Malaga v Penachos

G.R. No. 86695

September 3, 1992
FACTS

The Iloilo State College of Fisheries (ISCOF) through its Pre-qualification, Bids and Awards
Committee (PBAC) caused the publication in the November 25, 26, 28, 1988 issues of the Western
Visayas Daily an Invitation to Bid for the construction of the Micro Laboratory Building at ISCOF. The
notice announced that the last day for the submission of pre-qualification requirements (PRE C-1) was
December 2, 1988, and that the bids would be received and opened on December 12, 1988, 3 o’clock in
the afternoon.

B.E. Construction and Best Built Construction submitted their pre-qualification documents at two
o’clock in the afternoon of December 2, 1988. Petitioner Jose Occeña submitted his own PRE-C1 on
December 5, 1988. All three of them were not allowed to participate in the bidding because their
documents were considered late, having been submitted after the cut-off time of ten o’clock in the
morning of December 2, 1988.

Upon submission of complaint by petitioners, Judge Lodrigio L. Lebaquin issued a restraining

order prohibiting PBAC from conducting the bidding and awarding the project.

ISSUE

Whether or not ISCOF is a government instrumentality subject to the provisions of PD 1818?

HELD

The 1987 Administrative Code defines a government instrumentality as follows:

Instrumentality refers to any agency of the National Government, not integrated within the
department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all
corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a
charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, chartered institutions, and government-owned or
controlled corporations. (Sec. 2 (5) Introductory Provisions).

The same Code describes a chartered institution thus:

Chartered institution — refers to any agency organized or operating under a special charter and
vested by law with functions relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives. This term includes the
state universities and colleges, and the monetary authority of the state. (Sec. 2 (12) Introductory
Provisions).

It is clear from the above definitions that ISCOF is a chartered institution and is therefore covered
by P.D. 1818.
 United v COSLAP
G.R. No. 135945
March 7, 2001
FACTS

The property was mortgaged to the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). It was donated to the
Republic of the Philippines by UCPB through its President, Eduardo Cojuangco.

The PMS received an application from petitioner UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN HILL,
INC. (UNITED) to acquire a portion of the Dominican Hills property. PMS Secretary Cruz referred the
application to the HOME INSURANCE GUARANTY CORPORATION (HIGC). HIGC consented to act as
originator for UNITED. Accordingly, a Memorandum of Agreement was signed by and among the PMS,
the HIGC, and UNITED. The Memorandum of Agreement called for the PMS to sell the Dominican Hills
property to HIGC which would, in turn, sell the same to UNITED.

Petitioner alleges that sometime in 1993, respondents entered the Dominican Hills property
allocated to UNITED and constructed houses thereon. Petitioner was able to secure a demolition order
from the city mayor.

Respondents filed a petition for annulment of contracts with prayer for a temporary restraining
order, before the COSLAP against petitioner, HIGC, PMS, the City Engineer's Office, the City Mayor, as
well as the Register of Deeds of Baguio City.

ISSUE

Whether or not the COSLAP has jurisdiction over the controversy.

HELD

No. The court ruled that given the facts of the case, the COSLAP is not justified in assuming
jurisdiction over the controversy.

Quasi-judicial function is a term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc. of public
administrative officers or bodies, who are required to investigate facts, or ascertain the existence of facts,
hold hearings, and draw conclusions from them, as a basis for their official action and to exercise
discretion of a judicial nature.

Administrative agencies are not considered courts; they are neither part of the judicial system nor
are they deemed judicial tribunals.25 The doctrine of separation of powers observed in our system of
government reposes the three (3) great powers into its three (3) branches - the legislative, the executive,
and the judiciary - each department being co-equal and coordinate, and supreme in its own sphere.
 Beja Sr. v Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 97149
March 31, 1992
FACTS

Fidencio Y. Beja, Sr., a Terminal Supervisor, was placed under preventive suspension by the
PPA General Manager due to dishonesty, grave misconduct, violation of reasonable office rules and
regulations, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and for being notoriously undesirable.
The charge consisted of six (6) different specifications of administrative offenses including fraud against
the PPA in the total amount of P218,000.00.

ISSUE

Whether PPA has jurisdiction over the case of Beja Sr.

HELD

Yes. The court ruled that Executive Order No. 292 classified the PPA as an agency "attached" to
the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC).

An attached agency has a larger measure of independence from the Department to which it is
attached than one which is under departmental supervision and control or administrative supervision. This
is borne out by the "lateral relationship" between the Department and the attached agency. The
attachment is merely for "policy and program coordination." With respect to administrative matters, the
independence of an attached agency from Departmental control and supervision is further reinforced by
the fact that even an agency under a Department's administrative supervision is free from Departmental
interference with respect to appointments and other personnel actions "in accordance with the
decentralization of personnel functions" under the Administrative Code of 1987.

Although the foregoing section does not expressly provide for a mechanism for an administrative
investigation of personnel, by vesting the power to remove erring employees on the General Manager,
with the approval of the PPA Board of Directors, the law impliedly grants said officials the power to
investigate its personnel below the rank of Assistant Manager who may be charged with an administrative
offense. During such investigation, the PPA General Manager, as earlier stated, may subject the
employee concerned to preventive suspension.
 Eugenio v Civil Service Commission
G.R. No. 115863
March 31, 1995
FACTS

Petitioner applied for a Career Executive Service (CES) Eligibility and a CESO rank on, she was
given a CES eligibility. She was recommended to the President for a CESO rank by the Career Executive
Service Board. All was not to turn well for petitioner when respondent Civil Service Commission passed
Resolution No. 93-4359.

The above resolution became an impediment to the appointment of petitioner as Civil Service
Officer, Rank IV.

Finding herself bereft of further administrative relief as the Career Executive Service Board which
recommended her CESO Rank IV has been abolished, petitioner filed the petition at bench to annul,
among others, resolution No. 93-4359.

ISSUE

Whether or not the resolution was unconstitutional

HELD

Yes. The inescapable conclusion is that respondent Commission's power to reorganize is limited
to offices under its control as enumerated in Section 16. From its inception, the CESB was intended to be
an autonomous entity, albeit administratively attached to respondent Commission. As conceptualized by
the Reorganization Committee "the CESB shall be autonomous. It is expected to view the problem of
building up executive manpower in the government with a broad and positive outlook." The essential
autonomous character of the CESB is not negated by its attachment to respondent Commission. By said
attachment, CESB was not made to fall within the control of respondent Commission.
 Leyson v. Office of the Ombudsman
G.R. No. 134990
April 27, 2000

FACTS

ITTC entered into a one year contract with LEGASPI OIL, GRANEXPORT, AND UNITED
COCONUT comprising the CIIF companies, for transportation of coconut oil in bulk through MT
Transasia. Prior to the expiration of the contract, the CIIF companies with their new President, respondent
Oscar A. Torralba, terminated the contract without the requisite advance notice.

Petitioner charged Oscar A. Torralba, Tirso Antiporda, Chairman of UCPB and CIIF Oil Mills, and
Oscar A. Torralba with violation of The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act also before the Ombudsman
anchored on the aforementioned alleged irregularities and corrupt practices.

ISSUE

Whether or not CIIF is considered as government-owned and -controlled corporations

HELD

No. The court ruled that these jurisprudential rules invoked by petitioner in support of his claim
that the CIIF companies are government owned and/or controlled corporations are incomplete without
resorting to the definition of "government owned or controlled corporation" contained in Introductory
Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987, any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation
vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned
by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable as in the
case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock. The definition
mentions three (3) requisites, namely, first, any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation;
second, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature; and,
third, owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where applicable
as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock.

In the present case, all three (3) corporations comprising the CIIF companies were organized as
stock corporations.1âwphi1 The UCPB-CIIF owns 44.10% of the shares of LEGASPI OIL, 91.24% of the
shares of GRANEXPORT, and 92.85% of the shares of UNITED COCONUT. 15 Obviously, the below
51% shares of stock in LEGASPI OIL removes this firm from the definition of a government owned or
controlled corporation. Our concern has thus been limited to GRANEXPORT and UNITED COCONUT as
we go back to the second requisite. Unfortunately, it is in this regard that petitioner failed to substantiate
his contentions. There is no showing that GRANEXPORT and/or UNITED COCONUT was vested with
functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature unlike PETROPHIL in
Quimpo. The Court thus concludes that the CIIF companies are, as found by public respondent, private
corporations not within the scope of its jurisdiction.
 Iron and Steel Authority v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 102976
October 25, 1995

FACTS

P.D. No. 272 initially created petitioner ISA for a term of five (5) years. When ISA's original term
expired, its term was extended for another ten (10) years by E.O. No. 555

The NSC, embarked on an expansion program embracing, the construction of an integrated steel
mill in Iligan City. The construction of such a steel mill was considered a priority and major industrial
project of the Government. Pursuant to the expansion program of the NSC, Proclamation No. 2239 was
issued by the President of the Philippines withdrawing from sale or settlement a large tract of public land
located in Iligan City, and reserving that land for the use and immediate occupancy of NSC.

Said land were occupied by private respondent MCFC, LOI was issued directing the NSC to
"negotiate with the owners of MCFC, for and on behalf of the Government, for the compensation of
MCFC's present occupancy rights on the subject land." LOI also directed that should NSC and private
respondent MCFC fail to reach an agreement within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of LOI,
petitioner ISA was to exercise its power of eminent domain under P.D. No. 272 and to initiate
expropriation proceedings.

Negotiations between NSC and MCFC did fail. Accordingly, petitioner ISA commenced eminent
domain proceedings against private respondent MCFC in the Regional Trial Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the ISA may exercise the power of eminent domain

HELD

Yes. The court held and as stated under the Revised Administrative Code, the President shall
determine when it is necessary or advantageous to exercise the power of eminent domain in behalf of the
National Government, and direct the Solicitor General, whenever he deems the action advisable, to
institute expropriation proceedings in the proper court.

In the present case, the President, exercising the power duly delegated under both the 1917 and
1987 Revised Administrative Codes in effect made a determination that it was necessary and
advantageous to exercise the power of eminent domain in behalf of the Government of the Republic and
accordingly directed the Solicitor General to proceed with the suit.

It is argued by private respondent MCFC that, because Congress after becoming once more the
depository of primary legislative power, had not enacted a statute extending the term of ISA, such non-
enactment must be deemed a manifestation of a legislative design to discontinue or abort the present
expropriation suit. We find this argument much too speculative; it rests too much upon simple silence on
the part of Congress and casually disregards the existence of Section 12 of the 1987 Administrative Code