and ruled that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the action considering that under PD 1206. under a regulatory scheme. The application of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. (IEI) was granted a coal operating contract by the Government through the Bureau of Energy Development (BED). IEI assigned and transferred to MMIC its rights in the area but later filed an action for rescission with damages against MMIC for failure of the latter to comply with its obligations. Clearly. ISSUE: Whether the doctrine of primary jurisdiction should apply in this case? HELD: YES. INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES. however. the logical coal operator in the area would be Marinduque Mining and Industrial Corporation (MMIC).

and that her acceptance of the withholding tax returns and check payments for transmittal to BIR-authorized banks was a mere assistance extended to taxpayers. In due course. 2004 COMMISSION OF SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE. 4-93 requires payments through the banks precisely to avoid. at the very least.The administrative case against respondent was transferred to the Office of Ombudsman. 4-93 Facts: Respondent Lilia B. Held: The Court held that by accommodating and accepting withholding tax returns and checks payments respondent disregarded as established BIR rule. it rendered its decision finding respondent guilty of grave misconduct. evidence/exhibits presented at the administrative proceedings before the BIR. in which she admitted that she had no specific authority allowing her to receive withholding tax returns and check payments. Organo is a revenue collection officer of the BIR. respondent is administratively liable for simple misconduct and is suspended for six months. her acts were essential ingredients paving the way for the commission of fraud against. whenever possible. She alleged in her counter-affidavit that her duties as collection officer consisted merely of collecting delinquent accounts and performing other tasks that her supervisor would assign to her from time to time. In the face of her silence. Revenue Regulation No. et al vs. 14995. No. and consequent damage to. Quezon City. then BIR Commissioner Liwayway Vinsons-Chato filed with the BIR a formal administrative charge against petitioner for grave misconduct and dishonesty. respondent was not deterred from making accommodations that circumvented this provision. without any consideration. Issue: Whether or not respondent is liable for grave misconduct. . of her gross negligence in taking care of collections that should not have passed through her hands in the first place.R. Her claimed ignorance thereof cannot erase her liability. Obviously. February 26.10. Yet. Because of her complicity in the transgression of the cited BIR regulation as well as her gross negligence. ORGANO G. 1997. On May 13. To compound matters. VIOLATION OF REVENUE REGULATION NO. she disregarded the established practice and rules. the government. LILIA B. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE. BIR employee s direct receipt of tax payments. which adopted the proceedings. Revenue Region 7. Respondent filed a verified answer. the fact that the checks ended up in an unauthorized BIR account eloquently speaks.

as authorized by Resolution No. IX.R. A Water District is a GOCC with a special charter since it is created pursuant to special law.11. COMMISSION ON AUDIT G. anniversary. The COA can disallow allowances not authorized by law. 2 D of the Constitution mandates the COA to audit all the government agencies. DE JESUS. RODOLFO S. the allowances need not to be refunded. Sec. 313 of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). productivity incentive. The COA disallowed and ordered the refund of these allowances as they are not allowed by P. 2003 POWER OF COA Facts: The Board of Directors (BOD) of the Catbalogan Water District granted to themselves RATA.D. including government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCC) with original charters. without knowledge that payment had no legal basis. vs. Held: Art. 198. the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973. Issue: Whether COA is vested with authority to disallow release of allowance not authorized by law even if authorized by the LWUA. PD 198. ET AL. Considering that the disallowed allowances were received in good faith. and year-end bonus and cash gifts. The COA is vested with authority to disallow illegal or irregular disbursements of government funds. No. June 10. even if authorized by the LWUA. . 149154. No. rice allowance.

Held: Administrative bodies had (a) quasi-legislative or rule-making powers and (b) quasijudicial or administrative adjudicatory powers. the provisions of enabling statute. Where the act of administrative agency was performed pursuant to its quasi-judicial function. hold hearings. Hence. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies only where the administrative agency exercises its quasi-judicial or adjudicatory function. The NTC circular was issued pursuant to its quasi-legislative or rule-making power. SMART COMMUNICATIONS. the action must be filed directly with the regular courts without requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (NTC) G. in cases . In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions. such rules and regulations must conform to. before going to court. August 12. 151908. exhaustion of administrative remedy is required.12. INC. the CA reversed RTC. and to determine whether or not there have been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Petitioners filed with the RTC a petition to declare the circular as unconstitutional. V. 2003 QUASI-LEGISLATIVE & QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS. Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. ET AL. To be valid. the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts. Issue: Whether or not the Billing circular 13-6-2000 issued by NTC unconstitutional. The determination of whether a specific rule or set of rules issued by an administrative body contravenes the law or the constitution is within the judicial power as defined by the Constitution which is the duty of the Courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power is the power to make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of powers. Thus. RULE ON EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss but on certiorari. A motion to dismiss was filed by the NTC on the ground of petitioner s to exhaust administrative remedies. weigh evidence. DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION.R. and be consistent with. and draw conclusions from them for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial.WHEN APPLICABLE Facts: The NTC issued Billing Circular 13-6-2000 which promulgated rules and regulations on the billing of telecommunications services.

under a regulatory scheme. the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its view. the same must be referred to an administrative agency of special competence pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. has been placed within the special competence of an administrative body. This doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where the claim requires the resolution of issues which. . In such case.involving specialized disputes.

27 of RA No. but. is clearly expressed the law.2004 REPUBLIC ACT NO. reprimand. 6770 states that: any order.A. Bohol.A petition for review was raised to the SC stressing that one month suspension. with Grave Misconduct and/or Inefficiency and Incompetence. It will be the employee concerned who will be suspended and such suspension without pay. is a legal and clear basis of denying the petitioner s appeal. No. a Senior Agrarian Reform officer at the BARIE. ELMER BOHOL G. . he charged Herrera before the Office of the Ombudsman. former Director III at DAR Central Office.13. No. directive or decision imposing the penalty of public censure. Herrera. no pay principle. 6770 ( THE OMBUDSMAN ACT OF 1998) PENALTIES WHICH ARE FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE. 6770. Facts: Renato F. The Ombudsman found Renato Herrera guilty of simple misconduct and was suspended for one month without pay. providing suspension of not more than one month s salary is final and unappealable. Held: Sec. 6770. When Bohol was informed that he could not draw his salary under such item anymore because his item was recalled and was given to another person. and unappealable. being final. therefore. is appealable considering that it is not among those enumerated as final and unappealable. Such decision was contested by Herrera and he even appealed to the CA on the ground that he did not fail to take measures to correct respondent s recall. suspension of not more than one month s salary shall be final and unappealable Salary suspension is an effect of work suspension following the no work. such petition was just denied by the CA. February 5. RA No. Issue: Whether or not the provision in R. 155320. as stated in the Ombudsman Act of 1998. The shift or item number from 577-1 of Fund 108 to 562-3 of Fund 101 resulted to Bohol ontaining his salary under Fund 101. RENATO HERRERA v. approved the request for shift of item number of Plaridel Elmer J. otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1998.R.

More than a year after. authorizing the conditional reversal of sixty of the dispute on the findings on reserve deficiency. No. G.ET. 724 ordering RBSMI to correct the major exceptions noted within 30 days from receipt of the advice. AL. Subsequently.On January 21.483. February 27.R. to verify. v. The Monetary Board (MB) of the BSP created an Ad Hoc Committee to investigate the matter. 2004 COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY. The ensuing investigation disclosed that sometime in September 1996. particularly the alleged brokering by Reyes and the petitioners unsupported recommendation to impose a penalty of P2. The Court modified the decision of the CA by reducing the penalty imposed from the a fine equivalent to six months salary to a fine of 2 months salary for Reyes and one month salary for Domo-ong. REYES. the RBSMI asked for a reconsideration of MB Resolution No.1997. Through Resolution No. RURAL BANK OF SAN MIGUEL (BULACAN). which had a history of major violations/exceptions dating back to 1995. underwent periodic examination by the BSP. 71. until the same shall have been corrected. Supervision and Examination Sector (SES) on the findings noted. 96.UNLESS HE HAS ACTUALLY AUTHORIZE BY WRITTEN ORDER OF THE SPECIFIC ACT OR MISCONDUCT COMPLAINED OF Facts: In a letter dated May 19. 1999. the MB adopted Resolution No. RBSMI charge the petitioner with violation of RA No. INC. RBSMI.00.2003. addressed to then BSP Governor Singson.14.1999.538. Meanwhile on June 13. NEGLIGENCE FOR MISFEASANCE OF HIS SUBORDINATE. The exoneration is subject to RBSMI s Motion for Partial Reconsideration. on April 7. The court exonerated petitioner Proncipio of the Administrative charges. however.00 for legal reserve deficiency. and to remit to the BSP the amount of P2. 724 insofar as the imposition of fine amounting to P P2. ET AL. this Court found Deputy Governor Reyes and Director Domo-ong liable for violation of the standards of professionalism prescribed by RA 6713in that they used the distressed financial condition of respondent RBSMI as the subject of a case study in one of the BSP seminars and did the brokering of the sale of RBSMI.HEAD OF A DEPARTMENT OR A SUPERIOR OFFICER SHALL NOT BE CIVILLY LIABLE FOR THE WRONGFUL ACTS.538.483. 6713 ( code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).483. the MB approved Resolution No. 1999. In the Decision if March 14.. monitor and report to the Deputy Governor. the MB required RBSMI to submit within 15 days a written explanation with respect to the findings of the examiner. It also directed the Department of Rural Banks DRB). 154499. the MB approved the interim reversal of the entire amount of the penalty pending the outcome of the study on the legal and factual basis for the imposition of the penalty. The examination team headed by Principio noted serious 20 exceptions/violations and deficiencies of RBSMI. prompted the respondent to file the letter-complaint charging the petitioners with unprofessionalism. The above incidents. . ALBERTO V.OMISSION OF DUTY.00 as fines and penalties for incurring deficiencies in reserves against deposit liabilities.538.

for their own misdeeds or defaults. negligence or misfeasance of his subordinate officer. Under the Admin Code of 1987. . which provides that head of a department or a superior officer shall not be civilly liable for the wrongful acts. These official subordinates are themselves public officers though of an inferior grade.Issue: Whether or not the Superior officer shall not be civilly liable for the wrongful acts. omissions of duty. unless he has actually authorized by written order the specific act or misconduct complained of. Held: The immunity of public officers from liability for nonfeasance. upon obvious considerations of public policy. and therefore directly liable in the cases in which any public officer is liable. negligence. according to MECHEM. the necessities of the public service and the perplexities and embarrassments of a contrary doctrine. omissions of duty. misfeasance of his subordinates. negligence or omissions of duty of their official subordinate and even for the latter s misfeasance or positive wrong rests.

ZCM appealed the case to the CA. The CA reconsidered after realizing that Gozon cannot affirm his own decision and the CA remanded the case to the Minister of Natural Resources. The CFI affirmed the decision of Gozon. Gozon was assigned as the Sec of Agri. The decision of the reviewing officer would be a biased view. The CA denied both petition. Martinez et al appealed averring that the factual basis found by Gozon as Director of Mines be given due weight. He did not inhibit himself from deciding on the appeal but he instead affirmed his earlier decision when he was still the director of mines. inevitably. prejudice. ZCM appealed the case before the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. ISSUE: Whether or not Gozon can validly affirm his earlier decision w/o disturbing due process. disqualifying the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources from deciding an appeal from a case which he had decided as Director of Mines. Gozon decided in favor of Martinez et al. Now both parties appealed urging their own contentions. Gozon had acted with grave abuse of discretion. Zambales. It held that the disqualification of a judge to review his own decision or ruling (Sec. animosity or hostility to ZCM. that delicadeza is not a ground for disqualification. Cruz. that there is no provision in the Mining Law. HELD: The SC annulled the decision of Gozon calling it as a mockery of justice. The CA reversed Gozon s finding and declared that ZCM had the rights earlier attributed to Martinez et al by Gozon. Rule 137. 1. otherwise. there could be no different view or there would be no real review of the case. it would be the same view since being human. . the reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review. and that there was no evidence that Gozon acted arbitrarily and with bias. he would not admit that he was mistaken in his first view of the case. Zambales Chromite Mining et al v. They are asserting their claim against the group of Martinez and Pabilo a. Rules of Court) does not apply to administrative bodies. Court of Appeals Facts: ZCM filed an administrative case before the Director of Mines Gozon to have them be declared the rightful and prior locators and possessors of 69 mining claims in Sta. The SC affirmed the 2nd decision of the CA. ZCM wants the CA s earlier decision to be reaffirmed while Martinez et al demanded that Gozon s finding be reinstated. During pendency.15. And Natural Resources. that the ZCM did not seasonably seek to disqualify Gozon from deciding their appeal. In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might not turn out to be a farce. ZCM then appealed before the CFI of Zambales.

2. The Commission s order or resolution would make impossible. Inc. It is fundamental that an administrative officer has such powers as are expressly granted to him by statute. It suggests that the power is necessary for the execution of the functions vested in it. securities already listed in the Manila Stock Exchange. Makati Stock Exchange. Contends that the Commission has no power to impose it and that anyway. for all practical purposes. the license of Makati Stock Exchange is approved without such condition against double listing. The test is not whether the Act forbids Commission from imposing a prohibition but whether it empowers the Commission to prohibit. and those necessarily implied in the exercise thereof. discriminatory and unjust. Test for determining the existence of authority The commission cites no provision of law expressly supporting its rule against double listing. adds no weight in judicial litigation. for the Makati Stock Exchange to operate. It argues that said rule was approved by the Department Head before the war and it is not in conflict with the provisions of the Securities Act. by itself. The approval of the Department. denied the Makati Stock Exchange. such that its permission amounted to prohibition . 1. Makati Stock Exchange. Issue: Does the Commission have the authority to promulgate the rule in question? Held: None. Inc v Securities and Exchange Commission 14 SCRA 620 (1965) FACTS: The SEC in its resolution. Commission without power to impose prohibition The Commission possesses no power to impose the condition of the rule which results in discrimination and violation of constitutional rights. Accordingly. Objecting to the requirement. Inc permission to operate a stock exchange unless it agreed not to list for trading on its board. it is illegal.16. .

Weigall v. when not expressly conferred on administrative body vested in the courts. . The fine to be imposed upon the plaintiff and his vessel in the present instance was not one for administrative action. because it has to be laid and enforced in accordance with the laws of Congress in which it had authorized no such action. refusing clearance papers unless the master paid the fine. The error of the defendant had root in the notion. Power to impose fine. the Captain of the British steamer loonsang. for a violation of the Chinese Exclusion law. and asserts a lien upon her. the plaintiff brought this action upon which an injunction was issued. expressed in his testimony that the act of Congress on April 29 had omitted to provide machinery for the enforcement of the laws thereby enacted. ordering the defendant to desist and refrain from further proceeding in any way to levy upon or collect from the plaintiff the fine of $200 mentioned in the plaintiffs complaint. in permitting the escape of an immigrant from his ship.17. Shuster 11 Phil 340 (1908) Facts: Defendant Collector of Customs officially imposed a fine of $200 upon the plaintiff. Issue: Does the Collector of Customs have authority to impose a fine and seize the vessel in question? Held: No. Instead of paying it. That notion overlooked the fact that the usual machinery for the enforcement of the laws is found in the regularly constituted courts.

retains even after the expiration of the law governing the case. the mere expiration of R.A. Roxas v. be it judicial or administrative. It is a settled rule that a court. that has acquired jurisdiction over a case. . 650 did not affect such jurisdiction. his decision was null and void. 650 divest the Commissioner of Customs of his jurisdiction duly acquired while said law was still in force? Held: No. His decision was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs. The case at bar ids concerned with the expiration of the law. Issue: Did the expiration of R.18. therefore. expired. otherwise known as Import Control Law. the Commissioner f Customs lost the jurisdiction over the case and. R. Sayoc 200 Phil 448 (1956) Facts: The Collector of Customs declared certain belongings forfeited to the Government. No. 650. Jurisdiction duly acquired is not affected by expiration of governing law.A. not with the abrogation of the law.A. Subsequently. The Commissioner of Customs having acquired jurisdiction over the case. Roxas contend that upon the expiration of the said law.

To require the statute to establish in detail the manner of exercise of the delegated power would be to destroy the administrative flexibility that the delegation is intended to achieve.A. Section 2 thereof authorizes the Secretary of Education to issue rules and regulations on the proper conduct of flag ceremony. as an undue delegation of legislative power. public welfare. 8 (prescribing compulsory flag ceremony in all schools). Petitioners. Secretary of Education 110 Phil. 150 (1960) Facts: Section 1 of R. interest of law and order. which shall be simple and dignified and shall include the playing or singing of the Philippine Nation al Anthem. The requirements constitute an adequate standard especially when contrasted with other standards heretofore. challenged the constitutionality of the Act by virtue of which the Secretary of Education issued Department Order No. justice and equity and the substantial merits of the case or adequate and efficient instruction. 1265 requires all educational institutions to observe daily flag ceremony. manner of exercise of delegated power. Issue: Do the requirements of simplicity and dignity of the flag ceremony and the singing of the national anthem constitute an adequate standard? Held: Yes.19. Balbuena v. . Statute need not specify in detail. That the legislature did not specify the details of the flag ceremony is no objection to the validity of the statute for all that is required of it is the laying down of standard and policy that will limit the discretion of the regulatory agency. member of religious sect Jehovah s Witnesses. upheld by the courts as public interest.

But the Secretary of the Interior held the matter in abeyance. cannot do more than perform the clerical duty of approving the results of the examinations. The Board of Medical Examiners thereupon submitted the final results of the examinations to the Department Head for confirmation. pending the outcome of an investigation conducted by the Undersecretary of the Interior. to annul the report of the medical examiners. the Secretary of the Interior annulled the results of the examinations. . as found in the Administrative Code. who has the power of confirmation of the report of the Board. That the Department Secretary who appoints the members of the Board Medical Examiners. under any and all circumstances. shutting his eyes to any irregularity. The finding of the special investigator was that the questions on the subjects of the medical examinations had leaked out before said dates. 3111. provides that the results of all examinations including the average and grades obtained by each applicant. is too specious an argument to merit serious consideration. 1. Duty of Secretary under the law. it is the discretionary duty of the Secretary of the Interior to confirm or as in this instance. would convert him to an automatic rubber stamp for imprinting the requisite approval. Under the plain terms of the Medical Law. The Board of Medical Examiners 46 Phil. Issue: Is this duty of the Secretary of the Interior Ministerial in nature? Held: No. 190 (1924) Facts: The petitioners took the examinations prescribed by law for a physician s certificate and apparently passed the same. Blanco v. and as last amended by Section 10 of act No.20. no matter how glaring. shall be submitted for confirmation to the Department Head (secretary of the Interior) and made known to the respective candidates within one month after the date of the examinations. To hold that the secretary of the Interior must in all cases confirm. Following the recommendation of the Undersecretary. The last paragraph of section 776 of the Medical law.

Where the law imposes upon a public officer the right and duty to exercise judgement. Mandamus not available to review exercise of discretion by a public officer. Mandamus may issue to correct abuse of discretion. in reference to any matter to which he is called upon to act. It is likewise elementary law that mandamus may issue to correct abuse of discretion. if the case is otherwise proper. it is his judgement that is to be exercised and not that of court. the record discloses that the Secretary of the Interior did not exercise the power granted to him to manifest injustice. 3. or with gross abuse. It is elementary law that the writ of mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of the discretion of a public officer. and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer.2. But here. such duty is discretionary and nor ministerial. .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.