Republic of the Philippines

@fttp of tle $oticitot Generul

August 5, 2019

HON. RENATO D. BERMEJO

Administrator
Land Registration Authority
East Avenue corner NIA Road
Diliman, Quezon City

Attention: ATTY. RHANDOLFO B. AMANSEC

Director
Legal Service

Re: DBM v.
NLRC, et aI.
Special Civil Action No. R-MNL-18-08153-SC

Dear Administrator Bermejo :

This is in reference to the Order dated July 2, 2019r issued by RTC

Manila, Branch B in the above-captioned case, which denied the Department
of Budget and Management's (DBM) Motion for Reconsideration dated March
18, 2019 and the Office of the Solicitor General's (OSG) Manifestation and
Motion with Entry of Appearance dated March 27, 20L9.

The subject Order dismissed with finality the DBM's Declaratory Relief
petition for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies provided under
Presidential Decree No. 2422 and Executive Order No. 292.3

Mindful of the number of claims for survivorship benefits previously filed

by the surviving spouses of officials of the respondent agencies, which were
subsequently denied by the DBM, the OSG, as the respondent agencies'
counsel, advises the respondent agencies not to pursue an appeal against the

I Attached herewith as Annex "A."

2 Prescribing the Procedure for Administrative Settlement
or Adjudication of Disputes, Claims and Controversies
Between or Among Govemment Offices, Agencies and Instrumentalities, including Government-Owned or
Controlled Corporations, and for Other Purposes.
r Administrative Code of 1987.

OSG Buildin8, l34Amorsolo St., [egaspi Village, MakatiCity, Philippines 1229.Tel. Noi. (632) 988-1674.Fax No. (532)813-7552.website: www.osg.gov.ph
subject Order of the trial court but to strongly encourage, if possible, the
claimants of survivorship benefits, who are the real parties in interest,4 to file
separate petitions for mandamus to pursue their claims.

Kindly inform our office of your agency's conformity to our

recommendation on or before August B, 2019.

Thank you.
r
Very truly yours,

EI{E
-ffi'ffi JOS .cA A
S itor eral
os6r9c0o7Yoa4all4

EN . ANGELES
Assista nt r General/Chief of Staff

DAMBA
Assistan icitor General

REX B ARDO L. PASCUAL

Assis nt Solicitor General

JOSEPH L. GUEVARRA
Assistant Solicitor General

a
Section 2, Rule 3 ofthe Rules ofCourt defines a real party in interest as a party who stands to be benefit€d or injured
by thejudgment in the suit, or the parly entitled to the avails ofthe suit. "lnterest" refers to material interest, an interest
in issue and to be affected by the decree as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere
incidental interest.

2
 lil llllllll,lll!illqilllil|!!l!lllllllilll l1l

POMPEYO OIAZ
D6ll nra € lrlrodl cho ANNEX "A''
ItEPtrlll,tc oF Tt{E pHILtl'l'tNl,ts OFFICE OF THE
NATIONAt, CAPI"TAL.ITIDICIAL RE(;I0N SOLICITOR GENERA!-
ITE(;IONAL 1'ITIAI, C]Ot] RT I
I}RANCII 8. MANII.A JUL g1 2ors
,r) n
DEPAR'TMIN'T OF I}I]D(;T''T ANI) DOCKEI MAilT6ETEIIT SEf,N,lCE

MANACEMENT IIEPttESENTI.]I) T}Y

HONoIiAI}LI) S!](]RI],-I'ARY
BEN.IAJ\IIN E. DIOKNo, Special Civil Ac{ion No:
Pelitioner. R-MNl.-l8-0til53-SC

-t ers lts- Ior: l)eclaraton

Rclicf (Scction 4 of
.R.A. No .99,16 in rrlation to Scclion { of
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS R.A. No. 93.17. Seclions I.l and 16 of
C0Nl MlSSl()N, rel)rcscnlerl b.v R.A. No. 10071. Scction 5 of P.l). 1529.
C]IIAIRNIAN (;I]IiARIX) as anrended. and Section 39 of R.A, No.
NO(;IIALES. NATIONAL 9136)
PROSECI.I'IION SERVICII.
represented bl' PR()SL,CtlTOll.
(;I]NI.]RAL RICHARD ANTHONY I).
I ADTILLON, I,ANI) RIi(; ISTRA]'ION
ALll'll0RlTY, represenletl by
ADMINIS'I'RATOII RENAT0 I).
BERIIII,,IO. ENI.]R(;\'
IIIi(;IJI,ATORY COMIlTISSI()N.
re ;rrcserrtetl b"'" (;llAl ItPERSON
ACNI]S VI(]I'NTA S. TORRES
I)EVANAI)EIi,A.
Respondcnts.
I.--------------------------------------------x

oRDEtt
l:or rcsolution are (i) thc lVtotion lirr lloconsideration liled bl,petitioncr on l2
April 2019 praying lhat thc Order dated March 18. l0l9 be rcconsidered and set aside.
and ( ii) tht Manilest:rtion and lVlotion rvith l:ntry ol'Appearancc lilod by the Ol]ice ol
thc Solicitor General (OSG) datcd 27 March 2019 praying lbr the rvilhdrarval of its
Manilestation and Nlotion (in licu ,tf ('on1nlent) datcd 15 Septernber l0ll{ and t<>
intervcne in thc irrslant casc.

In support ol ils lVlotion. pclitionr:r raised thc Ibllou,ing argunrents: (i) the
nralter involves issues rvhich cannot be rclcrred to the Scclotary o1'Justicc lbr
trhitration: 1ii) the rcsolution ol'Ihc issue rnal neccssaril;- involvs clainrs against tlre
governnlenl r.vhich canuot be the suhicct ol artrilration and cannot be compronriscdi
(iiil the Secretary ol-Justice is lhe one rvhich cnclorses the clainr ol'the rcspondent
Natiorral Plosecution Service (NPS) and thus. rcflning the matler ['or arbitration
bclbro its otficc might prcjudicc thc liglrt ol' the potitioner lo a lair and inrpartial
dccision ancl/or ruling: (iv) an intcrprctaliott ond application cil'the di{lcrent statutes
vis-a-vis thc exclusivitl ol'1he intendcd bcnellciarics undcr Scctiorl 4 of RA No. 9946
nccdssiu'il)' irnplicatcs thild panies ',vhich. in lhis case, are the survivtx's ol' the
dcceascd qualilicd ol'ficials and empkryces' ol the respondents who arr: private
citizcns: ancl (v) rcspondent Olllce ol'the Solicitor (icncral (OSC) alrcady rvithtlrcw'
its Manilestation and Motiorr and Motion (ln I-ieu ol'Comment) dated Scptcnrber 25.
l0l8 ivhiclr prays I'or thc rel'srral ()f tho instcnt petilion to thc Secrctary ol.lustice l'crr
Arbitlation procccdings through its Manifcstati,,tr urrd Motion r.vith [intr.v o1'
Appearancc clated March :7. 2019.

On l0 May Otllce ol' thc Soliciror (leneral.

20 19. ru.spondonts, through the
lilod a N'lan ifi:station (ln cormpliirnce rvith the Order tlated April 2:1, l0l9) stating
that "thcy ale not opposing the Departmcnt ol'Iludget and Managcment's Motion
lbr l{cconsideration datcd April 22, 2019 and are submitting the resolution ol thc
incident to thc discrclion ol'this I lonolablc Court."

-l-his
Court resolves to deny the Motion lor Reconsideration.

In thcir Motion. petitioncr contends that under the Rules on ADR lor l)isputes
between National Goverrrnent Agencics. particularly Rule ll thcrcof. it is provided
that cases irtvoiving purely lcgal queslions antl constitutional issues and tlrost, rvhich
cannot be compronrised shall not be subject to arbitration. ence. aceording to
petitioner. lhe resolulion ol'1he 27 Ju11. 20ltl l)ctition rvhich involvr.s purcly lcgal
(iuestions. rrta;- necessarill, inv0lve clainrs against thc govcrn ont. which cannot be
compronriscd and be the sub.iect ol'arbitration.

'I'his conlention is unrncritorious. The Rules cited b),petilioncr was adopted by'
the Otlrce of the Solicit<;r (icncral to inrplement the pertinent provisions oi'I'l) 241. lt
onl-v covers those cases subrnitted 1o and scttled or ad.judicared by thc Solicitor
(lenelal unclcr Scction i(a)r of PD 242. and docs r1o( covcr those subnrittetl to the
Secretaw ol'Justicc.'l-lrus. Section 2.1 olthe said Ruies provides:

Scctir.rn 2.1 ('ovcrage.- 'l he nrlcs on nrcdialion shull appll to rrll

tlisputcs. clainrs. and cuntrovcrsies, inclurling incipienr oncs and lhose
orrgoinr or pcnding cascs tith thc OS(i. hcl*ccn or arnorrs N(iAs lhat
do not irrvolvc corrstitutional issucs. public ordcr. puhlic policl'. nrorals .
principlc: ol' puhlie cxcrrrpl:rritr or ()ther lnitllcrs ol'public intcrcst.
rhich cases irre hctter resolvcd try a{judication. providcrl that the
irrrolrcnrr,'nt ol-a privatc third prrrly. rrhieh is irrtli.pcnsirh lc k, thc lin l
tcstrlutiort ol lhc disputc. will not prcelrde thr rpplication on lhcse
ll u lcs.

Nonr-'thclcss. it is worth pointing out that lhc citctl ltules rvas merelv adopted by
the Oll'ice ol'the Solicitor (icneral, and being an administrative issuartcc could not
override PD 112 and Executivc O'der (F.0) l9l. othenvise known as thL'
Administrative Code of' l9ti7. It is doctrilral tlrat in casc rrl conljict bstrvcen a statule
and an adnrinistrative order. the lbrnrcr nrust prevail2.

' Sectilrr .i. Cascs involving nrircd qLr(stions ol ll!} nnd ol lircl or onl.' liollrill
issucs \hall be sutnliltcd l(r and
sr[led or adilrdicalcd l)]: {a) Ilte Solicitor (i!'rcrnl, *ilhrcsp.ct to dirputcs or (llitl\ controvclsir's belwcen trt'
:rnrrrnrt lhc dcfartntcnl\. hurcnus. rtificcs ilnd othcr lrgencicr ol thc \nliulll (;o\'trnnlcnli \\r
rl)AR t. Ronr.o (larricdo
i(;.It. No. 1765'lt)ll:0 Jantr.rv l0l6l
 I)etilioncr likcrvisc avcrs that lel'erring the matler to th!. Secretar) of .lustice
might pre.judicc the right <il'petitionol to tair and impartial ruling considering thal the
Secrelarl ol'JusLicc in its lctter to pr{itioner dated June L5. l0l7 has endorsecl thc
clainr ol'respondent NI'S lbr survivorship br"lefits. Asitle liom thc lailure ol'pctitioner
to atlzlch the saicl lettl:r lo any ol'its pleadings. a reacling of thc cited ponion oithc
allcgcd l!'ttcr ol' thc Sccretary of' Jrrstice tkx.s not convincc this (lourt to sustain
petitioner. I'he anticipatecl reac(ion ol tlre Secretan- ol' Justice on lhe instanl
.l'he
controvers) is nrercl.v thcorized. possibility of his partiality does not avail to take
tlre prescrrt aclion out ol'the realnr of lhc. suncal and nrerelf imaginc'd. As such.
granling thc said letter exists. the lact that thcrc wa.s alreadv an cndorsctnent lionr thc
Secrctar) 0l'Justicc 1<r the petitionef is ol'no mor]'lent. lhc sanlc docs rrot exclltpl thc
instant casc l'rorn thc coveragc ol'I'>D 1.11.

On pctitioncr's conlcnt.ion that the prescnt controvorsy is no1 cot,ered by PD

l-12 as thc rcsolulion ol-thc prcscnl action will inevitabll aflcct rhc right ol'private
citizens, i.e. the survivor spouses of the qualilied <Jeceased ol'llcials and enrployccs of'
thc respondcnt agencies. this Cburt is not convinced. While it nray be true that any
application and intcrpri:tation of thc cxclusivity provision under Section 4 ofRA 994(r
nray havc repercussions lo thcm, this docs not remove this case lionr tlre ambit ol'PD
21).

l;or one. petitioner has nol shorvn that tlre allegcd survivorship beneliciarics ol-
respondent NL.RC have vested right lo bg considercd indispcnsablc pa(v to this
aclion.'Ihe instant nrotion likcr,'isc nriserably.'f'ailed to allcgc an cxisting c()r)trovers\
or disputc bctwucn petitioner ancl the said beneflciaries.

It is worth noling that lor the instarrl action 1o prosper betu'een thr; said parlies.
there rnusl be a.iusticiable controversy. A justiciable contr()versv rclcrs to an cxisting
casc or controversy that is uppropriatc or ripe tbr.iudicial dctcrminatioll. not onc that
is coniectural or nrcrely anlicipalorl'.rIn this case, asi<ie liorn petilior)er's allegation
that the alleged sun,ivorship berreliciaries' ol' r'cspondcnt Nl.ltC will inevitabll hc
allected b;'. any pron()uncerncnt this court will rendcr. no other cvidence rvas prollered
b1, petitioner. and even respondenl Nl.ttC. to denrollslralc that thr' rights ol these
survivorship bcnellciarius lrave bcen aclually injurcd. nor did it sutlicientl;' state what
spccific legal right ol' the saicl bcne ficizuies rvas violatcd bv pctitioncr'. and what
particular cct or acts ol thc latter rvere in breach ol' their rights. the law or thc
('onstilulion. 'l he abovc gencral averment of pctilioner docs no1 sulllcc to constitute a
legal right or intercst, nor constitule a iusticiatrle controvt:rs)'. It is a tirnc-honorcd lule
thal shcer spcculation dor..s rrot give rise to an actionable right.l

It is scttled that this Ctiurl ltas exclusive .juliscliction ovcr a Pctition tbr
Dcclaratory Relicf as in thc irrslant case. the renledy being sought is.the judicial
de(ernrinalion or conslruction arising lrorn the illterptctt*ion ol'Sr:ctitttt 4] ol'RA No.
9946 concerning thc exclusivitl' provision ol'thc bencfits inlr<iducr,-d under said law.
While this is true. horvever, l'}l) 142 providcs that all disputcs and clainrs sr.r/<'/t'

'Ropublic of thc I'hilippines rs. llcrntitro llxrry Roquc. cl al. l(j.R. No. l0{(r0-1, scplcnrber 2 1. l(} l'11
{l}rorhlr luirrinn(' 'vlikc Vclarclc vs. S1)ci l .luslicc Socicty I(i. R. No. 159,i:7 - April 18. 2t){)'ll
'Scc{ion { l$(! (l) ilew scclion\ rre helrh) irscncd i l(eprhlic Acl No.9l{,. as antcndcd. lo rend irs Scclion J - A
and ScctioI j [], \\\ "Sli('. :l - ,^. All Petlsiotr b.rr.lih ol'r(trIcd Inelnbcrs ol thr Judici ry sh ll hr
ilu(rnlitticall) irrcrearcd whcnuvcr lhcrc i5 ln ircrcasc in lh! sillar) ol'lhc s nu po\itii.u liont rrhrclt hcrshe
rcliru(i "
bcl,urrecn govcnrment agencies and otficcs. including govcnrnrcnl-o$'ncd or
contrrrllcd' corporations. shall bc aclnr inistrat ively seltlc(l or adjudicatcd hy the
Sccrclarl ol .lustice. the Solicitor (lencral- or the (lovcnrrncnt C'ory)or.rtc Counscl.
depending on the issues and govcrnmenl agencies involvcd. As regaltls cascs
invoh,ing onll' questious of law. it is thc Sr'crctary of .lusticc rvho has .lurisdictiono.
Hcre. it is undisputed that petitioner and respondents all be long to the cxccutive
branch ol'the governmenl and thc controversy raised. the interpretation ol Scclion 4 ol
Rr\ 9946. is a question o1'law which clearll- lalls rvithin thc provision ol'PD l"ll.

[Jnder lhe doctrine ol'cxhaustion ol' administrative rerredics. it is rnandated that

r.vlrcre a rcmedl' belbre ar adn)inistrativc bodf is providcd by stalutc" relicl'mus1 be
sought by erhausting this rcmed-v prinr to bringing an action in court in ordcr to llive
the adnrinistrative body evcry opportunity to decide a nratter that comr-s within its
.iLrrisdiction. a litigant cann()t go to court without llrst pursuing his administrative
remcdiesl othL-rwisc, his action is prernature and his case is not ripe tbr.iudicial
dctcrmination.r PD 212. provitles lbr such adnrinistrativc rcnrecly.'l'hus. only alier thc
President has decidcd lhe disputc bet*'een governmsnt olllces and agencics can tlre
aggrieved party reson to the courts. il'it so desiles. Olherwise. a resort to the courls
would bc premature lbr lirilure to exhaust administrativc rcnredies. Non-obsen,ance o1'
the doctrirre of'cxhauslion of ;rdrn inistrativs rernedics would rcsult in lack of'cirusc ol'
action. wlrich is one of thc srounds lbr dismissal ol'a cornplaint.s

'l'hus. in the Order dated l8 March 1019. this ('ourt dismisscd thc instant
Pctition frrl lack ol' jurisdiction and tbr Iailure to exhausl admir.ristrat ive remedies
provided under PD 2:12 and tlo 192.

Corollarv thereto. lhe Manil'eslalion and Motion with [:ntrl ol'Appearance Iiled
b5. the OSC dated l7 N'tarch l0l 9 praying lor the rvithdran'al ol' its iVIan il'estat ion and
N{otion (ir /lcir o1'Clomnicnt) daled 25 Scptenrbcr 20lll and to inlcrvene in thc instant
c:rsc'is likcivisc dcnied lilr hcin{ nrrxrt.

WHUREfOR[l,. prenrises consrdcred, thc lvlotion for Rccousidcration liled by

thc pctilionor datcd i8 March l0l9ancl the Manilestation and Molion rvith Lntry of
Appearancc filed hy the OS(i datcd 17 lvlarch 2019 are hcrcby DENIED.

so ot{t)ERF.t).

I .luh l019" lllanila. I'hilippines.

"11;'il 'r: i .',1{ :;

("YNARA IIANNAlI I,. CAYTON

l'rcsicling.ludge

IPSAt.M \r. (lR((i I{. No. t98146) lAugusr 8. :t0t7J

'lllnrl Jerotnc li. Mrghlnng. vs. l'hilipprnc Anruscrrcnl lrld (ianrins (ilrporalion ilrA(;('()R) ils reprc\cnlcd h\'it\
i CLrnbcnl ('ll imrnn Irliiiitn(;rnUino. I(il{ No. lq0:(r(r I)cccorhcr tl.l0lil
rivilrirhu(i. lii.ra.,,. llcr[llcnryl-. lvl.rlo rlrd Ii&iI Vlr{itr .[(]R N(' l6l l(tg. Januar\ 12. :01 .1
1