ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ATTY. GALLANT SORIANO Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No.

9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902, provides that the
2ND YEAR 2ND SEMESTER 2018-2019 Court of Appeals shall exercise:
"xxx xxx xxx
(B) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or
awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Employees
Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within
the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the
Luzon Dev. Bank vs. Association of LDBE, G.R. No. 120319 Oct. 6, 1995;
Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the
Petitioner: ​LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK
provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4)
Respondents: ​ASSOCIATION OF LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK EMPLOYEES of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
and ATTY. ESTER S. GARCIA in her capacity as VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR xxx xxx xxx"

FACTS: Assuming arguendo that the voluntary arbitrator or the panel of voluntary arbitrators
● A submission agreement of the Luzon Development Bank (LDB) and the may not strictly be considered as a quasi-judicial agency, board or commission, still
Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees (ALDBE) arose an both he and the panel are comprehended within the concept of a "quasi-judicial
arbitration case to resolve WON petitioner has violated the Collective instrumentality."
Bargaining Agreement provision and the Memorandum of Agreement on
promotion. The voluntary arbitrator no less performs a state function pursuant to a governmental
● The parties agreed to submit their respective Position Papers. However, power delegated to him under the provisions therefor in the Labor Code and he falls,
LDB failed to submit its Position Paper despite reminder from the Voluntary therefore, within the contemplation of the term "instrumentality" in the aforequoted
Arbitrator. Without LDB's Position Paper, Atty. Ester S. Garcia, the Voluntary Sec. 9 of B.P. 129. The fact that his functions and powers are provided for in the
Arbitrator, rendered a decision, holding that LDB did not adhere to the Labor Code does not place him within the exceptions to said Sec. 9 since he is a
Collective Bargaining Agreement provision nor the Memorandum of quasi-judicial instrumentality as contemplated therein.
Agreement on promotion.
● Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside the A fortiori, the decision or award of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators
decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator and to prohibit her from enforcing the should likewise be appealable to the Court of Appeals, in line with the procedure
same outlined in Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, just like those of the
quasi-judicial agencies, boards and commissions enumerated therein.
ISSUE:
WON the parties can appeal directly to the Supreme Court In effect, this equates the award or decision of the voluntary arbitrator with that of the
regional trial court. Consequently, in a petition for certiorari from that award or
HELD: NO. decision, the Court of Appeals must be deemed to have concurrent jurisdiction with
In Volkschel Labor Union, et al. v. NLRC, et al., on the settled premise that the the Supreme Court. As a matter of policy, this Court shall henceforth remand to the
judgments of courts and awards of quasi-judicial agencies must become final at some Court of Appeals petitions of this nature for proper disposition.
definite time, this Court ruled that the awards of voluntary arbitrators determine the
rights of parties; hence, their decisions have the same legal effect as judgments of a
court. In Oceanic Bic Division (FFW), et al. v. Romero, et al., this Court ruled that "a Iron & Steel Authority vs. CA, G.R. No. 102976 Oct. 25, 1995;
voluntary arbitrator by the nature of her functions acts in a quasi-judicial capacity." Petitioner: IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY
Under these rulings, it follows that the voluntary arbitrator, whether acting solely or in Respondents: THE COURT OF APPEALS and MARIA CRISTINA FERTILIZER
a panel, enjoys in law the status of a quasi-judicial agency but independent of, and CORPORATION
apart from, the NLRC since his decisions are not appealable to the latter.
FACTS:
 ● Petitioner Iron and Steel Authority (“ISA”) was created by PD No. 272 in Since, in the ​instant case​, ISA is a non-incorporated agency or instrumentality of the
order, generally, to develop and promote the iron and steel industry in the Republic, its powers, duties, functions, assets and liabilities are properly regarded as
Philippines. folded back into the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and hence
● Among its powers is the power to initiate expropriation of land required for assumed once again by the Republic, no special statutory provision having been
basic iron and steel facilities for subsequent resale and/or lease to the shown to have mandated succession thereto by some other entity or agency of the
companies involved. Republic.
● Pursuant to the expansion program of the National Steel Corporation,
petitioner ISA commenced eminent domain proceedings against private
PLDT vs. City of Bacolod, G.R. No. 149179, July 15, 2005
respondent Maria Cristina Fertilizer Corporation (MCFC).
● While the trial was on-going, however, the statutory existence of petitioner FACTS:
ISA expired. · PLDT is a holder of a legislative franchise to render local and international
● MCFC then filed a motion to dismiss, contending that no valid judgment telecommunications services. On August 24, 1991, the terms and conditions of its
could be rendered against ISA which had ceased to be a juridical person. franchise were consolidated under Republic Act No. 7082, Section 12 of which
● Petitioner ISA urged that the Republic of the Philippines, being the real embodies the so-called in-lieu-of-all-taxes clause, whereunder PLDT shall pay a
party-in-interest, should be allowed to be substituted for petitioner ISA. franchise tax equivalent to three percent (3%) of all its gross receipts, which franchise
tax shall be in lieu of all taxes.
ISSUE: ​WON the Republic of the Philippines is entitled to be substituted for ISA in · Meanwhile, the ​Local Government Code,​ took effect. Section 137 of the Code,
view of the expiration of ISA’s term grants cities and other local government units the power to impose local franchise tax
on businesses enjoying a franchise.
HELD: · By Section 193 of the same Code, all tax exemption privileges then enjoyed by
Yes. ISA is a​ non-incorporated agency or instrumentality​ of the Government of all persons were withdrawn, necessarily including those taxes from which PLDT is
the Philippines. Clearly, ISA was vested with some of the powers or attributes exempted under the in-lieu-of-all-taxes clause in its charter.
normally associated with juridical personality. There is, however, no provision in P.D. · City of Bacolod, invoking its authority under the ​Local Government Code​, made
No. 272 recognizing ISA as possessing general or comprehensive juridical an assessment on PLDT for the payment of franchise tax due the City.
personality separate and distinct from that of the Government. · Complying therewith, PLDT began paying the City franchise tax from the year
1994 until the third quarter of 1998.
It is common knowledge that other agencies or instrumentalities of the Government of · Subsequently, the Department of Finance through its Bureau of Local
the Republic are cast in corporate form, that is to say, are incorporated agencies or Government Finance (BLGF), issued a ruling to the effect that PLDT, among other
instrumentalities, sometimes with and at other times without capital stock, and telecommunication companies, became exempt from local franchise tax.
accordingly vested with a juridical personality distinct from the personality of the · Invoking the aforequoted ruling, PLDT then stopped paying local franchise and
Republic. business taxes to Bacolod City.
· The controversy came to a head-on when, sometime in 1999, PLDT applied for
When the statutory term of a ​non-incorporated agenc​y expires, the powers, duties the issuance of a Mayors Permit but the City of Bacolod withheld issuance thereof
and functions as well as the assets and liabilities of that agency revert back to, and pending PLDTs payment of its franchise tax liability.
are reassumed by, the Republic of the Philippines, in the absence of special · PLDT filed a protest which was dismissed by the trial court.
provisions of law specifying some other disposition thereof such as, e.g., devolution · PLDT argued that the RTC erred in not giving weight to the ruling of the BLGF
or transmission of such powers, duties, functions, etc. to some other identified which, according to PLDT, is an administrative agency with technical expertise and
successor agency or instrumentality of the Republic of the Philippines. mastery over the specialized matters assigned to it.
ISSUES:
When the expiring agency is an ​incorporate​d one, the consequences of such expiry 1. W/N PLDT is exempt from paying taxes
must be looked for, in the first instance, in the charter of that agency and, by way of 2. W/N BLGF is an administrative agency
supplementation, in the provisions of the Corporation Code. RULING: NO on both issues
1. To begin with, tax exemptions are highly disfavored. The tax exemption must be And declared that "its clear and unambiguous tenor undermine(d) the (petitioner's)
expressed in the statute in clear language that leaves no doubt of the intention of the pretension that the court a quo was bereft of jurisdiction." The decision also dismissed
legislature to grant such exemption. And, even if it is granted, the exemption must be the contrary opinion of the Secretary of Justice as impinging on the authority of the
interpreted in strictissimi juris against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing courts of justice.
authority.
2. BLGF is not an administrative agency whose findings on questions of fact are ISSUE: ​WON the NHA has the exclusive jurisdiction over the case at bar.
given weight and deference in the courts. The BLGF was created ​merely to provide
consultative services and technical assistance to local governments and the HELD: YES. ​The applicable law is PD No. 957, as amended by PD No. 1344 and not
general public on local taxation, real property assessment​, and other related BP No. 129. The NHA shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of
matters. the following nature:
1. Unsound real estate business practices;
2. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or
condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker
or salesman;
3. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations
Solid Homes vs. Payawal, G.R. No. 84811, Aug. 29, 1989
filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the owner,
Petitioner: Solid Homes Inc. developer, dealer, broker or salesman.
Respondent: Teresita Payawal
FACTS: ​Respondent Payawal alleged that petitioner SHI contracted to sell to her a
subdivision lot located in Marikina. Respondent had already paid the total amount of In case of conflict between a general law and a special law, the latter must prevail
P38, 949. 87; petitioner, in turn, executed a Deed of Sale. However, it failed to deliver regardless of the dates of their enactment. It is obvious that the general law in this
the Certificate of Title despite respondent’s repeated demands because it appeared case is BP No. 129 and PD No. 1344 the special law. The circumstance that the
that petitioner had mortgaged (in bad faith) the same property to a financing agency. special law is passed before or after the general act does not change the principle.
Where the special law is later, it will be regarded as an exception to, or a qualification
Payawal asked for the delivery of the title or alternatively, the return of all the amounts of, the prior general act; and where the general act is later, the special statute will be
paid by her plus interest. SHI moved to dismiss on the ground that the court has no construed as remaining an exception to its terms, unless repealed expressly or by
jurisdiction, this being vested in the National Housing Authority under PD 957; necessary implication.
however, the same was denied. The SHI repleaded the objection in its answer, citing
Section 3 of the said decree providing that "the National Housing Authority shall have As a result of the growing complexity of the modern society, it has become necessary
exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business in accordance to create more and more administrative bodies to help in the regulation of its ramified
with the provisions of this Decree." activities. Specialized in the particular fields assigned to them, they can deal with the
problems thereof with more expertise and dispatch than can be expected from the
RTC: Rendered a decision in favor of Payawal and SHI was ordered to deliver to her legislature or the courts of justice. This is the reason for the increasing vesture of
the title to the land or, failing this, to refund all the amounts paid by the former. quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers in what is now not unreasonably called the
CA: Held that the trial court had jurisdiction. It referred to Section 41 of PD No. 957 fourth department of the government.
itself providing that:
Statutes conferring powers on their administrative agencies must be liberally
SEC. 41. Other remedies. — The rights and remedies provided in this Decree shall construed to enable them to discharge their assigned duties in accordance with the
be in addition to any and all other rights and remedies that may be available under legislative purpose.
existing laws.
 the contract; order the respondents to return the amounts already paid; and
award actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and litigation
Christian General Assembly vs. Ignacio, G.R. No. 164789, Aug. 27, 2009
expenses.
“HLURB Jurisdiction​—​Refund for subdivision property” ● RESPONDENT: MOTION TO DISMISS; RTC HAS NO
JURISDICTION​—Citing ​PD No. 957 and PD No. 1344​, the respondents
Petitioner: ​Christian General Assembly claimed that the case falls within the ​exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB
Respondents: ​Sps. Avelino and Prescilla Ignacio since it involved the sale of a subdivision lot. CGA opposed the motion to
dismiss, claiming that the action is for rescission of contract, not specific
Facts: performance, and is not among the actions within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the HLURB, as specified by PD No. 957 and PD No. 1344.
● On April 30, 1998, CGA entered into a ​Contract to Sell a subdivision lot ● RTC DECISION: MTD DENIED; OUTSIDE HLURB’S JURISDICTION
with Sps. Ignacio, the registered owners and developers of a housing ● RESPONDENT: PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WITH CA
subdivision known as Villa Priscilla Subdivision. Under the Contract to Sell, ● CA DECISION: SET ASIDE RTC DECISION; HLURB HAS EXCLUSIVE
CGA would pay P2,373,000 for the property on a 3-year monthly installment JURISDICTION​—The CA ruled that the HLURB had exclusive jurisdiction
basis. On August 5, 2000, the parties agreed to amend the Contract to Sell over the subject matter of the complaint since it involved a contract to sell a
from a 3-year term to a 5-year term for a total contribution of P2,706,600 subdivision lot based on the provisions of ​PD No. 957 and PD No. 1344​.
with a DP of P1,186,500 and equal monthly amortization payments of ● PETITIONER: PETITION FOR REVIEW WITH SC​—The petitioner claimed
P37,615, inclusive of 24% interest per annum, starting September 2000. CA erred: (1) in applying ​Article 1191 of the Civil Code for ​breach of
● CGA paid monthly installments until its administrative pastor discovered that reciprocal obligation​, while the petitioner’s action is for the rescission of a
the ​property suffered from fatal flaws and defects​. It learned that the rescissible contract under Article 1381 of the same Code, which is
property was actually part of two consolidated lots, Lots 2-F and 2-G, that cognizable by the regular court; and (2) in holding that the ​HLURB has
respondents acquired from Nicanor Adriano (Adriano) and Ceferino Sison exclusive jurisdiction over the petitioner’s action by applying Antipolo
(Sison), respectively. Adriano and Sison were former tenant-beneficiaries of Realty Corp v. National Housing Corporation and other cited cases.
Purificacion S. Imperial (Imperial) whose property in Cutcut, Pulilan, Bulacan
had been placed under​ PD 27’s Operation Land Transfer. Issue: ​Whether or not the RTC or the HLURB has jurisdiction over the case.
● DAR ORDER: IMPERIAL TO RETAIN PROPERTY​—According to CGA,
Imperial applied for the retention of five hectares of her land under Republic Held: HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction.
Act No. 6657, which the DAR granted in its October 2, 1997 order. The DAR
Order authorized Imperial to retain the farm lots previously awarded to the 1) HLURB JURISDICTION IS STATUTORILY PROVIDED​—Under ​PD 957​, and
tenant-beneficiaries, including Lot 2-F and 2-G previously awarded to expanded by PD 1344​, the National Housing Authority (NHA) shall have exclusive
Adriano and Sison, respectively. jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature:
● OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, CA AND SC: UPHELD DAR A. Unsound real estate business practices;
ORDER​—Through the Court’s Resolution dated January 19, 2005, we B. Claims involving ​refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot
affirmed the DAR Order by denying the petition for review of the appellate or condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer,
decision. dealer, broker or salesman;​ and
● PETITIONER: FILED RESCISSION OF CONTRACT WITH RTC; C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT THAT PROPERTY WAS UNDER obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the
LITIGATION​—Aggrieved, CGA filed a complaint against the respondents owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman.
before the RTC on April 30, 2002. CGA claimed that the respondents EO 648 transferred the regulatory and quasi-judicial functions of the NHA to the
fraudulently concealed the fact that the subject property was part of a Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC).
property under litigation; thus, the Contract to Sell was a rescissible contract
under ​Article 1381 of the Civil Code​. CGA asked the trial court to rescind EO 90 renamed the HSRC to the HLURB.
 who thought that what she was collecting was the P60,000.00 corresponding to the
RATIONALE FOR HLURB’s EXTENSIVE QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS​—The ​surge withdrawal slip she presented that morning.
in the real estate business in the country brought with it an increasing number
of cases between subdivision owners/developers and lot buyers on the issue of When Dadubo informed Cidro about the third withdrawal, till money of P100,000.00
the extent of the HLURB’s exclusive jurisdiction. In the cases that reached us, we was made to service it. Prior to the payment of the third P60,000.00 withdrawal,
have consistently ruled that the HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over complaints Veloso came back and presented another withdrawal slip for P40,000.00. The
arising from contracts between the subdivision developer and the lot buyer or those petitioner claimed she disbursed P100,000.00 to Veloso, covering the third
aimed at compelling the subdivision developer to comply with its contractual and P60,000.00 and the P40,000.00 withdrawals. On the other hand, Veloso testified that
statutory obligations to make the subdivision a better place to live in. she received only P40,000.00 from the petitioner. She acknowledged receipt of the
amount by signing the withdrawal slip and indicating opposite her signature the
2) REGARDLESS OF RESCISSION UNDER 1191 AND 1381, WITHIN AMBIT OF amount of P40,000.00.
HLURB​—Regardless of whether the rescission of contract is based on Article 1191
or 1381 of the Civil Code, the fact remains that what ​CGA principally wants is a That left the balance of P60,000.00 unaccounted for and directly imputable to
refund of all payments it already made to the respondents. This intent, amply Dadubo.
articulated in its complaint, places its action ​within the ambit of the HLURB’s
exclusive jurisdiction​ and outside the reach of the regular courts. On the basis of these findings, ​DBP found Dadubo guilty of dishonesty for
embezzlement of bank funds. ​Dadubo appealed to the Merit Systems Protection
Board (MSPB), which affirmed the decision of the DBP​, declaring as follows:
Dadubo vs. CSC, G.R. No. 106498, June 28, 1993

Facts: ​Petitioner Lolita A. Dadubo, Senior Accounts Analyst and Rosario B. Cidro, However, ​DBP was reversed by the Civil Service Commission in its Resolution
Cash Supervisor, of the Development Bank of the Philippines, Borongan Branch were No. 91-642, which reduced Dadubo's penalty to suspension for six months from the
administratively charged with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. original penalty of dismissal from service.
The charges were based on reports on the unposted withdrawal of P60,000.00 from
Savings Account No. 87-692 in the name of Eric Tiu, Edgar Tiu, and/or Pilar Tiu. DBP moved reconsideration. CSC affirmed the earlier findings of the DBP as to
Dadubo guilt. Dadubo has brought her case to this Court in this petition for certiorari.
Erlinda Veloso, authorized representative of the Tius, presented an undated She claims that CSC Resolution No. 92-878 failed to comply with the constitutional
withdrawal slip for P60,000.00. Dadubo, as acting teller, processed and approved the requirement to state clearly and distinctly the facts an the law on which the decision is
withdrawal slip on the same day. The withdrawal slip was dated August 13, 1987. The based; CSC Resolution No. 92-878 conflicts with the findings of fact in CSC
bank disbursed the P60,000.00 to Veloso. Resolution No. 91-642; the Commission manifestly overlooked or disregarded certain
relevant facts not disputed by the parties; and it based its conclusions entirely on
After banking hours, another withdrawal slip was presented by Feliciano Bugtas, Jr., speculations, surmises or conjectures.
also an employee of the Tius. This was the second P60,000.00 withdrawal. Veloso
did not know about it. The withdrawal slip was processed and approved on the same ISSUE: ​W/N the findings of CSC can be set aside
day, August 13, 1987. While the withdrawal slip was dated August 13, 1987, all other
supporting documents were dated August 14, 1987, this being a withdrawal after HELD: ​NO. The rule is that the findings of fact of administrative bodies, if based on
banking hours (ABH). substantial evidence, are controlling on the reviewing authority.Administrative
decisions on matters within their jurisdiction are entitled to respect and can only be
The following day, August 14, 1987, prior to the payment of the ABH withdrawal, set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law. None of these
Veloso presented another undated withdrawal slip for P60,000.00. This was the third vices has been shown in this case.
P60,000.00 withdrawal. The withdrawal slip was received by Dorado, who handed it
to Dadubo. At that time, Cidro was encashing the check at PNB to satisfy the ABH It is true that the petitioner was formally charged with conduct prejudicial to the best
withdrawal. When she returned from the bank, she paid this withdrawal to Veloso, interest of the bank and not specifically with embezzlement. Nevertheless, the
allegations and the evidence presented sufficiently proved her guilt of embezzlement Gilberto Duavit, reversing and overturning the decision of the Acting
of bank funds, which in unquestionably prejudicial to the best interest of the bank. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and affirming in toto and
reinstating the decision of the Director of Forestry.
The charge against the respondent in an administrative case need not be drafted with ● Ago filed a motion for reconsideration but after a written opposition by
the precision of an information in a criminal prosecution. It is sufficient that he is Lianga, the same was denied.
apprised of the substance of the charge against him; what is controlling is the ● Ago then commenced a new action in the Court of First Instance against
allegation of the acts complained of, not the designation of the offense. Lianga, Executive Secretary Leido and Duavit, and the Director of Forestry
for the determination of correct boundary line of license timber areas and
We must also dismiss the petitioner's complaint that CSC Resolution No. 92-878 damages with preliminary injunction.
failed to comply with the constitutional requirement to state clearly and distinctly the ● Judge Manuel Lopez Enage issued a temporary restraining order enjoining
facts and the law on which a decision is based. We have held that this provision Lianga, et. al., from carrying out the decision of the Office of the President.
applies only to courts of justice and not to administrative bodies like the Civil Service ● Lianga then moved for the dismissal of the complaint and for dissolution of
Commission. the TRO on grounds that the complaint states no cause of action and that
the court had no jurisdiction over the person of the respondent public
officials and corporation.
Lianga Bay vs. Enage, G.R. No. L-30637, July 16, 1987
● The lower court issued an order denying Lianga’s motion to dismiss.
Petitioner: Lianga Bay Logging
Respondents: Judge Manuel Lopez Enage; Ago Timber Corporation Issue: ​Whether or not the Director of Forestry has the exclusive jurisdiction to
determine the common boundary of the licensed areas of Ago and Lianga.
Facts:
● Lianga Bay Logging and Ago Timber Corporation are both forest Ruling: YES. The Bureau of Forestry is vested with the jurisdiction and
concessionaires whose licensed areas are adjacent to each other. authority over demarcation of all public forest and forest reserves.
● Lianga and Ago have a common boundary - the Agusan-Surigao Provincial ● It is a well-settled doctrine that the courts of justice will generally not interfere
boundary - whereby the eastern boundary of Ago’s concession is Lianga’s with purely administrative matters which are addressed to the sound
western boundary. discretion of government agencies and their expertise unless there is clear
● Because of reports of encroachment by both parties on each other’s showing that the latter acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion or
concession areas, the Director of Forestry ordered a survey to establish on when they have acted in a capricious and whimsical manner such that their
the ground the common boundary of their respective areas. action may amount to an excess or lack of jurisdiction.
● The Director of Forestry fixed the common boundary of the licensed areas of ○ For the courts to consider and weigh again the evidence already
Ago and Lianga as that indicated in red pencil of the sketch attached to the presented and passed upon by administrative officials would be to
decision. allow it to substitute its judgment for that of officials who are in a
● Ago filed an appeal with the Department of Agriculture and Natural better position to consider and weigh the same in the light of the
Resources. authority specifically vested in them by law.
● Then Acting Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources Jose Feliciano ● Section 1816 of the Revised Administrative Code vests in the Bureau of
set aside the decision of the Director of Forestry and ruled that the common Forestry, the jurisdiction and authority over the demarcation, protection,
boundary line should be that indicated by the green line on the same sketch management, reproduction, reforestation, occupancy, and use of all public
which had been made. forests and forest reserves and over the granting of licenses for game and
● Lianga elevated the case to the Office of the President, wherein a decision, fish, and for the taking of forest products, including stone and earth
signed by then Assistant Executive Secretary Jose Leido Jr affirmed the therefrom.
ruling of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. ○ The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as department
● On motion for reconsideration filed by Lianga, the Office of the President head, may repeal or modify the decision of the Director of Forestry
issued another decision, signed by then Assistant Executive Secretary
 when advisable in the public interests, whose decision is in turn
appealable to the Office of the President. ISSUE:​ WoN the dismissal of Deputy Commisioner Dario is valid.

RULIING: No. The Commissioner's appointing power is subject to the provisions of

CHAPTER 2: NATURE & ORGANIZATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES Executive Order No. 39. Under Executive Order No. 39, the Commissioner of
Customs may "appoint all Bureau personnels except those appointed by the
President."
Dario vs. Mison, G.R. No. 81954, Aug. 8, 1989
Accordingly, with respect to Deputy Commissioner Cesar Dario,
Petioner: CESAR Z. DARIO Commissioner Mison could not have validly terminated them, they being Presidential
Respondents: HON. SALVADOR M. MISON, HON. VICENTE JAYME and HON. appointees. Secondly, the Court previously ruled in the case of Palma-Fernandez that
CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., in their respective capacities as Commissioner of Customs employees, under Section 59 of Executive Order No. 127 had been on a
Customs, Secretary of Finance, and Executive Secretary, mere holdover status cannot mean that the positions held by them had become
vacant.
FACTS: President Cory Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3 in 1986. Section 1 of this Finally, the Court emphasize that they are not barring Commissioner Mison
Proclamation provides that the President shall give priority to measures to achieve from carrying out a reorganization under the transitory provisions of the 1987
the mandate of the people to completely reorganize the government, eradicate unjust Constitution. But such a ​reorganization should be pursued in good faith.
and oppressive structures, and all iniquitous vestiges of the previous regime;
On January 30, 1987, the President promulgated Executive Order No. 127,
"REORGANIZING THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE". Among other offices, Executive
Larin vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 112745, Oct. 16, 1997
Order No. 127 provided for the reorganization of the Bureau of Customs and
prescribed a new staffing pattern therefor. PETITIONER: LARIN
3 days later, New Constitution was adopted. RESPONDENTS: THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF FINANCE,
On January 6, 1988, incumbent Commissioner of Customs Salvador Mison COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND THE
issued a Memorandum, in the nature of “Guidelines on the Implementation of COMMITTEE CREATED TO INVESTIGATE THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
Reorganization Excevutiver Orders,” prescribing the procedure in personnel AGAINST AQUILINO T. LARIN, COMPOSED OF FRUMENCIO A. LAGUSTAN,
placement. On the same date, Commissioner Mison constituted a Reorganization JOSE B. ALEJANDRINO and JAIME M. MAZA
Appeals Board charged with adjudicating appeals from removals under the above
Memorandum. On January 26, 1988, Commissioner Mison addressed several notices FACTS:
to various Customs officials. September 18, 1992, a decision was rendered by the Sandiganbayan
As far as the records will reveal, a total of 394 officials and employees of the convicting Larin, Revenue Specific Tax Officer, then Assistant Commisioner of the
Bureau of Customs were given individual notices of separation. On June 30, 1988, Bureau of Internal Revenue of the crimes of violation of Section 268 (4) of the
the Civil Service Commission promulgated its ruling ordering the reinstatement of the National Internal Revenue Code and Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019
279 employees. Then Commissioner Mison, represented by the Solicitor General,
filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by CSC. On October 20, 1988, Acting by authority of the President, Sr. Deputy Executive Secretary
Commissioner Mison instituted certiorari proceedings with the Court. Leonardo A. Quisumbing issued ​Memorandum Order No. 164 which ​provides for the
Cesar Dario was one of the Deputy Commissioners of the Bureau of creation of an Executive Committee to investigate the administrative charge
Customs until his relief on orders of Commissioner Mison on January 26, 1988. In
essence, he questions the legality of his dismissal. The President, found Larin guilty of grave misconduct in the administrative
Commissioner Mison argued that under Section 59 of EO127, "[t]hose charge and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of his leave
incumbents whose positions are not included therein or who are not reappointed shall credits and retirement benefits including disqualification for reappointment in the
be deemed separated from the service." He submits that because the 394 removed government service.
personnel have not been "reappointed," they are considered terminated.
 Aggrieved, petitioner filed directly with this Court the instant petition to b) Where an office is abolished and another performing
question basically his alleged unlawful removal from office. substantially the same functions is created;

Meanwhile, the President issued the challenged EO No. 132 which c) Where incumbents are replaced by those less
mandates for the streamlining of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Under said qualified in terms of status of appointment, performance and
order, some positions and functions are either abolished, renamed, merit;
decentralized or transferred to other offices, while other offices are also
d) Where there is a reclassification of offices in the
created. The Excise Tax Service or the Specific Tax Service, of which petitioner
department or agency concerned and the reclassified offices
was the Assistant Commissioner, was one of those offices that was abolished
perform substantially the same functions as the original offices;
by said executive order​.
e) Where the removal violates the order of separation
In the criminal case, he was acquitted, therefore the administrative charge provided in Section 3 hereof."
should be dismissed because in such a case, there is no basis nor justifiable reason
to maintain the administrative suit In this case, there are evidences of bad faith in the reorganization of the BIR
namely:
Larin claims he is still removed from office as a result of the 1) VIOLATION OF PAR. B: Section 1.1.2 of said executive order provides that:
reorganization and contends that that there is yet no law enacted by Congress
which authorizes the reorganization by the Executive Department of executive "1.1.2 The Intelligence and Investigation Office and the Inspection Service
agencies, particularly the Bureau of Internal Revenue. are abolished. An Intelligence and Investigation Service is hereby created to
absorb the ​same functions​ of the abolished office and service. xxx"
ISSUE:​ WON the president may validly reorganize executive agencies, particularly 2) VIOLATION OF PAR. A: creation of services and divisions in the BIR
the BIR - YES BUT NOT PROPERLY DONE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF BAD resulting to a significant increase in the number of positions in the said bureau
FAITH
3) The non-reappointment of the petitioner as Assistant Commissioner violates
RULING:​ Presidential Decree No. 1772 which amended Presidential Decree No. Section 4 of R.A. No. 6656 which provides that officers holding permanent
1416 expressly grants the President of the Philippines the continuing authority to appointments are given preference for appointment to the new positions in the
reorganize the national government, which includes the power to group, consolidate approved staffing pattern comparable to their former position or in case there are not
bureaus and agencies, to abolish offices, to transfer functions, to create and classify enough comparable positions to positions next lower in rank. It is undeniable that
functions, services and activities and to standardize salaries and materials. The petitioner is a career executive officer who is holding a permanent position. Hence, he
validity of these two decrees are unquestionable. The 1987 Constitution clearly should have given preference for appointment in the position of Assistant
provides that "all laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of Commissioner.
instructions and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall
remain operative until amended, repealed or revoked." This does not mean however
Buklod ng Kawani ng EIIB vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 142801, July 10, 2001
that the reorganization itself is properly made in accordance with law. ​Well-settled is
the rule that reorganization is regarded as valid provided it is pursued in good Petitioners: ​BUKLOD NG KAWANING EIIB, CESAR POSADA, REMEDIOS G.
faith. PRINCESA, BENJAMIN KHO, BENIGNO MANGA, LULU MENDOZA
Section 2 of R. A. No. 6656 lists down the circumstances evidencing bad Respondents: ​HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO B. ZAMORA, HON.
faith in the removal of employees as a result of the reorganization, thus: SECRETARY JOSE PARDO, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, HON. SECRETARY
BENJAMIN DIOKNO, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND
a) Where there is a significant increase in the number of MANAGEMENT, HON. SECRETARY ARTEMIO TUQUERO, DEPARTMENT OF
positions in the new staffing pattern of the department or agency JUSTICE
concerned;
Facts​:
The Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) of the Ministry of Finance At first glance, it seems that the resolution of this case hinges on the question —
was created on June 30, 1987 by EO No. 127, issued by then President Corazon Does the "deactivation" of EIIB constitute "abolition" of an office? However, after
Aquino. In a desire to achieve harmony of efforts and to prevent possible conflicts coming to terms with the prevailing law and jurisprudence, we are certain that the
among agencies in the course of their anti-smuggling operations, President Aquino ultimate queries should be — a) Does the President have the authority to reorganize
issued a Memorandum, providing, among others, that the EIIB "shall be the agency of the executive department? and, b) How should the reorganization be carried out?
primary responsibility for anti-smuggling operations in all land areas and inland waters
and waterways outside the areas of sole jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs." To "deactivate" means to render inactive or ineffective or to break up by discharging
or reassigning personnel, while to "abolish" means to do away with, to annul,
Eleven years later, President Estrada issued EO No. 191 deactivating the EIIB, abrogate or destroy completely. ​In essence, abolition denotes an intention to do away
motivated by the fact that "the designated functions of the EIIB are also being with the office wholly and permanently. Thus, while in abolition, the office ceases to
performed by the other existing agencies of the government" and that "there is a need exist, the same is not true in deactivation where the office continues to exist, albeit
to constantly monitor the overlapping of functions" among these agencies. Its function remaining dormant or inoperative. Be that as it may, deactivation and abolition are
was transferred to the newly created Task Force Aduana which utilized the personnel, both reorganization measures.
facilities and resources of existing departments, agencies and bureaus.
The Solicitor General only invokes the above distinctions on the mistaken assumption
In this petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, petitioners Buklod Ng that the President has no power to abolish an office. ​The general rule has always
Kawaning EIIB, seek the nullification of EO No. 191 ​and EO No. 223 ​on the ground been that the power to abolish a public office is lodged with the legislature. ​This
that they were issued by the Office of the President with grave abuse of discretion proceeds from the legal precept that the power to create includes the power to
and in violation of their constitutional right to security of tenure. Petitioners contend destroy. ​The exception, however, is that as far as bureaus, agencies or offices in
that the issuance of the afore-mentioned executive orders is: (a) a violation of their the executive department are concerned, the President's power of control may
right to security of tenure; (b) tainted with bad faith as they were not actually intended justify him to inactivate the functions of a particular office, or certain laws may
to make the bureaucracy more efficient but to give way to Task Force "Aduana," the grant him the broad authority to carry out reorganization measures.
functions of which are essentially and substantially the same as that of EIIB; and (c) a
usurpation of the power of Congress to decide whether or not to abolish the EIIB. Under Section 31, Book III of Executive Order No. 292 (otherwise known as the
Administrative Code of 1987​), "the President, subject to the policy in the Executive
Arguing in behalf of respondents, the Solicitor General maintains that: (a) the Office and in order to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall have the
President enjoys the totality of the executive power provided under Sections 1 and 7, continuing authority to ​reorganize the administrative structure of the Office of the
Article VII of the Constitution, thus, he has the authority to issue EO Nos. 191 and President." It was ruled that ​reorganization "involves the reduction of personnel,
223; (b) the said executive orders were issued in the interest of national economy, to consolidation of offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or
avoid duplicity of work and to streamline the functions of the bureaucracy; and (c) the redundancy of functions." It takes place when there is an alteration of the existing
EIIB was not "abolished," it was only "deactivated.” structure of government offices or units therein, including the lines of control, authority
and responsibility between them. ​The EIIB is a bureau attached to the Department
Issue​: of Finance. It falls under the Office of the President​. ​Hence, it is subject to the
Whether the deactivation of the EIIB by the president was valid. President's continuing authority to reorganize.

Held​: Was the reorganization valid? Yes. ​In this jurisdiction, reorganizations have been
Yes. regarded as valid provided they are pursued in good faith. Reorganization is
carried out in 'good faith' if it is for the purpose of economy or to make
Despite the presence of some procedural flaws in the instant petition, such as, bureaucracy more efficient. Petitioners claim that the deactivation of EIIB was done
petitioners' disregard of the hierarchy of courts and the non-exhaustion of in bad faith because four days after its deactivation, President Estrada created the
administrative remedies, we deem it necessary to address the issues. Task Force Aduana. The Court was not convinced for the following reasons:
Firstly, there is ​no employment of new personnel to man the Task Force. E.O. No. FACTS​: On March 5, 1999, former President Joseph E. Estrada issued Executive
196 provides that the technical, administrative and special staffs of EIIB are to be Order No. 81 (EO 81). transferring all the functions, programs and activities of the
composed of people who are already in the public service, they being employees of Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) related to sports development,
other existing agencies. Their tenure with the Task Force would only be temporary, i to the Philippine Sports Commission.
.e., only when the agency where they belong is called upon to assist the Task Force.
Since their employment with the Task force is only by way of detail or As a result, then Secretary of Education Gonzales issued a memorandum reassigning
assignment, they retain their employment with the existing agencies. And all of the Bureau of Physical Education and Sports (BPESS) Staff to other divisions
should the need for them cease, they would be sent back to the agency concerned. and bureaus within DECS.

Secondly, the thrust of E.O. No. 196 is to have a small group of military men under Dissatisfied with their reassignment, petitioners filed the instant petition arguing that
the direct control and supervision of the President as base of the government's EO 81 is void and unconstitutional for being an undue legislation by President
anti-smuggling campaign. Obviously​, the idea is to encourage the utilization of Estrada, that it violated the principle of separation of powers, and that the
personnel, facilities and resources of the already existing departments, reassignment violated their right to security of tenure.
agencies, bureaus, etc., instead of maintaining an independent office with a
whole set of personnel and facilities. The EIIB had proven itself burdensome for During the pendency of the case, Republic Act No. 9155 (RA 9155), otherwise known
the government because it maintained separate offices in every region in the as the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, was enacted on August 11, 2001.
Philippines. RA 9155 expressly abolished the BPESS and transferred the functions, programs and
activities of the DECS relating to sports competition to the PSC. The pertinent
And thirdly, it is evident from the yearly budget appropriation of the government that provision thereof reads:
the creation of the Task Force Aduana was especially ​intended to lessen EIIB's
expenses​. SEC. 9. Abolition of BPESS. All functions, programs and activities of the Department
of Education related to sports competition shall be transferred to the Philippine Sports
The Task Force Aduana, being composed of elements from the Presidential Security Commission (PSC). The Program for school sports and physical fitness shall remain
Group (PSG) and Intelligence Service Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP), has part of the basic education curriculum.
the essential power to effect searches, seizures and arrests. The EIIB did not have
this power. The Task Force Aduana has the power to enlist the assistance of any The Bureau of Physical Education and School Sports (BPESS) is hereby abolished.
department, bureau, office, or instrumentality of the government, including The personnel of the BPESS, presently detailed with the PSC, are hereby transferred
government-owned or controlled corporations; and to use their personnel, facilities to the PSC without loss of rank, including the plantilla positions they occupy. All other
and resources. Again, the EIIB did not have this power. And, the Task Force Aduana BPESS personnel shall be retained by the Department.
has the additional authority to conduct investigation of cases involving ill-gotten
wealth. This was not expressly granted to the EIIB. ​Consequently, it cannot be said ISSUE​: Whether or not EO 81 and the DECS Memoranda were valid.
that there is a feigned reorganization.
RULING​: Yes. Although the issue has become moot and academic since a specific
law, RA 9155, has been passed which transferred the DECS functions relating to
Domingo vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 142283. Feb. 6, 2003
sports competition to the PSC, nevertheless, the Court is constrained to point out the
Petitioners​: Domingo et al, staff of Bureau of Physical Education and Sports validity of such previous Executive Order.
Respondent​: Executive Secretary Zamora, Education Secretary Gonzales and
Philippine Sports Commission Chairman Tuason. EO 81 is a valid exercise of the President’s delegated power to reorganize the Office
of the President which power is granted under the Administrative Code of 1987.
Action​: Certiorari and Prohibition with TRO to nullify EO 81 and Memorandum Order
01592 and 01594.
Section 31 of EO 292: Continuing Authority of the President to Reorganize his Office. The On 10 June 1996, petitioners, all occupying different positions at the NTA
President, subject to the policy in the Executive Office and in order to achieve simplicity, office in Batac, Ilocos Norte, received individual notices of termination of their
economy and efficiency, shall have continuing authority to reorganize the administrative
employment with the NTA effective thirty (30) days from receipt thereof. Finding
structure of the Office of the President. For this purpose, he may take any of the following
themselves without any immediate relief from their dismissal from the service,
actions:
petitioners filed a petition for ​certiorari,​ prohibition and ​mandamus, ​with prayer for
(1) Restructure the internal organization of the Office of the President Proper, including the preliminary mandatory injunction and/or temporary restraining order, with the
immediate Offices, the Presidential Special Assistants/Advisers System and the Common Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batac, Ilocos Norte
Support System, by abolishing, consolidating or merging units thereof or transferring functions The RTC, on 09 September 2000, ordered the NTA to appoint petitioners in
from one unit to another; the new OSSP to positions similar or comparable to their respective former
assignments this decision was however, reversed by C.A. and upheld the validity of
(2) Transfer any function under the Office of the President to any other Department or Agency as
the issuance.
well as transfer functions to the Office of the President from other Departments and Agencies;
and
ISSUE​:
WON Executive Order Nos. 29 and 36 of the Office of the President which
(3) Transfer any agency under the Office of the President to any other department or agency as are mere administrative issuances which do not have the force and effect of a law to
well as transfer agencies to the Office of the President from other Departments or Agencies. warrant abolition of positions and/or effecting total reorganization. (whether the NTA
may be reorganized by an executive fiat, not by legislative action.)
Under Section 31 (1) of EO 292, the President can reorganize the Office of the
President Proper by abolishing, consolidating or merging units, or by transferring RULING​:
functions from one unit to another. In contrast, under Section 31 (2) and (3) of EO Yes, the Executive orders are valid thus, the NTA may be reorganized.
292, the Presidents power to reorganize offices outside the Office of the President The general rule has always been that the power to abolish a public office is
Proper but still within the Office of the President is limited to merely transferring lodged with the legislature. This proceeds from the legal precept that the power to
functions or agencies from the Office of the President to Departments or Agencies, create includes the power to destroy. A public office is either created by the
and vice versa. Constitution, by statute, or by authority of law. Thus, except where the office was
created by the Constitution itself, it may be abolished by the same legislature that
brought it into existence.
Bagaoisan vs. NTA, G.R. No. 152845, Aug. 5, 2003
The exception, however, is that as far as bureaus, agencies or offices in the
PETITIONER: Bagaoisan executive department are concerned, the Presidents power of control may
Respondent: NTC justify him to inactivate the functions of a particular office, or certain laws may
FACTS grant him the broad authority to carry out reorganization measures.
President Joseph Estrada issued on 30 September 1998 Executive Order `Section 48 of R.A. 7645 provides that:
No. 29, entitled Mandating the Streamlining of the National Tobacco Administration ``Sec. 48. ​Scaling Down and Phase Out of Activities of Agencies Within the Executive
(NTA), a government agency under the Department of Agriculture. The order was Branch. The heads of departments, bureaus and offices and agencies are hereby
followed by another issuance, on 27 October 1998, by President Estrada of Executive directed to identify their respective activities which are no longer essential in the
Order No. 36, amending Executive Order No. 29, insofar as the new staffing pattern delivery of public services and which may be ​scaled down, phased out or abolished,
was concerned, by increasing from four hundred (400) to not exceeding seven subject to civil service rules and regulations. x x x.​Actual scaling down, phasing out or
hundred fifty (750) the positions affected thereby. In compliance therewith, the NTA ​ f the activities shall be effected pursuant to Circulars or Orders issued for
abolition o
prepared and adopted a new Organization Structure and Staffing Pattern (OSSP) the purpose by the Office of the President.
which, on 29 October 1998, was submitted to the Office of the President. `Said provision clearly mentions the acts of `​scaling down, phasing out and abolition
On 11 November 1998, the rank and file employees of NTA Batac, among of offices only and does not cover the creation of offices or transfer of functions.
whom included herein petitioners, filed a letter-appeal with the Civil Service Nevertheless, the act of creating and decentralizing is included in the subsequent
Commission and sought its assistance in recalling the OSSP. provision of Section 62.
 It is important to emphasize that the questioned Executive Orders No. HELD:
29 and No. 36 have not abolished the National Tobacco Administration but It is fundamental that an administrative officer has only such powers as are
merely mandated its reorganization through the streamlining or reduction of its expressly granted to him by the statute, and these necessarily implied in the
personnel​. Article VII, Section 17,​[10] of the Constitution, expressly grants the exercise thereof.
President control of all executive departments, bureaus, agencies and offices which
may justify an executive action to inactivate the functions of a particular office or to In its brief and its resolution now subject to review, the Commission cites no provision
carry out reorganization measures under a broad authority of law. expressly supporting its rule. Nevertheless, it suggests that the power is "necessary
Under Section 31(1) of EO 292, the President can reorganize the for the execution of the functions vested in it"; but it makes no explanation, perhaps
Office of the President ​Proper by abolishing, consolidating or merging units, or by relying on the reasons advanced in support of its position that trading of the same
transferring functions from one unit to another thus ​the law is an express grant to securities in two or more stock exchanges, fails to give protection to the investors,
the President of a ​continuing authority to reorganize the administrative besides contravening public interest.
structure of the Office of the President​.
In the present instance, involving neither an abolition nor transfer of the Commission's argument is that: (a) it was approved by the Department Head —
offices, the assailed action is a mere reorganization under the general provisions of before the War; and (b) it is not in conflict with the provisions of the Securities Act. In
the law consisting mainly of ​streamlining ​the NTA in the interest of simplicity, our opinion, the approval of the Department, by itself, adds no weight in a judicial
economy and efficiency. It is an act well within the authority of President motivated litigation; and ​the test is not whether the Act forbids the Commission from
and carried out, according to the findings of the appellate court, in good faith, a imposing a prohibition; but whether it empowers the Commission to prohibit.
factual assessment that this Court could only but accept. No specific portion of the statute has been cited to uphold this power. It is not found in
sec. 28 (of the Securities Act), which is entitled "Powers (of the Commission) with
CHAPTER 3: POWERS & FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES respect to Exchanges and Securities".

According to many court precedents, the general power to "regulate" which the
Makati Stock Exchange vs. SEC, G.R. No. L-23004, June 30, 1965
Commission has (Sec. 33) does not imply authority to prohibit.
Petitioner: ​MAKATI STOCK EXCHANGE, INC
Respondents: ​SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and MANILA STOCK
The respondent Commission possesses no power to impose the condition or rule,
EXCHANGE
which, additionally, results in discrimination and violation of constitutional rights.
ACCORDINGLY, the license of the petitioner to operate a stock exchange is
FACTS:
approved without such condition.
The Securities and Exchange Commission, in its resolution, denied the Makati Stock
Exchange permission to operate a stock exchange unless it agreed not to list for
trading on its board, securities already listed in the Manila Stock Exchange. Solid Homes vs. Payawal, G.R. No. 84811, Aug. 29, 1989

Petitioner: SOLID HOMES, INC.

Objecting to the requirement, Makati Stock Exchange, Inc., contends that the
Respondents: TERESITA PAYAWAL and COURT OF APPEALS
Commission has no power to impose it and that, anyway, it is illegal, discriminatory
and unjust. Petitioner assets that for all practical purposes, the Commission's order or
FACTS:
resolution, would make it impossible for the Makati Stock Exchange to operate. So, its
Teresita Payawal filed a complaint against Solid Homes, alleging that the defendant
"permission" amounted to a "prohibition".
contracted to sell her a subdivision lot and that she had already paid the defendant
the total amount. Solid Homes subsequently executed a deed of sale over the land
ISSUE:
but failed to deliver the corresponding certificate of title despite her repeated
WON the Commission has authority to promulgate and implement the rule in
demands because, as it appeared later, the defendant had mortgaged the property in
question.
bad faith to a financing company. The plaintiff asked for delivery of the title to the lot
or, alternatively, the return of all the amounts paid by her plus interest.
 respondent administrative body, in the exercise of the exclusive jurisdiction vested in
Solid Homes moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court had no it by PD No. 957 and PD No. 1344, to determine the rights of the parties under a
jurisdiction, this being vested in the National Housing Authority under PD No. 957. contract to sell a subdivision lot.
The private respondent contends that the applicable law BP No. 129, which confers
on regional trial courts jurisdiction to hear and decide case.

Taule vs. Santos, G.R. No. 90336, Aug. 12, 1991

ISSUE: ​WHO has the jurisdiction to hear the case.
HELD​: Petitioner: Ruperto Taule
Under PD No. 957, as amended by PD No. 1344, ​the National Housing Authority Respondents: Secretary Luis Santos and Governor Leandro Verceles
shall have the exclusive jurisdiction​ to hear and decide cases of the following FACTS: ​The Federation of Associations of Barangay Councils (FABC) of
nature: Catanduanes, composed of eleven (11) members, in their capacities as Presidents of
(B) Claims ​involving refund and any other claims​ filed by subdivision lot or the Association of Barangay Councils in their respective municipalities, convened in
condominium unit buyer against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or Virac, Catanduanes with six members in attendance for the purpose of holding the
salesman; and election of its officers.
(C) Cases​ involving specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations​ filed
by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the owner, developer, (Baka lang itanong nya hehe)
dealer, broker or salesman. **Present were petitioner Ruperto Taule of San Miguel, Allan Aquino of Viga, Vicente
Avila of Virac, Fidel Jacob of Panganiban, Leo Sales of Caramoran and Manuel
The language of this section leaves no room for doubt that “exclusive jurisdiction” Torres of Baras. The Board of Election Supervisors/Consultants was composed of
over the case is not vested in the RTC but in the National Housing Authority. Provincial Government Operation Officer (PGOO) Alberto P. Molina, Jr. as Chairman
Additionally, this construction must yield to the familiar canon that in case of conflict with Provincial Treasurer Luis A. Manlapaz, Jr. and Provincial Election Supervisor
between a general law and a special law, the latter must prevail regardless of the Arnold Soquerata as members.**
dates of their enactment. It is obvious that the general law in this case is BP No. 129
and PD No. 1344 the special law. When the group decided to hold the election despite the absence of five (5) of its
members, the Provincial Treasurer and the Provincial Election Supervisor walked out.
On the competence of the Board to award damages, we find that this is part of the The election nevertheless proceeded with PGOO Alberto P. Molina, Jr. as presiding
exclusive power conferred upon it by PD No. 1344 (B). The phrase "any other claims" officer. Chosen as members of the Board of Directors were Taule (President), Aquino,
is, we believe, sufficiently broad to include any and all claims which are incidental to Avila, Jacob and Sales.
or a necessary consequence of the claims/cases specifically included in the grant of
jurisdiction to the National Housing Authority under the subject provisions. Respondent Leandro I. Verceles, Governor of Catanduanes, sent a letter to
respondent Luis T. Santos, the Secretary of Local Government, protesting the
As a result of the growing complexity of the modern society, it has become necessary election of the officers of the FABC and seeking its nullification in view of several
to create more and more administrative bodies to help in the regulation of its ramified flagrant irregularities in the manner it was conducted. The Secretary of Local
activities. Specialized in the particular fields assigned to them, they can deal with the Government issued a resolution nullifying the election of the officers of the FABC and
problems thereof with more expertise and dispatch than can be expected from the ordering a new one to be conducted as early as possible.
legislature or the courts of justice. This is the reason for the increasing vesture of
quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers in what is now not unreasonably called the Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution but it was denied by
fourth department of the government. respondent Secretary in his resolution. Hence, this petition for ​certiorari.

Statutes conferring powers on their administrative agencies must be liberally ISSUE: ​Whether or not the respondent Secretary has jurisdiction to entertain an
construed to enable them to discharge their assigned duties in accordance with the election protest involving the election of the officers of the Federation of Association
legislative purpose. Following this policy, the Court sustained the competence of the of Barangay Councils.
 nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his
HELD: NO. The jurisdiction of the COMELEC over contests involving elective duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter.
barangay officials is limited to appellate jurisdiction from decisions of the trial courts.
Under the law, the sworn petition contesting the election of a barangay officer shall be To allow respondent Secretary to do so will give him more power than the law or the
filed with the proper Municipal or Metropolitan TC by any candidate who has duly filed Constitution grants. It will in effect give him control over local government officials for
a certificate of candidacy and has been voted for the same office within 10 days after it will permit him to interfere in a purely democratic and non-partisan activity aimed at
the proclamation of the results. A voter may also contest the election of any barangay strengthening the barangay as the basic component of local governments so that the
officer on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines by ultimate goal of fullest autonomy may be achieved.
filing a sworn petition for ​quo warranto w​ ith the Metropolitan or Municipal TC within 10
days after the proclamation of the results of the elections. Only appeals from CHAPTER 4: INVESTIGATORY POWERS
decisions of inferior courts on election matters as aforestated may be decided by the
COMELEC.
Carino vs. CHR, G.R. No. 96681, Dec. 2, 1991

The jurisdiction of the COMELEC does not cover protests over the organizational FACTS:
set-up of the katipunan ng mga barangay composed of popularly elected ​punong ● On September 17, 1990, some 800 public school teachers, among
barangays a ​ s prescribed by law whose officers are voted upon by their respective them members of the Manila Public School Teachers Association
members. The authority of the COMELEC over the ​katipunan ng mga barangay ​is (MPSTA) and Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) undertook a
limited by law to supervision of the election of the representative of the katipunan "mass concerted actions" to "dramatize and highlight" their plight
concerned to the ​sanggunian i​ n a particular level conducted by their ​own respective resulting from the alleged failure of the public authorities to act upon
organization.
their grievances. According to them they had decided to undertake
said "mass concerted actions" without disrupting classes.
The Secretary of Local Government is not vested with jurisdiction to entertain any
● Through their representatives, the teachers participating in the mass
protest involving the election of officers of the FABC. There is no question that he is
actions were served with an order of the Secretary of Education to
vested with the power to promulgate rules and regulations as set forth in the Local
Government Code and the Administrative Code. return to work in 24 hours or face dismissal. Those directives
notwithstanding, the mass actions continued into the week, with
It is a well-settled principle of administrative law that unless expressly empowered, more teachers joining in the days that followed.
administrative agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial powers. ​The jurisdiction of ● Thus, the private respondents (teachers) were administratively
administrative authorities is dependent entirely upon the provisions of the statutes charged and given five (5) days to answer the charges. They were
reposing power in them; they cannot confer it upon themselves. Such jurisdiction is also preventively suspended for ninety (90) days.
essential to give validity to their determinations. There is neither a statutory nor ● The private respondents filed separate answers, opted for a formal
constitutional provision expressly or even by necessary implication conferring upon investigation, and also moved for suspension of the administrative
the Secretary of Local Government the power to assume jurisdiction over an election proceedings.
protest involving officers of the ​katipunan ng mga barangay​. ● The case eventually resulted in a Decision of Secretary Cariño
decreeing dismissal from the service of Apolinario Esber and the
Presidential power over local governments is limited by the Constitution to the suspension for nine (9) months of Babaran, Budoy and del Castillo
exercise of general supervision. The general supervision is exercised by the (Private respondents).
President through the Secretary of Local Government. In administrative law,
● Respondent teachers submitted sworn statements to the
supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that the
Commission on Human Rights to complain that while they were
subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fails or neglects to fulfill them the
participating in peaceful mass actions, they suddenly learned of their
former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their
duties. ​Control​, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or
 replacements as teachers, allegedly without notice and consequently
for reasons completely unknown to them.
Villaluz vs. Zaldivar, G.R. No. L-22754, Dec. 31, 1965
● The Commission thereafter issued an Order enjoining Secretary
Isidro Cariño enjoined to appear and ordering him to enlighten and “President’s Power to Remove--Administrator MVO”
to assist the Commission in this matter.
● Secretary Cariño filed a motion to dismiss the case alleging that the Petitioner​: Ruben Villaluz
Respondent​: Calixto Zaldivar
CHR has no jurisdiction over the case, but the same was denied.
● The CHR held that the "striking teachers" "were denied due process Facts:
of law; there had been a violation of their civil and political rights ● On May 26, 1958, Ruben Villaluz took his oath of office as Administrator of
which the Commission was empowered to investigate; the Motor Vehicles Office.
● The CHR has made plain its intention "to hear and resolve the case. ● In a letter dated January 28, 1960 addressed to the President of the
Philippines by Congressman Joaquin R. Roces as Chairman of the
ISSUE: W/N the CHR has jurisdiction or adjudicatory powers over certain Committee on Good Government of the House of Representatives, the latter
specific type of cases, like alleged human rights violations involving civil or informed the former of the findings made by his Committee concerning
political rights. alleged ​gross mismanagement and inefficiency committed by Villaluz in
the Motor Vehicles Office which are summed up in the letter, as follows:
RULING: NO (1) malpractice in office resulting in huge losses to the government; (2)
● Commission on Human Rights to have no such power; and that it failure to correct inadequate controls or intentional toleration of the same,
was not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or facilitating thereby the commission of graft and corruption; and (3)
quasi-judicial agency in this country, or duplicate or take over the negligence to remedy unsatisfactory accounting​.
● As a result of the findings, ​Congressman Roces recommended the
functions of the latter.
replacement of Villaluz and of his assistant chief Aurelio de Leon, as well
● The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of
as the complete revamp of the offices coming under the Motor Vehicles
adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence
Office by the new chief who may be appointed​.
and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations
● The Secretary of Public Works and Communications furnished Villaluz with a
involving civil and political rights. But fact finding is not adjudication, letter requiring him to explain within 72 hours why no administrative action
and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or should be taken against him relative to the charges contained in the letter.
even a quasi-judicial agency or official. Villaluz answered the letter as required wherein he explained and refuted in
● The function of receiving evidence is not a judicial function. To be detail each and every one of the charges contained in the letter of
considered such, the receiving evidence and making factual Congressman Roces.
conclusions in a controversy must be accompanied by the authority ● On February 15, 1960, the then Executive Secretary Natalio P. Castillo
of applying the law to those factual conclusions so that the suspended Villaluz as Administrator of the Motor Vehicles Office, having
controversy may be decided. created an investigating committee with the only purpose of investigating the
● Hence it is that the Commission on Human Rights, having merely the charges against Villaluz and his assistant, and to undertake the investigation
power "to investigate," cannot and should not "try and resolve on the a prosecution panel was created headed by Special Prosecutor Emilio A.
merits" (adjudicate) the matters in the case at bar. Gancayco.
● The investigation by the Commission on Human Rights would serve ● After the investigation, said committee submitted its report to the President
no useful purpose since it would have no power anyway to reverse of the Philippines who thereafter issued Administrative Order No. 332
decreeing the removal from office of Villaluz. As a result of Villaluz's
the Secretary Carino’s conclusions. Reversal thereof can only be
removal, Apolonio Ponio was appointed to take his place as acting
done by the Civil Service Commission and lastly by the Supreme
administrator
Court.
 ● After having been officially notified of his removal, Villaluz filed a motion for reason we have already stated that he is a presidential appointee who comes
reconsideration and/or reinstatement, and when this was denied, he filed the exclusively under the jurisdiction of the President.
instant petition before the Court.
VALID COMPLAINT BASED UPON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHIEF
Issues:​1) WON the President of the Philippines has the jurisdiction to investigate and EXECUTIVE—​With regard to the claim that the administrative proceedings
remove Villaluz from office. conducted against petitioner which led to his separation are illegal simply because the
2) WON the letter of Congressman Roces was a valid administrative complaint charges preferred against him by Congressman Roces were not sworn to as required
despite not having been sworn to. by Section 72 of Republic Act No. 2260, this much we can say: said proceedings
3) WON Villaluz is guilty of laches for allowing almost 4 years before instituting an having been commenced against petitioner upon the authority of the Chief Executive
action. who was his immediate administrative head, the same may be commenced by him
motu proprio without previous verified complaint pursuant to Executive Order No. 370,
Held: series of 1941, the pertinent provisions of which are is follows:
PRESIDENT HAS JURISDICTION TO REMOVE UNDER PRINCIPLE THAT “THE
POWER TO REMOVE IS INHERENT IN THE POWER TO APPOINT”​—Being a (1) Administrative proceedings may be commenced against a government
presidential appointee, ​Villaluz belongs to the non-competitive or unclassified officer or employee by the head or chief of the bureau or office concerned
service of the government and as such he can only be investigated and removed motu proprio or upon complaint of any person which shall be subscribed
from office after due hearing by the President of the Philippines under the principle under oath by the complainant: Provided, That if a complaint is not or cannot
that "the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint" as can be clearly be sworn to by the complainant, the head or chief of the bureau or office
implied from Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2260. concerned may in his discretion, take action thereon if the public interest or
the special circumstances of the case, so warrant.
As held in ​Ang-Angco v Castillo​:
PETITIONER GUILTY OF LACHES—​Finally, on the theory that the instant petition
The power of control of the President may extend to the power to partakes of the nature of ​quo warranto ​which seeks petitioner’s reinstatement to his
investigate, suspend or remove officers and employees who belong to the former position as Administrator of the Motor Vehicles Office, we are of the opinion
executive department if they are presidential appointees or do not belong to that ​it has now no legal ​raison d'etre for having been filed more than one year
the classified service but not with regard to those officers or employees who after its cause of action had accrued​. As this Court has aptly said in Jose v.
belong, to the classified service for as to them that inherent power cannot be Lacson: "a delay of slightly over one (1) year was considered sufficient ... to be an
exercised. This is in line with the provision of our Constitution which says action for ​mandamus,​ by reason of laches or abandonment of office. We see no
that the "Congress may by law vest the appointment of inferior officers, in reason to depart from said view in the present case, petitioner herein having allowed
the President alone, in the courts, or in the head of departments.” about a year and a half to elapse before seeking reinstatement."

As a corollary, the Commissioner of Civil Service is without jurisdiction to Ruling: Petition denied.
hear and decide the administrative charges filed against petitioner because
the authority of said Commissioner to pass upon questions of suspension,
Ruiz vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 101666, June 9, 1992
separation, or removal can only be exercised with reference to permanent
officials and employees in the classified service to which classification Petitioner: ​DR. ELISEO L. RUIZ
petitioner does not belong. Respondents: ​FRANKLIN DRILON, ISIDRO CARIÑO, ATTY. RENO CAPINPIN,
DALMACIO CASISON, EDUARDO PARAY, LUIS CASTRO, HIPOLITO MALAMUG,
There is, therefore, no error of procedure committed by respondents insofar as the NEMESIO TORRES and NOLASCO HIPOLITO
investigation and disciplinary action taken against Villaluz is concerned, even if he is
under the control and supervision of the Department of Public Works, in view of the Facts:
 ● President Corazon Aquino issued Administrative Order ("AO") No. 218
dismissing petitioner Eliseo Ruiz for cause from his office as President of the AO No. 218 made certain findings of fact on the basis of which petitioner was
Central Luzon State University ("CLSU") removed from office. Those findings included the facts that (a) petitioner terminated
● Petitioner filed 2 motions for reconsideration therefrom but they were denied. the CLSU's Executive Vice-President, offered new academic courses, undertook
AO 218 became final and executory. unprogrammed projects resulting in wastage of university property, all without the
● Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition with prayer for a temporary necessary approval of the Board of Regents; (b) he directed the purchase at
restraining order (TRO) with the Court of Appeals, where it was docketed as uncanvassed prices of chemicals unsuitable for the required school purposes from a
CA-G.R. No. SP-21656. He sought to annul, as products of grave abuse of firm owned by him; (c) he executed, on behalf of CLSU, a crop harvest sales
discretion, President Aquino's order appointing Dr. Fortunato Battad as the agreement in favor of a company where he was holding a directorship; and (d) he
new CLSU President, as well as DECS Undersecretary Marina Pangan's collected financial contributions from the faculty and students in disregard of the
order directing petitioner to turn-over the CLSU Presidency to Dr. Battad. provisions of R.A. No. 5546. 18 These acts constitute dishonesty and grave
The Court of Appeals issued the TRO prayed for by petitioner. misconduct. and furnish legal basis for dismissal from the public service.
● Petitioner filed with the Supreme Court the present petition (G.R. No.
101666) for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a TRO for the purpose (He was also found guilty by the SC of forum shopping)
of annulling, for alleged grave abuse of discretion, the issuance of AO No.
218 as well as of the orders of the Executive Secretary denying his motions
Sec. of Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, Jan. 18, 2000
for reconsideration therefrom. The Court did not issue the TRO prayed for by
petitioner. This petition made no mention of the petition for prohibition with Petitoner: Secretary of Justice
prayer for TRO filed earlier with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. Resondent: Hon. Ralph C. Lantion; and Mark Jimenez
SP-21656).
● The Court of Appeals found petitioner guilty of forum shopping. Petitioner Facts:
denies having engaged in forum shopping and contends: (1) his cause of ● January 13, 1977 - President Ferdinand Marcos issued PD 1069
action in CA-G.R. No. SP-26156 consists of the illegality of the actions taken “Prescribing the Procedure for the Extradition of Persons Who Have
by the Office of the President and by the DECS in implementing AO No. 218, Committed Crimes in a Foreign Country.”
which may render moot the Court's review of the intrinsic merits of AO No. ● November 13, 1994 - Secretary of Justice Franklin Drilon signed in Manila
218, an entirely different cause of action in itself; and (2) he never attempted the “Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the Republic of the
to hide the fact, either before this Court or the Court of Appeals, that he had Philippines and the Government of the United States of America.”
instituted both actions "for separate reasons, apart though related from each ○ The Senate expressed its concurrence in the ratification of said
other," such candor being "an elementary consideration in the determination treaty.
of the issue whether he committed forum shopping or not." ● June 18. 1999 - the Department of Justice received from the Department of
Foreign Affairs U.S. Note Verbale No. 0522 containing a request for the
Issue: ​W/N petitioner was able to show any grave abuse of discretion or any act extradition of Mark Jimenez to the USA.
without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of public respondents in rendering the ○ Based on the papers submitted, Jimenez appears to be charged in
assailed administrative orders the US with the crimes of conspiracy. Attempt to evade or defeat
tax, fraud by wire, radio or television, false statements or entries,
Held: ​NO. Petitioner is not entitled to be informed of the findings and and election contributions in the name of another.
recommendations of any investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed ● Drilon then issued a Department Order designating and authorizing a panel
against him. He is entitled only to an administrative decision that is based on of attorneys to take charge and to handle the case in accordance to PD
substantial evidence made of record and a reasonable opportunity to meet the 1069.
charges made against him and the evidence presented against him during the ● Pending evaluation of the extradition documents, Jimenez wrote a letter
hearings of the investigating committees. There is no doubt that he has been addressed to the Secretary of Justice requesting copies of the official
accorded his rights. extradition request from the US Government and that he be given ample of
 time to comment on the request after he shall have received copies of the Library which were under her control and supervision as Division Chief and keeping in
requested papers. her possession, without legal authority and justification, some forty-one (41) items of
● Jimenez also requested that the proceedings on the matter be held in historical documents which were missing from the FAD vaults of the National Library.
abeyance in the meantime. After several hearings on the complaint, Secretary Gloria issued a resolution finding
● The Secretary of Justice denied the requests alleging that: respondent guilty of the administrative offenses and ordered the dismissal of
○ It is premature to furnish Jimenez with copies of the extradition respondent from the government service with prejudice to reinstatement and forfeiture
request and supporting documents from the US Government, of all her retirement benefits and other remuneration. Respondent did not appeal the
pending evaluation of the Department of the sufficiency of the judgment.
extradition documents submitted in accordance with the provisions Thereafter, respondent filed a Petition for the Production of the DECS
of the extradition treaty; and Investigation Committee Report purportedly to guide her on whatever action would be
○ The Department is not in a position to hold in abeyance most appropriate to take under the circumstances​. Her petition was, however, denied.
proceedings in connection with an extradition request. Respondent then instituted an action for mandamus and injunction against Secretary
● Jimenez subsequently filed with the RTC a petition against the Secretary of Gloria praying that she be furnished a copy of the DECS Investigation Committee
Justice, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and the Director of the National Report and that the DECS Secretary be enjoined from enforcing the order of
Bureau of Investigation, for: dismissal until she received a copy of the said report. Secretary Gloria moved to
○ Mandamus to compel herein petitioner to furnish private respondent dismiss the mandamus case, but the trial court denied his motion.
the extradition documents, to give him access thereto, and to afford On appeal by Secretary Gloria, the Court of Appeals dismissed Secretary
him an opportunity to comment on, or oppose, the extradition Gloria's petition holding that petitioner Gloria acted prematurely, not having filed any
request, and thereafter to evaluate the request impartially, fairly and motion for reconsideration. Moreover, the appellate court ruled that the order denying
objectively; the motion to dismiss was interlocutory and thus not appealable. Secretary Gloria's
○ certiorari to set aside the letter issued by the Secretary of Justice; motion for reconsideration was, however, denied by the appellate court. Hence, the
and instant petition for review. Secretary Gloria was subsequently replaced by petitioner.
○ prohibition to restrain petitioner from considering the extradition
request and from filing an extradition petition in court; and to enjoin ISSUE: WoN DECS has a legal duty to furnish respondent with a copy of the
the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the NBI from investigation report.
performing any act directed to the extradition of Jimenez to the
United States RULING: No. here is no law or rule which imposes a legal duty on petitioner to furnish
● The RTC ruled in favor of Jimenez respondent with a copy of the investigation report. On the contrary, we unequivocally
held in Ruiz v. Drilon that a respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be
informed of the findings and recommendations of any investigating committee created
to inquire into charges filed against him. He is entitled only to the administrative
decision based on substantial evidence made of record, and a reasonable opportunity
Pefianco vs. Moral, G.R. No. 132248, Jan. 19, 2000
to meet the charges and the evidence presented against her during the hearings of
Petitioner: HON. ERLINDA C. PEFIANCO, in her capacity as Secretary of the the investigation committee. Respondent no doubt had been accorded these rights.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports Respondent's assertion that the investigation report would be used "to guide
Respondent: MARIA LUISA C. MORAL [her] on what action would be appropriate to take under the circumstances," hardly
merits consideration. It must be stressed that the disputed investigation report is an
FACTS: On 26 July 1994, former DECS Secretary Ricardo T. Gloria filed a complaint internal communication between the DECS Secretary and the Investigation
against respondent, then Chief Librarian, Catalog Division, of the National Library for Committee, and it is not generally intended for the perusal of respondent or any other
dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the person for that matter, except the DECS Secretary. More importantly, the DECS
service. The complaint charged respondent with the pilferage of some historical resolution is complete in itself for purposes of appeal to the Civil Service Commission,
documents from the vaults of the Filipiniana and Asian Division (FAD) of the National that is, it contains sufficient findings of fact and conclusion of law upon which
respondent's removal from office was grounded. This resolution, and not the RULING: YES, UNLESS ENTRY IS REFUSED. REMANDED FOR FURTHER
investigation report, should be the basis of any further remedies respondent might PROCEEDINGS.
wish to pursue, and we cannot see how she would be prejudiced by denying her
access to the investigation report. In the case of most routine area inspections, there is no compelling urgency to
inspect at a particular time or on a particular day. Moreover, most citizens allow
inspections of their property without a warrant. Thus, as a practical matter and in light
Camara vs. Municipal Court, 387 US 523
of the Fourth Amendment's requirement that a warrant specify the property to be
PLAINTIFF: ROLAND CAMARA searched, it seems likely that warrants should normally be sought only after entry is
RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN refused unless there has been a citizen complaint or there is other satisfactory reason
FRANCISCO for securing immediate entry. Similarly, the requirement of a warrant procedure does
not suggest any change in what seems to be the prevailing local policy, in most
FACTS situations, of authorizing entry, but not entry by force, to inspect.

· An inspector of the Division of Housing Inspection of the San Francisco In this case, Camaras has been charged with a crime for his refusal to permit housing
Department of Public Health entered an apartment building to make a routine inspectors to enter his leasehold without a warrant. There was no emergency
annual inspection for possible violations of the city’s Housing Code. demanding immediate access; in fact, the inspectors made three trips to the building
· The inspector was informed that the Camara was using part of his leasehold as a in an attempt to obtain Camara's consent to search. Yet no warrant was obtained and
personal residence when the existing permit issued to him was only for thus Camara was unable to verify either the need for or the appropriate limits of the
commercial purposes. inspection. No doubt, the inspectors entered the public portion of the building with the
· The inspector confronted the Camara but he did not allow the inspector to enter consent of the landlord, through the building's manager, but appellee does not
because he did not have a warrant. contend that such consent was sufficient to authorize inspection of Camara's
· The inspector attempted to obtain access to Camara’s apartment a second time premises. Assuming the facts to be as the parties have alleged, we therefore
two days later" and again the Camara refused to grant him access. The Camara conclude that Camara had a constitutional right to insist that the inspectors obtain a
then was sent a summons ordering him to appear at the district attorney’s office. warrant to search and that Camara may not constitutionally be convicted for refusing
The Camara did not appear and a few weeks later two other inspectors to consent to the inspection. It appears from the opinion of the District Court of Appeal
attempted to gain access to his apartment and were again refused because they that under these circumstances a writ of prohibition will issue to the criminal court
did not have a search warrant. under California law.
· Camara was arrested for violation of the Housing Code. His demurrer was
denied and he filed a writ of prohibition. The court of Appeals held the housing Judgment vacated and case remanded.
section “does not violate the Fourth Amendment rights which prohibits
unreasonable searches and seizures because it is part of a regulatory scheme
which is essentially civil rather than criminal in nature" inasmuch as that section
creates a right of inspection which is limited in scope and may not be exercised
under unreasonable conditions
Section 503 of the Housing Code: Authorized employees of the City
Departments or City agencies, so far as may be necessary for the Salazar vs. Achacoso, G.R. No. 81510 March 14, 1990
performance of their duties, shall, upon presentation of proper
Petitioner: HORTENCIA SALAZAR
credentials, have the right to enter, at reasonable times, any building,
Respondents: HON. TOMAS D. ACHACOSO, in his capacity as Administrator of the
structure or premises in the City to perform any duty imposed upon
them by the Municipal Code. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, and FERDIE MARQUEZ

ISSUE: WON administrative authorities may search the apartment without a warrant Facts:
This concerns the validity of the power of the Secretary of Labor to issue warrants of process. To that extent, ​we declare Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code,
arrest and seizure under Article 38 of the Labor Code, prohibiting illegal recruitment. unconstitutional and of no force and effect​.

On October 21, 1987, Rosalie Tesoro filed with the Philippine Overseas Employment However, in deportation cases, an arrest (of an undesirable alien) ordered by the
Administration (POEA) a sworn statement alleging that Salazar would not surrender President or his duly authorized representatives, ​in order to carry out a final
her PECC Card. She narrated that when she came back from Japan, her manager, decision of deportation is valid because of the recognized supremacy of the
Salazar, called for her and asked for her PECC card. She was promised another Executive in matters involving foreign affairs. The power of the President to order the
booking at Japan but 9 months had passed and yet there was none. She demanded arrest of aliens for deportation is, obviously, exceptional. It cannot be made to extend
the return of her card but Salazar refused. to other cases, like the one at bar. Under the Constitution, it is the sole domain of the
courts.
Then, after ascertaining that the petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment
agency, public respondent Administrator Achacoso issued his challenged CLOSURE For the guidance of the bench and the bar, we reaffirm the following principles:
AND SEIZURE ORDER NO. 1205. Said order was implemented by POEA. They went 1. Under Article III, Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution, it is only judges, and no
to Salazar’s house where they confiscated assorted costumes which were duly other, who may issue warrants of arrest and search;
receipted for by Mrs. Maguelan and witnessed by Mrs. Flora Salazar. 2. The exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens,
whom the President or the Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested,
Petitioner contends that said acts violate Sec. 2, Art. III of the Philippine Constitution following a final order of deportation, for the purpose of deportation.
which guarantees right of the people "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Catura vs. CIR, G.R. No. L-27392, Jan. 30, 1971

Issue​: Petitioner: Pablo Catura and Luz Salvador

Whether the POEA (or the Secretary of Labor) may validly issue warrants of search Respondent: The Court of Industrial Relations, Celestino Tabaniag
and seizure (or arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code.
FACTS​: Celestino Tabaniag was a member of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco
Held​: Administration Employees Association (PVTAEA), a legitimate labor organization duly
No. It is only a judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest. In one case, it registered.
was declared that even mayors may not exercise this power. Neither may it be done
by a prosecuting body. On December 27, 1966, he filed a complaint against the organization’s President,
Pablo Catura, and Treasurer, Luz Salvador on the ground that during the tenure of
Section 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code, as now written, was entered as an their office, they were responsible for unauthorized disbursement of union funds.
amendment by PD Nos. 1920 and 2018 of the late President Marcos, to PD No. 1693,
in the exercise of his legislative powers under the 1973 Constitution. On May 1, 1984, The Court of Industrial Relations, in the exercise of its power of investigation, required
Mr. Marcos promulgated PD No. 1920, with the avowed purpose of giving more teeth Pablo Catura and Luz Salvador to deliver the organization’s books of accounts, bank
to the campaign against illegal recruitment. The Decree gave the Minister of Labor accounts, passbooks, union funds, receipts, vouchers, and other documents relating
arrest and closure powers. On January 26, 1986, Mr. Marcos, promulgated PD No. to its finances, to assure compliance with the internal labor organization procedures
2018, giving the Labor Minister search and seizure powers as well. under Section 17 of the Industrial Peace Act.

The above has now been etched as Article 38, paragraph (c) of the Labor Code. The ISSUE​: Whether or not the CIR’s requirement upon petitioners to deliver its books of
decrees in question, it is well to note, stand as the dying vestiges of authoritarian rule accounts, bank accounts, passbooks, union funds, receipts, vouchers, and other
in its twilight moments. The Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer documents relating to its finances, was within the statutory power conferred.
issue search or arrest warrants​. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial
RULING​: Yes. The matter was properly within its (CIR’s) cognizance. Pursuant to c. To investigate cases of graft and corruption and violations of Republic Acts Nos.
Section 17 of the Industrial Peace Act, in paragraphs (b), (h), and (l) of the aforecited 1379 and 3019, and gather necessary evidence to establish prima facie, acts of graft
provision, and acquisition of unlawfully amassed wealth ... .
- "The members shall be entitled to full and detailed reports from their officers h. To receive and evaluate, and to conduct fact-finding investigations of sworn
and representatives of all financial transactions as provided in the complaints against the acts, conduct or behavior of any public official or employee
constitution and by-laws of the organization." and to file and prosecute the proper charges with the appropriate agency.
- "The funds of the organization shall not be applied for any purpose or object On June 7, 1968, petitioner Quirico Evangelista, as Undersecretary of the Agency,
other than those expressly stated in its constitution or by-laws or those issued to respondent Fernando Manalastas, then Acting City Public Service Officer of
expressly authorized by a resolution of the majority of the member." Manila, a subpoena ad testificandum commanding him "to be and appear as witness
- "The books of accounts and other records of the financial activities of a at the Office of the PRESIDENTIAL AGENCY ON REFORMS AND GOVERNMENT
legitimate labor organization shall be open to inspection by any officer or OPERATIONS ... then and there to declare and testify in a certain investigation
member thereof.” pending therein."
Instead of obeying the subpoena, respondent Fernando Manalastas filed on June 25,
The means necessary to give the law force and effectiveness, should be deemed 1968 with the Court of First Instance of Manila an Amended Petition for prohibition,
implied powers, unless the power sought to be exercised is so arbitrary as to trench certiorari and/or injunction with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order
upon private rights of petitioners entitled to priority. No such showing has been made; docketed as Civil Case No. 73305 and assailed its legality.
no such showing can be made. To repeat, there should be no question about the ISSUE
correctness of the order herein challenged. Whether the Agency, acting thru its officials, enjoys the authority to issue subpoenas
in its conduct of fact-finding investigations.
The pertinent section of the Industrial Peace Act makes clear that such books of RULING
accounts and other records of the financial activities are open to inspection by any Yes, the disputed subpoena issued by petitioner Quirico Evangelista to respondent
member of a labor organization. Fernando Manalastas is well within the legal competence of the Agency to issue.
The administrative agency has the power of inquisition which is not dependent upon a
The power to investigate, to be conscientious and rational at the very least, requires case or controversy in order to get evidence, but can investigate merely on suspicion
an inquiry into existing facts and conditions. The documents required to be produced that the law is being violated or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.
constitutes evidence of the most solid character as to whether or not there was a When investigative and accusatory duties are delegated by statute to an
failure to comply with the mandates of the law. administrative body, it, too may take steps to inform itself as to whether there is
probable violation of the law. 21 In sum, it may be stated that a subpoena meets the
requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is (1) within the authority of the agency; (2)
Evangelista vs. Jarencio, G.R. No. L-29274, Nov. 27, 1975
the demand is not too indefinite; and (3) the information is reasonably relevant. 22
PETITIONER​: Evangelista There is no doubt that the fact-finding investigations being conducted by the Agency
RESPONDENT​:Jarencio upon sworn statements implicating certain public officials of the City Government of
FACTS Manila in anomalous transactions 23 fall within the Agency's sphere of authority and
Pursuant to his special powers and duties under Section 64 of the Revised that the information sought to be elicited from respondent Fernando Manalastas, of
Administrative Code,1 the President of the Philippines created the Presidential which he is claimed to be in possession, 24 is reasonably relevant to the
Agency on Reforms and Government Operations (PARGO) under Executive Order investigations.
No. 4 of January 7, 1966.2 Purposedly, he charged the Agency with the following (N.B This is a discussion regarding the relation of administrative investigation with the
functions and responsibilities:3 right of self-incrimination.)
b. To investigate all activities involving or affecting immoral practices, graft and We are mindful that the privilege against self-incrimination extends in administrative
corruptions, smuggling (physical or technical), lawlessness, subversion, and all other investigations, generally, in scope similar to adversary proceedings. 25 In Cabal v.
activities which are prejudicial to the government and the public interests, and to Kapunan, Jr., 26 the Court ruled that since the administrative charge of unexplained
submit proper recommendations to the President of the Philippines. wealth against the respondent therein may result in the forfeiture of the property
under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, a proceeding criminal or penal in bribery and violation of Sec. 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended,
nature, the complainant cannot call the respondent to the witness stand without were filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Barili, Cebu
encroaching upon his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. Later, in ● The office of the Cluster Director, Commission on Audit, Quezon City
Pascual, Jr. v. Board of Medical Examiners, 27 the same approach was followed in received the initial report on the result of the examination of the cash and
the administrative proceedings against a medical practitioner that could possibly accounts of Canque, where it was found that Canque has a storage in her
result in the loss of his privilege to practice the medical profession. Nevertheless, in cash collection amounting to p304,985.00, and recommended her immediate
the present case, We find that respondent Fernando Manalastas is not facing any relief from her position and any other position involving money or property
administrative charge. 28 He is merely cited as a witness in connection with the accountability.
fact-finding investigation of anomalies and irregularities in the City Government of ● In a Resolution, the Court treated the NBI entrapment on Caque as an
Manila with the object of submitting the assembled facts to the President of the administrative complaint for grave misconduct. She was immediately placed
Philippines or to file the corresponding charges. 29 Since the only purpose of under suspension until further orders by the Court. The case was referred to
investigation is to discover facts as a basis of future action, any unnecessary a Consultant of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for investigation,
extension of the privilege would thus be unwise. 30Anyway, by all means, respondent report and recommendation.
Fernando Manalastas may contest any attempt in the investigation that tends to ● Canque claimed that Rebeca Pantoc came to her office to inquire about the
disregard his privilege against self-incrimination. bail for her son, Jovencio. Upon learning so, Rebecca came back 2 days
after with a Motion for Reduction of Bail. Two weeks after, Rebecca came
with Ypanto and alleged that at Shamrock Restaurant, the former gave
P20,000.00 as premium payment for the bail bond to Ote Erojo, who in turn
Office Court Administrator vs. Canque, A.M. No. P-04-1830, June 4, 2009
delivered to Rebecca a copy of the Release Order, promising to send her
Petitioner: ​OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
the bond undertaking by mail.
Respondent: ​SYLVIA CANQUE, Clerk of Court, 12th MCTC,
● A year after, another case for drug pushing was filed against Jovencio.
Moalboal-Badian-Alcantara Alegria, Cebu
Canque admitted two occasions where she saw Ypanto: (1) during the
preliminary investigation and (2) when the latter asked her when the 10-day
FACTS:
period would expire for the filing of the Counter-Affidavit
● The instant case stemmed from the Investigation Report of the National
● Canque further explained that on the last of filing the Counter-Affidavit,
Bureau of Investigation (NBI)-Region VII on the entrapment operation on
Ypanto came with a woman who was introduced as Jovencio's sister. Said
Sylvia R. Canque, Clerk of Court, 12th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC),
woman handed an envelope to Ypanto, who in turn tried to give it to Canque.
Moalboal-Badian-Alcantara-Alegria, Cebu.
Canque refused as it was not the Counter-Affidavit. The woman allegedly
● The Investigation Report showed that Marissa Y. Ypanto of Barangay Polo,
got the envelop and tried to place it at the back of Canque's palm where it
Alcantara, Cebu filed a letter-complaint before NBI alleging that Canque
lightly touched her skin. She then showed her ID and revealed that she was
asked from her the amount of P40,000.00 in exchange for the release of the
an NBI agent. Canque was then arrested by the other NBI agents.
former's common-law husband, Jovencio Patoc, and dismissal of his criminal
● In a resolution, upon recommendation of the Office of the Court
cases
Administration, the case was reassigned to the Executive Judge, RTC Cebu
● The NBI conducted an entrapment operation where they arrested Canque
for investigation, report and recommendation. The Investigating Judge found
after receiving the P40,000.00, which was previously marked, from Ypanto.
Canque guilty of grave misconduct and recommended the penalty of
The NBI further reported that prior to the entrapment, Patoc's mother had
dismissal, with forfeiture of all her benefits and disqualification from
already given Canque P20,000.00 in the presence of Ypanto for the
re-employment in the government service.
dismissal of Patoc's first case, which remains pending to date.
● In a Resolution, the Court referred the Investigation Report to the OCA for
● In a letter, Atty. Reynaldo O. Esmeralda, Acting Regional Director,
evaluation, report and recommendation, where said report was set aside and
NBI-Region VII, endorsed to the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas the
that the complaint be investigated anew upon finding that Canque was not
case of Canque for immediate inquest. Thereafter, Informations for direct
informed of her right to be heard by herself and counsel during the
investigation which allegedly amounted to a denial of her right to due
 process; and for the Audit Report of Shortage in the amount of P304,985.00 as clerk of court. These acts of respondent are in violation of her
and other actuations and deficiencies of respondent Canque. duties and responsibilities as clerk of court in the collection and
● The Court issued a Resolution requiring Canque to file a Comment on the custody of legal funds and fees. Clerks of court are responsible for
Audit Report of the COA, which the latter failed to do so. Thus, in an En court records and physical facilities of their respective courts and
Banc Resolution, the Court considered Canque to have waived her right to are accountable for the court's money and property deposits under
file Comment and referred, for the second time, the matter to the Office of Section B, Chapter 1 of the 1991 Manual for Clerks of Court and
the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation. the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court
● In a Memorandum, the Court Administrator found Canque liable for gross ● Thus, as custodians of the court's funds, revenues, records,
neglect of duty, gross dishonesty and grave misconduct and recommended properties and premises, clerks of court are liable for any loss,
her dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement and other benefits, shortage, destruction or impairment of the same.
except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any ● The cited acts of respondent clearly show her failure to discharge
government office or instrumentality, including government-owned and her functions as clerk of court constituting gross neglect of duty,
controlled corporations. It further recommended that she be ordered to gross dishonesty and grave misconduct. Each offense is
restitute the amount of P304,985.00 representing the shortage in the punishable with dismissal even for the first time of commission
collection of court funds. under Section 22 (a), (b) and (c) of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other
ISSUE: Pertinent Civil Service Laws.
1. WON Canque is liable for gross neglect of duty, gross dishonesty and grave
misconduct 2. The Court does not agree with the finding of the Office of the Court
2. WON the the OCA erred when it set aside the Investigation Report of Administrator in its first Report dated June 13, 2006 ​recommending that
Investigating Judge Dumdum and that the complaint be investigated anew the Investigation Report of Investigating Judge Dumdum be set aside
since Canque was not informed of her right to be heard by herself and and that the complaint be investigated anew since Canque was not
counsel during the investigation informed of her right to be heard by herself and counsel during the
investigation — an omission allegedly amounting to a denial of her right to
HELD: YES to both issues. due process.
1. We agree with the findings and recommendation of the Office of the ● The essence of due process is that a party be afforded a
Court Administrator. reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence he
● Grave misconduct is a malevolent transgression of some may have in support of his defense. ​Technical rules of procedure
established and definite rule of action — more particularly, unlawful and evidence are not strictly applied to administrative
behavior or gross negligence by the public officer or employee — proceedings. Thus, administrative due process cannot be fully
which threatens the very existence of the system of administration equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. A formal
of justice. or trial-type hearing is not required.
● In the case at bar, respondent violated Section 2, Canon 1 of the ● In the case at bar, despite respondent's protestations, the records
Code of Conduct for Court Personnel which states that "[c]ourt readily show that she was afforded the opportunity to present her
personnel shall not solicit or accept any gift, favor or benefit on any side as she was directed to file her comment on the complaint. She
explicit or implicit understanding that such gift shall influence their was notified of the hearing and was in fact present during the entire
official actions". This is sufficiently established by the evidence on proceedings. As to the issue on the legality of her arrest,
record. respondent has failed to submit evidence in support of her bare
● Respondent likewise failed to observe the standard of behavior claims.
required of clerks of court as the chief administrative officers of their
respective courts as shown by the initial audit report of the COA
finding her remiss in the performance of her administrative duties
 that: “Anyone who fails to appear may be subject to contempt of court PROVIDED
that the admin agency is given the power to summon”.
Carmelo vs. Ramos, G.R. No. L-17778, Nov. 30, 1962

IN RE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ARMANDO RAMOS One who invokes Section 580 of the Revised Administrative Code must first show
Petitioner-appellant: JESUS L. CARMELO that he has authority to take testimony or evidence before he can apply to the courts
Respondent-appellee: ARMANDO RAMOS for the punishment of hostile witnesses. There is nothing said in the executive order
of the Mayor creating the committee about such a grant of power. All that the order
FACTS: ​The Mayor of Manila issued an executive order creating a committee "to gives to this body is the power to investigate anomalies involving certain city
investigate the anomalies involving the license inspectors and other personnel of the employees.
License Inspection Division of the Office of the City Treasurer and of the License and
Permits Division of this Office (of the Mayor)." He named Mr. Jesus L. Carmelo as A delegation of such power to investigate does not imply a delegation of the power to
chairman of said committee. take testimony or evidence of witnesses whose appearance may be required by the
compulsory process of subpoena. Lastly, even granting that the Mayor has the
The committee issued subpoenas to Armando Ramos, a private citizen working as a implied power to require the appearance of witnesses before him, the rule, as noted
bookkeeper in the Casa de Alba, requiring him to appear before it in connection with earlier, is that the Mayor cannot delegate this power to a body like the committee of
an administrative case against Crisanto. However, Ramos refused to appear. It the petitioner.
appears that in a statement given to investigators of the office of the Mayor, Ramos
admitted having misappropriated, on several occasions, sums of money given to him
Masangcay vs. Comelec, G.R. No. L-13827, Sept. 28, 1962
by the owner of Casa de Alba for the payment of the latter's taxes and that this fact
had not been discovered earlier because Ramos used to entertain employees in the Petitioner​: Benjamin Masangcay
City Treasurer's office at Casa de Alba. Respondent​: COMELEC

Claiming that Ramos' refusal tended "to impede, obstruct, or degrade the FACTS​:
administrative proceedings," petitioner filed in the CFI a petition to declare Armando
Ramos in contempt. Benjamin Masangcay was the provincial treasurer of Aklan, in charge of the receipt
and custody of the official ballots, election forms and supplies, as well as of their
CFI: Dismissed the petition. It was held that there is no law empowering committees distribution, among the different municipalities of the province of Aklan.
created by municipal mayors to issue subpoenas and demand that witnesses testify
under oath. It also held that to compel Ramos to testify would be to violate his right Masangcay, with several others, was charged with contempt for having opened three
against self-incrimination; that to compel Ramos to confirm this statement in the boxes containing official and sample ballots, without the presence of the division
administrative case against certain employees in the Office of the City Treasurer superintendent of schools of Aklan, the provincial auditor, and the authorized
would be to compel him to give testimony that could be used against him in a criminal representatives of the Nacionalista Party, the Liberal Party and the Citizens' Party, in
case for estafa. violation of COMELEC Resolutions

ISSUE: ​WON the committee, of which petitioner is the Chairman, has the power to Such act is punishable under Section 5 of the Revised Election Code and Rule 64 of
subpoena witnesses and to ask for their punishment in case of refusal. the Rules of Court.

HELD: ​The rule is that Rule 64 (Contempt) ​of the Rules of Court applies only to They all appeared before the Commission and entered a plea of not guilty.
inferior and superior courts and does not comprehend contempt committed against Thereupon, evidence was presented by both parties and the Commission rendered its
administrative officials or bodies like the one in this case, unless said contempt is decision finding Masangcay and his co-respondent Molo guilty while the other
clearly considered and expressly defined as contempt of court, as in done in respondents were exonerated for lack of evidence.
paragraph 2 of Section 580 of the Revised Administrative Code which provides
Masangcay brought the present petition for review raising as main issue the Due to certain 'observations' on the provincial certificates of canvass by certain
constitutionality of Section 5 of the Revised Election Code which grants the parties, canvassing of the certificate was held in abeyance and respondent was
COMELEC the power to punish acts of contempt with the same penalties provided for queried on the alleged fraud which attended the conduct of elections in his area.
in Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. He contended that even if he is guilty of the act of
contempt charged, the decision is null and void for lack of valid power on the part of He was already informed of the resetting of the canvassing for May 30, 2007, but
the COMELEC to impose such penalty under the principle of separation of powers. failed to appear despite prior knowledge.

ISSUE​: W/N COMELEC has the power to punish contempt On June 4, 2007, the canvassing documents for all municipalities of the province of
Maguindanao in connection with the May 14, 2007 elections were not transmitted by
RULING: NO the Provincial Election Supervisor of said province nor the respective Board of
Canvassers.
COMELEC lacks power to impose the disciplinary penalty meted out to Masangcay in
this case. The Commission and not just the NBOC, in the exercise of its investigatory powers to
determine existing controversies created the ​Task Force Maguindanao​, which was
In the case of Guevara vs. COMELEC, the SC held that when COMELEC exercises a tasked to conduct a fact-finding investigation on the conduct of elections and
ministerial function, it cannot exercise the power to punish for contempt because such certificates of canvass from the city and municipalities in Maguindanao.
power is inherently judicial in nature.
It was during this hearing that respondent [petitioner] Bedol explained that, while in
In the instant case, the ​Resolutions which the COMELEC tried to enforce merely his custody and possession, the election paraphernalia were stolen.
call for the exercise of an administrative or ministerial function for they merely
concern the procedure to be followed in the distribution of ballots and other Respondent [petitioner] Bedol was duly informed to be present in the next scheduled
election paraphernalia among the different municipalities. investigative proceedings set for June 14, 2007 as the Task Force wanted to delve
deeper into the alleged loss by propounding additional questions to Atty. Bedol during
In this sense, the Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction in punishing Masangcay the next scheduled proceedings, such as why he still had in his possession said
for contempt, and so its decision is null and void. documents which should have already been turned over to the Commission, why he
did not report to the COMELEC or to the police authorities the purported theft, and
other pertinent questions.
Bedol vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 179830, Dec. 3, 2009

Petitioner: LINTANG BEDOL However, despite actual notice in open session, Atty. Bedol failed to appear. Also
Respondent: COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS respondent [petitioner] failed and refused to submit a written explanation of his
absences.
FACTS:
Petitioner Bedol failed to attend the scheduled canvassing of the Provincial On June 26, 2007, [petitioner] came out on national newspapers, in an exclusive
Certificates of Canvass (PCOC) of Maguindanao of which he is the Provincial interview with the 'Inquirer' and GMA-7, with a gleaming 45 caliber pistol strapped to
Election Supervisor which was slated on May 22, 2007. his side, and in clear defiance of the Commission posted the challenge by saying that
'those that are saying that there was cheating in Maguindanao, file a case against me
On May 25, 2007, respondent [petitioner] appeared before the Commission, en banc tomorrow, the next day. They should file a case now and I will answer their
sitting as the National Board of Canvassers (NBOC) for the election of senators, to accusations.'
submit the provincial certificate of canvass for Maguindanao, pursuant to his functions
as Provincial Elections Supervisor and chair of the PBOC for Maguindanao. On June 27, 2007, the COMELEC through Task Force Maguindanao head,
Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer, issued a Contempt Charge and Show Cause
Order against petitioner. The COMELEC En Banc rendered the first assailed The COMELEC, through the Task Force Maguindanao, was exercising its
Resolution finding Bedol guilty of Contempt. quasi-judicial power in pursuit of the truth behind the allegations of massive
fraud during the elections in Maguindanao​. To achieve its objective, the Task
The main thrust of petitioner's argument is that the COMELEC exceeded its Force conducted hearings and required the attendance of the parties concerned and
jurisdiction in initiating the contempt proceedings when it was performing its their counsels to give them the opportunity to argue and support their respective
administrative and not its quasi-judicial functions as the National Board of Canvassers positions.
for the election of senators. According to petitioner, the COMELEC may only punish
contemptuous acts while exercising its quasi-judicial functions. In the same vein, to withhold from the COMELEC the power to punish individuals who
refuse to appear during a fact-finding investigation, despite a previous notice and
ISSUE: ​WON the COMELEC has jurisdiction to initiate or prosecute the contempt order to attend, would render nugatory the COMELEC's investigative power, which is
proceedings against the petitioner. an essential incident to its constitutional mandate to secure the conduct of honest and
credible elections. In this case, the purpose of the investigation was however derailed
HELD: ​Yes. when petitioner obstinately refused to appear during said hearings and to answer
The COMELEC possesses the power to conduct investigations as an adjunct to questions regarding the various election documents which, he claimed, were stolen
its constitutional duty to enforce and administer all election laws, by virtue of while they were in his possession and custody. Undoubtedly, the COMELEC could
the explicit provisions of paragraph 6, Section 2, Article IX of the 1987 punish petitioner for such contumacious refusal to attend the Task Force hearings.
Constitution​, which reads:
Article IX-C, Section 2. . . . Even assuming ​arguendo​ that the COMELEC was acting as a board of canvassers at
(6) . . .; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of that time it required petitioner to appear before it, the Court had the occasion to rule
election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, that the ​powers of the board of canvassers are not purely ministerial. The board
offenses, and malpractices. exercises quasi-judicial function​s, such as the function and duty to determine
whether the papers transmitted to them are genuine election returns signed by the
Undoubtedly, the text and intent of this provision is to give COMELEC all the proper officers. When the results of the elections in the province of Maguindanao
necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, were being canvassed, counsels for various candidates posited numerous questions
honest, peaceful, and credible elections. on the certificates of canvass brought before the COMELEC. The COMELEC asked
petitioner to appear before it in order to shed light on the issue of whether the election
The powers and functions of the COMELEC, conferred upon it by the 1987 documents coming from Maguindanao were spurious or not. When petitioner
Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code, may be classified into administrative, unjustifiably refused to appear, COMELEC undeniably acted within the bounds of its
quasi-legislative, and quasi-judicial. The quasi-judicial power of the COMELEC jurisdiction when it issued the assailed resolutions.
embraces the power to resolve controversies arising from the enforcement of election
laws, and to be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies; and of all
Gaoiran vs. Alcala, G.R. No. 150178, Nov. 26, 2004
contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications. Its quasi-legislative
power refers to the issuance of rules and regulations to implement the election laws “Mauling Incident—Formalities, Authority, Due Process”
and to exercise such legislative functions as may expressly be delegated to it by
Congress. Its administrative function refers to the enforcement and administration of Petitioner:​ Florian Gaoiran
Respondents: ​Hon. Angel Alcala (Retired CHED Chairman)​, ​Edmond Castillejo
election laws. (Administrative Officer I, Angadanan Agro-Industrial College)​, Ester Albano
Garcia (Now CHED Chairman), Felipe Ammugauan, Sr. (Vocation School
In carrying out their ​quasi-judicial functions​ the administrative officers or bodies are Superintendent I, AAIC), and Diosdado Telan (Instructor I & Head Teacher III, OIC
required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh Designate, AAIC)
evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and
Facts:
exercise of discretion in a judicial nature. ● On October 29, 1997, a letter-complaint was filed with the CHED against
Florian Gaoiran, Head Teacher III in the High School Department of the
 Angadanan Agro-Industrial College (AAIC), a state-supervised school in and that he was not informed of the complaint against him before, during
Angadanan, Isabela. In his letter-complaint, ​Edmond Castillejo, and after the preliminary fact-finding investigation.
Administrative Officer I, also of the same school, charged Gaoiran with ● Thereafter, ​Joel Mayo, who was later appointed Director of the Legal
mauling him while he was performing his duties therein. Affairs Service of the CHED, issued the Resolution dated February 20,
● Appended to the letter-complaint were the verified criminal complaint filed by 1999 dismissing the administrative complaint against the Gaoiran on
Castillejo against the petitioner and the sworn statements of his witnesses. the ground that the letter-complaint of Castillejo was not under oath.
The criminal complaint for assault to a person in authority was filed with the ● However, ​Hon. Angel Alcala, then Chairman of the CHED, apparently
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Angadanan-San Guillermo. unaware of the existence of Director Mayo’s resolution, issued another
● The letter-complaint was referred to the Legal Affairs Service of the CHED. Resolution dated June 3, 1999, finding the petitioner guilty of grave
Thereafter, Atty. Felina Dasig, then Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
Director III, Legal Affairs Service, conducted a fact-finding investigation on and dismissing him therefrom. Alcala imposed the penalty of dismissal
the mauling incident to determine the existence of a prima facie case against from the service without prejudice to proper criminal and civil actions.
the petitioner. ● Gaoiran then filed with the RTC, a petition for certiorari, prohibition and
● During the fact-finding investigation: injunction. He alleged that Alcala committed grave abuse of discretion when
○ Castillejo averred: that at 2:30 p.m. on August 15, 1997, while he was Alcala dismissed him from service despite the fact that the administrative
performing his usual duties, Gaoiran suddenly barged into his office and complaint against him had already been dismissed per Director Mayo’s
assaulted and boxed him. Gaoiran delivered blows on Castillejo’s head, Resolution.
left eye, left eyebrow and lower lip. Gaoiran tried to throw him down the ● The RTC rendered judgment in favor of the Gaoiran declaring Alcala’s
stairs but was prevented by the timely intervention of Mr. Ismael Resolution null and void. The RTC found that after the formal charge was
Bautista, Accountant I of the same school. Bautista and other filed against Gaoiran and he chose not to file an answer thereto, a formal
employees of the AAIC corroborated Castillejo’s statements. Moreover, investigation was still required to be conducted under the Civil Service
the medical certificate issued by Dr. Belinda L. Miguel showed that she Rules. When Director Mayo dismissed the administrative complaint against
treated Castillejo for the wounds he sustained on his left eye, left the petitioner on the ground that the letter-complaint was not under oath, the
eyebrow and lower lip. formal investigation had not, as yet, been terminated. Such dismissal,
○ Gaoiran averred: that at around 2:30 p.m., he was about to leave the according to the RTC, put an end to the litigation. Thus, Alcala acted with
school premises. Suddenly, Castillejo shouted to the security guard to grave abuse of discretion in issuing his Resolution, dismissing the petitioner
"punch out" the petitioner’s attendance card. This irked Gaoiran from the service, for the reason that the administrative complaint against him
because there were students and other teachers in the vicinity. Gaoiran had already been dismissed.
confronted respondent Castillejo and asked the latter why he had to ● The CA reversed the decision of the RTC. The CA declared Alcala’s
embarrass him in front of the students. Castillejo just turned his back Resolution valid, dismissing the petitioner from the service.
and proceeded to his office. Gaoiran followed him and later saw that
Castillejo was already holding a wrench. Inside Castillejo’s office, Issues:​1) WON Castillejo’s letter-complaint failed to comply with the formal
Gaoiran made a side step and just then, respondent Castillejo slipped requirements of the law thus warranting Director Mayo’s dismissal of the case.
and fell flat on the floor. Gaoiran noticed that Castillejo’s left eyebrow 2) WON Director Mayo’s Resolution should prevail over Hon. Alcala’s Resolution.
was bleeding and he was putting up a struggle (nagpupumiglas), so 3) WON Gaoiran was denied due process.
Gaoiran held his feet.
● After the fact-finding investigation was terminated, and upon finding of a 1) The letter-complaint is not subject to the requirements.
prima facie case against Gaoiran for grave misconduct and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service, ​Atty. Dasig issued the Formal LETTER-COMPLAINT DID NOT COMMENCE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS;
Charge and Order of Preventive Suspension for 90 days without pay IT MERELY TRIGGERED FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION BY THE
and directed Gaoiran to answer in writing and under oath the above charges CHED—​Gaoiran refers to pertinent provisions governing the initiation of
against him within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. ​The petitioner did not administrative complaints which require such to be subscribed and sworn to, as well
submit his written counter-affidavit or answer to the charges against as requiring a certification of non-forum shopping, the absence of which would cause
him. the case to be dismissed. In Castillejo’s letter-complaint to CHED, he averred that
● Instead, Gaoiran filed with the RTC of Cauayan, Isabela, a petition for Gaoiran “is now intimidating two of the witnesses against him that’s why may I
certiorari and prohibition to restrain the enforcement of the said preventive request for an immediate investigation of the case...” Acting on the letter, the CHED
suspension order. However, considering that the petitioner had already referred the matter to its Office of Legal Affairs Service and Atty. Dasig, as OIC
served the suspension, the case was dismissed for being moot and Director thereof, conducted a fact-finding investigation on the incident. The said
academic. letter-complaint did not, by itself, commence the administrative proceedings against
● The petitioner sought reconsideration of the formal charge and preventive the petitioner, requiring an answer from him, but merely triggered a fact-finding
suspension order, contending that the letter-complaint was not under oath investigation by the CHED. ​Thus, ​it was the formal charge and order of
preventive suspension filed by Atty. Dasig against the petitioner charging him native dealers of leather. Such was just a scheme adapted to systematically
with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the discharge all the members of the NLU from work.
service and directing him to submit his answer in writing and under oath that
constituted the complaint.
The Court of Industrial Relation decided the case and elevated it to the Supreme
2) No. The Court affirmed CA’s findings. Court, but a motion for new trial was raised by the NLU. But the Ang Tibay filed a
motion for opposing the said motion.
DIRECTOR MAYO’S RESOLUTION WAS IRREGULARLY ISSUED—​The resolution
was issued by Director Mayo in excess of his authority. It is borne by the records that
The motion for new trial was raised because according to NLU, there are documents
Atty. Dasig already filed the formal charge against the petitioner after a fact-finding
investigation had been conducted on the mauling incident and a prima facie case had that are so inaccessible to them that even with the exercise of due diligence they
been established against him. The formal charge was filed as early as July 27, 1998 could not be expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the Court of
and, on September 21, 1998, Atty. Dasig submitted her memorandum to respondent Industrial Relations. That these documents, which NLU have now attached as
Alcala recommending the petitioner’s dismissal. It was, thus, highly irregular for exhibits are of such far-reaching importance and effect that their admission would
Director Mayo to dismiss the administrative complaint against the petitioner long after
the formal charge had already been filed against him and the matter was already for necessarily mean the modification and reversal of the judgment rendered therein.
Alcala’s Resolution.
Issue: ​W/N NLU is entitled to a new trial
EVEN IF REGULAR, ALCALA HAS AUTHORITY TO REVERSE—​Alcala, by reason
of his position as then Chairman of the CHED, had the authority to reverse and set Held: ​YES. To begin with the issue before us is to realize the functions of the CIR.
aside the acts or issuances of his subordinates. His June 3, 1999 Resolution
dismissing the petitioner from the service, in effect, reversed and set aside his The CIR is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its
subordinate Director Mayo’s February 20, 1999 Resolution. creation which is the Commonwealth Act No. 103. It is more an administrative board
than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. It is not intended to be a
3) No mere receptive organ of the government. Unlike a court of justice which is essentially
passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases that are
GAOIRAN ACCORDED DUE PROCESS BUT HE OPTED NOT TO EXERCISE
RIGHT—​Significantly. the petitioner cannot rightfully claim that he was denied presented to it by the parties litigant, the function of the CIR, as will appear from
procedural due process. What is repugnant to due process is the denial of the perusal of its organic law is more active, affirmative and dynamic. It not only exercises
opportunity to be heard. ​The petitioner was undoubtedly afforded the opportunity judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between employers
to present his side as he was directed to file his written answer to the formal and employees but its functions are far more comprehensive and extensive. It has
charge against him. He opted not to do so. He cannot now feign denial of due
process. jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any
question, matter controversy or disputes arising between, and/ or affecting employers
Ruling: Petition denied. and employees or laborers, and landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, and regulates
the relations between them, subject to, and in accordance with, the provisions of CA
Ang Tibay vs. CIR, G.R. No. L-46496, Feb. 27, 1940 103.

Petitioners: ​ANG TIBAY, represented by TORIBIO TEODORO, and NATIONAL SC had the occasion to point out that the CIR is not narrowly constrained by technical
WORKERS' BROTHERHOOD, rules of procedure, and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to
Respondents: ​THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL LABOR technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of legal
UNION, INC. evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable.

Facts: ​Respondents alleged that Toribio Teodoro, who dominated the National The fact, however, that the CIR may be said to be free from rigidity of certain
Workers’ Brotherhood of Ang Tibay, made a false claim that there was a shortage of procedural requirements does not mean that it can in justiciable cases coming before
leather soles in Ang Tibay that made it necessary for him to lay off workers, however, it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due
such claim was unsupported by records of the Bureau of Customs & the accounts of process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. There are cardinal
primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character:
(1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one's cause and submit The appellee contends that even if Act No. 3155 be declared unconstitutional by the
evidence in support thereof; fact alleged by the petitioner in his complaint, still the petitioner cannot be allowed to
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented; import cattle from Australia for the reason that, while Act No. 3155 were declared
(3) The decision must have something to support itself; unconstitutional, Act No. 3052 would automatically become effective.
(4) The evidence must be substantial;
(5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing; or at least The Act in question reads as follows:
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected; "SECTION 1. After March thirty-first, nineteen hundred and twenty-five existing
(6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent contracts for the importation of cattle into this country to the contrary notwithstanding,
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views it shall be strictly prohibited to import, bring or introduce into the Philippine
of a subordinate; Islands any cattle from foreign countries​: Provided, however, That at any time
(7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in after said date, the Governor-General, with the concurrence of the presiding officers
such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various Issue involved, of both Houses, may raise such prohibition entirely or in part if the conditions of the
and the reason for the decision rendered. contrary make this advisable or if disease among foreign cattle has ceased to be a
menace to the agriculture and livestock of the lands…”
SC said there was a failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved due to failure to
receive all relevant evidence. Thus, the motion for a new trial was granted and the Issue​:
entire record of this case is remanded to the CIR. Whether the Act No. 3155 is unconstitutional.

CHAPTER 5: RULE MAKING POWER Held​:

No.

Holy Spirit Homeowners Association vs. Defensor, G.R. No. 163980, Aug. 3,
Act No. 3155 is entirely valid. The Legislature passed Act No. 3155 to protect the
2006
cattle industry of the country and to prevent the introduction of cattle diseases through
the importation of foreign cattle. ​It is now generally recognized that the promotion
Republic vs. Drugmaker’s Laboratories, G.R. No. 190387, Mar. 5, 2014 of industries affecting the public welfare and the development of the resources
of the country are objects within the scope of the police power. ​At the time the
Act No. 3155 was promulgated there was ​reasonable necessity therefor and it
Gonzales vs. Land Bank, G.R. No. 76759, Mar. 22, 1990
cannot be said that the Legislature exceeded its power in passing the Act. That being
so, it is not for this court to avoid or vacate the Act upon constitutional grounds nor
Cruz vs. Youngberg, G.R. No. L-34674, Oct. 26, 1931 will it assume to determine whether the measures are wise or the best that might
have been adopted.
Petitioner: MAURICIO CRUZ
Respondent: STANTON YOUNGBERG, Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry
The petitioner also claims that "The lower court erred in not holding that the power
given by Act No. 3155 to the Governor-General to suspend or not, at his discretion,
Facts​:
the prohibition provided in the act constitutes an ​unlawful delegation of the
This is a petition brought originally before the CFI of Manila for the issuance of a writ
legislative powers​." We do not think that such is the case. As held in the case of
of mandatory injunction against the respondent Youngberg as Director of the Bureau
Judge Ranney vs Commissioners of Clinton County:
of Animal Industry, requiring him to issue a permit for the landing of ten large cattle
imported by the petitioner and for the slaughter thereof. The petitioner attacked the
"The true distinction, therefore, is between the delegation of power to make the law,
constitutionality of Act No. 3155, which at present prohibits the importation of cattle
which necessarily involves a ​discretion as to what it shall be​, and conferring an
from foreign countries into the Philippine Islands.
authority or ​discretion as to its ​execution​, to be exercised under and in pursuance
of the law. ​The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be
made​."
 agencies of the government, including government-owned and controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries. This executive issuance was, however, later
DOH vs. Philip Morris Phil., G.R. No. 202943, Mar. 25, 2015
amended by EO 109-A,19 to conform to RA 9184 which was enacted barely two
months after the issuance of EO 109.20 Two years later, or on April 30, 2005, EO
SM Land vs. BCDA, G.R. No. 203655, Mar. 18, 2015
42321 was issued, repealing EO 109-A and simplifying the procurement process.
PETITIONER​: SM LAND, INC
Section 4 of EO 423 was later amended by EO 645.22
RESPONDENT​: BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and
Amidst the changes effected on procurement rules, the NEDA’s duty to issue a JV
ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA, ESQ., in his official capacity as President and
Guidelines under the said executive orders remained unaffected.23 Through Section
CEO of BCDA
5 of EO 109, Section 8 of EO 109-A and now Section 8 of EO 423, the President
FACTS
effectively delegated her inherent executive power to issue rules and regulations on
SM LAND, INC(SMLI) alleges that its unsolicited proposal for the development of the
procurement to her subordinate executive officials,24 her alter egos, the most recent
Bonifacio South Property has been validly accepted by the Bases Conversion
of which reads in this wise:
Development Authority (BCDA) and thereby creating a perfected contract between
Section 8. Joint Venture Agreements. The NEDA, in consultation with the GPPB, shall
the two.
issue guidelines regarding joint venture agreements with private entities with the
The gravamen of respondents' motion is that BCDA and SMLI do not have a
objective of promoting transparency, competitiveness, and accountability in
contract that would bestow upon the latter the right to demand that its unsolicited
government transactions, and, where applicable, complying with the requirements of
proposal be subjected to a competitive challenge. Assuming arguendo the existence
an open and competitive public bidding.
of such an agreement between the parties, respondents contend that the same may
Pursuant to said repeated directives from no less than the Chief Executive, the NEDA
be terminated by reasons of public interest.
issued the JV Guidelines providing the procedures for the coagulation of joint
The court ruled in favor of that There exists a valid agreement between SMLI and
ventures between the government and a private entity. In this regard, attention must
BCDA for all the elements of a valid contract are present however, the ruling in favor
be drawn to the well-established rule that administrative issuances, such as the
of SMLI is likewise based on the NEDA JV (Joint Venture) Guidelines.
NEDA JV Guidelines, duly promulgated pursuant to the rule-making power granted by
Respondent however, failed to follow some of the provisions of said guidelines but it
statute, have the force and effect of law.25 As elucidated in the August 13, 2014
is being disputed that it’s failure to comply is justifiable since it is a mere guideline and
Decision:
not law.
x x x Being an issuance in compliance with an executive edict, the NEDA JV
ISSUE
Guidelines, therefore, has the same binding effect as if it were issued by the
WON the NEDA JV (Joint Venture) Guidelines is a mere guideline and not
President himself, who parenthetically is a member of NEDA. As such, no agency or
law.
instrumentality covered by the JV Guidelines can validly deviate from the mandatory
RULING
procedures set forth therein, even if the other party acquiesced therewith or not.
The NEDA JV Guidelines has the same binding effect as if it were issued by
the President himself.
Under the Administrative Code of 1987,15 acts of the President providing for
rules of a general or permanent character in implementation or execution of Public Schools District Supervisors Association vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 157299,
constitutional or statutory powers shall be promulgated in Executive Orders (EOs).16 June 19, 2006
In other words, it is through these orders that the President ensures that laws are
FACTS: ​DepEd’s management had been centralized in the Manila office. Schools in
faithfully executed, by handing out instructions to subordinate executive officials and
the national, regional, and division levels merely followed the orders and memoranda
the public, in the form of implementing rules and regulations, on how the law should
issued by the Education Secretary. Due to the evolution of the learning process, there
be executed by subordinate officials and complied with by the public.17
was a need for a radical change in the governance of the DepEd. Thus, a study on
For government contracts and procurement in the Philippines, then President Gloria
how to improve the management of the Department was conducted, and one of the
Macapagal-Arroyo, adopting the recommendation of the NEDA, issued EO 10918 on
proposals was the abolition of the office of the district supervisor.
May 27, 2002. As its title indicates, EO 109 streamlined the rules and procedures on
the review and approval of all contracts of departments, bureaus, offices and
Then Senator Tessie Aquino-Oreta, the Chairman of the Committee on Education, Under Section 14 of the law, the DepEd Secretary is mandated to "promulgate the
authored Senate Bill No. 2191, the thrust of which was to change the existing implementing rules and regulations within ninety (90) days after the approval of the
management style and focus on the schools where the teaching-learning process Act, provided that the principle of shared governance shall be fully implemented
occurs. It was intended to highlight shared governance in the different levels in the within two (2) years" after such approval.
DECS hierarchy and establish authority, accountability, and responsibility for
achieving higher learning outcomes. Before the DepEd could issue the appropriate implementing rules and regulations,
petitioner sought the legal assistance of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Republic Act No. 9155 or the "Governance of Basic Education Act 2001," became a National Committee on Legal Aid to make representations for the resolution of the
law. Under the law, each regional office shall have a director, an assistant director, administrative issues. In a letter, the IBP stated that, per its review of the documents
and an office staff for program promotion and support, planning, administrative and submitted by the PSDSA, it found the latter's position valid and legal.
fiscal services. The regional director was given the authority to hire, place and
evaluate all employees in the regional office except for the position of assistant The PSDSA thus requested the DepEd Secretary to call an immediate consultation
director, as well as the authority, accountability, and responsibility to determine the with the district supervisors nationwide through a convention, and their valid inputs be
organization component of the divisions and districts, and approve the staffing pattern considered in formulating the rules and regulations to be urged by the DepEd.
of all employees therein; evaluate all division superintendents and assistant division However, the Secretary failed to reply. Thus, the IBP reiterated the concerns raised
superintendents in the region; and other functions as may be assigned by the proper by the PSDSA in a letter to the DepEd. DepEd Secretary Edilberto C. De Jesus
authorities. issued DECS Office Order No. 1, which constitutes the the IRR of R.A. No. 9155.

A division, on the other hand, is headed by a schools division superintendent with the The PSDSA, the national organization of about 1,800 public school district
following responsibilities, among others: to supervise the operations of all public and supervisors of the DepEd, in behalf of its officers and members, filed the instant
private elementary, secondary, and integrated schools, and learning centers; to hire, petition for prohibition and mandamus
place and evaluate all division supervisors and schools district supervisors as well as
all employees in the divisions, both teaching and non-teaching personnel, including
school heads, except for the assistant division superintendent; and perform other ISSUE:
functions as may be assigned by proper authorities. 1. WON the Implementing Rules and Regulations expanded the coverage of
RA 9155 – ​NO.
The office of the schools district supervisor has been retained under the law. Each 2. WON the IRR for RA 9155 is a valid exercise of quasi-legislative power of
district is headed by a school district supervisor and an office staff for program DepEd. – ​PARTLY YES​, except Sec. 2(11), Rule VI regarding the reporting
promotion. However, the responsibilities of the schools district supervisor are limited of donation.
to the following: (1) providing professional and instructional advice and support to the
school heads and teachers/facilitators of schools and learning centers in the district or
cluster thereof; (2) curricula supervision; and (3) performing such other functions as HELD:
may be assigned by proper authorities. The schools district supervisors have no 1.NO. It must be stressed that the power of administrative officials to promulgate
administrative, management, control or supervisory functions over the schools and rules in the implementation of a statute is necessarily limited to what is provided for in
learning centers within their respective districts. the legislative enactment. The implementing rules and regulations of a law cannot
extend the law or expand its coverage, as the power to amend or repeal a statute is
On the school level, an Elementary School Principal (ESP) was designated as school vested in the legislature. It bears stressing, however, that administrative bodies are
head for all public elementary schools; and a Secondary School Principal (SSP) for allowed under their power of subordinate legislation to implement the broad policies
high schools or a cluster thereof. The ESP and the SSP serve as both instructional laid down in a statute by "filling in" the details.
leaders and administrative managers.
All that is required is that the regulation be germane to the objectives and purposes of
the law; that the regulation does not contradict but conforms with the standards
prescribed by law. Moreover, as a matter of policy, this Court accords great respect to consequence excludes all others. This rule is expressed in the familiar maxim
the decisions and/or actions of administrative authorities not only because of the expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly
doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed knowledgeability and limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to
expertise in the enforcement of laws and regulations entrusted to their jurisdiction. others.
The rationale for this rule relates not only to the emergence of the multifarious needs
of a modern or modernizing society and the establishment of diverse administrative
Land Bank vs. CA, G.R. No. 118712, July 5, 1996
agencies for addressing and satisfying those needs; it also relates to the
accumulation of experience and growth of specialized capabilities by the
administrative agency charged with implementing a particular statute. Lokin vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 179431, June 22, 2010
We have reviewed the IRR and find that Section 4.3 of Rule IV, and Sections 5.1 and Petitioner:​ LUIS K. LOKIN, JR., as the second nominee of CITIZENS BATTLE
5.2 of Rule V are valid. The provisions merely reiterate and implement the related AGAINST CORRUPTION (CIBAC)
provisions of R.A. No. 9155. Under the law, a division superintendent has the Respondents:​ COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and the HOUSE OF
authority and responsibility to hire, place, and evaluate all division supervisors and REPRESENTATIVES
district supervisors as well as all employees in the division, both teaching and
non-teaching personnel, including school heads. A school head is a person FACTS:
responsible for the administrative and instructional supervision of the schools or ● The Citizens' Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) was one of the organized
cluster of schools. The division superintendent, on the other hand, supervises the groups duly registered under the party-list system that manifested their intent
operation of all public and private elementary, secondary, and integrated schools and to participate in the May 14, 2007 synchronized national and local elections.
learning centers. ○ Its president, Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, submitted a list of five
nominees from which its representatives would be chosen should
A plain reading of the law will show that the schools district supervisors have no CIBAC obtain the required number of qualifying votes: (1)
administrative supervision over the school heads; their responsibility is limited to Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva; (2) herein petitioner Luis K. Lokin,
those enumerated in Section 7(D) of R.A. No. 9155 Jr.; (3) Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales; (4) Sherwin Tugna; and (5)
Emil L. Galang.
2. WON the IRR for RA 9155 is a valid exercise of quasi-legislative power of DepEd.- ● Prior to the elections, however, CIBAC, still through Villanueva, filed a
PARTLY YES, except Sec. 2(11), Rule VI regarding the reporting of donation. certificate of nomination, substitution and amendment of the list of nominees
whereby it withdrew the nominations of Lokin, Tugna and Galang and
Administrative supervision means “overseeing or the power or authority of an officer substituted Armi Jane R. Borje as one of the nominees. The amended list of
to see that their subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fails or neglects nominees of CIBAC thus included: (1) Villanueva, (2) Cruz-Gonzales, and
to fulfill them, the former may take such action or steps as prescribed by law to make (3) Borje.
them perform their duties. ● Villanueva sent a letter to COMELEC Chairperson Benjamin Abalos,
transmitting therewith the signed petitions of more than 81% of the CIBAC
As gleaned from the Senate deliberations on Senate Bill No. 2191, the district members, in order to confirm the withdrawal of the nomination of Lokin,
supervisors were divested of any administrative supervision over elementary and Tugna and Galang and the substitution of Borje. Lokin and Tugna were not
public high schools. The Senate resolved to vest the same in the division among the nominees presented and proclaimed by CIBAC in its
superintendents, and the Lower House concurred. Senator Rene Cayetano proposed proclamation rally held in May 2007; and that Galang had signified his desire
that the traditional function of the school supervisors of exercising administrative to focus on his family life.
supervision over the elementary and public high schools be maintained. ● CIBAC filed with the COMELEC en banc sitting as the National Board of
Canvassers a motion seeking the proclamation of Lokin as its second
Thus, under R.A. No. 9155, administrative supervision over school heads is not one nominee which was opposed by Villanueva and Cruz-Gonzales.
of those responsibilities conferred on district supervisors. It is a settled rule of
statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, act, or
 ● The COMELEC failed to act on the matter, prompting Villanueva to file a override, supplant, or modify the law. It is basic that the IRRs should
petition to confirm the certificate of nomination, substitution and amendment remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out.
of the list of nominees of CIBAC ● Indeed, administrative IRRs adopted by a particular department of the
● In the meantime, CIBAC was proclaimed as one of the winners in the May Government under legislative authority must be in harmony with the
14, 2007 elections. It was also declared to be entitled to an additional seat. provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying the
● Ricardo de los Santos, purportedly as secretary general of CIBAC, informed law's general provisions into effect. ​The law itself cannot be expanded by
Roberto P. Nazareno, Secretary General of the House of Representatives such IRRs, because an administrative agency cannot amend an act of
requested that Lokin be formally sworn in by Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr. Congress
to enable him to assume office. HOR declined due to the pending case ● The insertion of the new ground was invalid. An axiom in administrative law
● COMELEC en banc resolved the case whereby it approved the withdrawal of postulates that administrative authorities should not act arbitrarily and
the nomination of Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Sherwin N. Tugna and Emil Galang as capriciously in the issuance of their IRRs, but must ensure that their IRRs
second, third and fourth nominees respectively and the substitution thereby are reasonable and fairly adapted to secure the end in view. If the IRRs are
with Atty. Cinchona C. Cruz-Gonzales as second nominee and Atty. Armi shown to bear no reasonable relation to the purposes for which they were
Jane R. Borje as third nominee for the party list CIBAC. authorized to be issued, they must be held to be invalid and should be struck
● As a result, the COMELEC en banc proclaimed Cruz-Gonzales as the official down
second nominee of CIBAC. Cruz-Gonzales took her oath of office as a ● Considering that Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 — to the extent that it
Party-List Representative of CIBAC on September 17, 2007. allows the party-list organization to withdraw its nomination already
● Lokin alleges that Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 expanded Section 8 of submitted to the COMELEC — was invalid, CIBAC's withdrawal of its
RA 7941, the law that the COMELEC seeks to thereby implement. nomination of Lokin and the others and its substitution of them with new
● COMELEC asserts that a petition of certiorari is an inappropriate recourse in nominees were also invalid and ineffectual.
law due to the proclamation of Cruz-Gonzales as Representative and her ● It is clear enough that any substitution of Lokin and the others could only be
assumption of that office; that Lokin's proper recourse was an electoral for any of the grounds expressly stated in Section 8 of R.A. No. 7941.
protest filed in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET); and Resultantly, the COMELEC's approval of CIBAC's petition of withdrawal of
that, therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter being raised by the nominations and its recognition of CIBAC's substitution, both through its
Lokin. assailed September 14, 2007 resolution, should be struck down for lack of
● CIBAC posits that Lokin is guilty of forum shopping for filing a petition for legal basis. Thereby, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction, having relied
mandamus and a petition for certiorari, considering that both petitions on the invalidly issued Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 to support its
ultimately seek to have him proclaimed as the second nominee of CIBAC. action.

ISSUE:
WON the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) can issue implementing rules and
regulations (IRRs) that provide a ground for the substitution of a party-list nominee
not written in Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System
Act,the law that the COMELEC thereby implements

HELD: NO.
● The COMELEC​, despite its role as the implementing arm of the Government
in the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to
the conduct of an election, has neither the authority nor the license to
expand, extend, or add anything to the law it seeks to implement
thereby. The IRRs the COMELEC issues for that purpose should
always accord with the law to be implemented, and should not
 Held​:
GMA Network vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 205357, Sept. 2, 2014
Yes, publication is an indispensable requirement.

PASEI vs. Torres, G.R. No. 101279, Aug. 6, 1992 The conclusion is easily reached that said Article 2 ​does not preclude the
requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, ​even if the law itself provides
for the date of its effectivity. Thus, Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 provides as
DAR vs. Sutton, G.R. No. 162070, Oct. 19, 2005
follows:

BOIE-Takeda vs. Dela Serna, G.R. No. 92174, Dec. 10, 1993 "Section 1. There ​shall be published in the Official Gazette [1] all important legislative
acts and resolutions of a public nature of the Congress of the Philippines; [2] all
executive and administrative orders and proclamations, except such as have no
Lupangco vs. CA, G.R. No. 77372, Apr. 29, 1988 general applicability; [3] decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and
the Court of Appeals as may be deemed by said courts of sufficient importance to be
Tanada vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, Apr. 24, 1985 so published; [4] such documents or classes of documents as may be required so to
be published by law; and [5] such documents or classes of documents as the
Facts: President of the Philippines shall determine from time to time to have general
applicability and legal effect, or which he may authorize so to be published. . . ."
Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right
recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution, ​as well as the The clear object of the above quoted provision is to give the general public adequate
principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens.
Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the
compel respondent public officials to publish, and or cause the publication in the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It would be the height of injustice to punish or
Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had no notice
proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders. whatsoever, not even a constructive one.

The respondents, through the Solicitor General, would have this case dismissed The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general
outright on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring applicability" is mandated by law (as a requirement of due process). Obviously,
the instant petition. Upon the other hand, petitioners maintain that since the subject of presidential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or
the petition concerns a public right and its object is to compel the performance of a otherwise impose a burden on the people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall
public duty, they need not show any specific interest for their petition to be given due within this category. Other presidential issuances which apply only to particular
course. persons or class of persons such as administrative and executive orders need not be
published on the assumption that they have been circularized to all concerned.
Respondents further contend that publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua
non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of general application,
own effectivity dates. It is thus submitted that since the presidential issuances in which have not been published, shall have no force and effect​. Some members
question contain special provisions as to the date they are to take effect, publication of the Court, quite apprehensive about the possible unsettling effect this decision
in the Official Gazette is not indispensable for their effectivity. might have on acts done in reliance of the validity of those presidential decrees which
were published only during the pendency of this petition, have put the question as to
Issue​: whether the Court's declaration of invalidity apply to P.D.s which had been enforced
Whether the publication in the Official Gazette is indispensable for the effectivity of or implemented prior to their publication. Similar situations in the past this Court had
laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates.
taken the pragmatic and realistic course set forth in Chicot County Drainage District To implement Rep. Act 6758, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
vs. Baxter Bank to wit: issued Corporate Compensation Circular, discontinuing without qualification all
allowances and fringe benefits granted on top of basic salary.
“The courts below have proceeded on the theory that the Act of Congress, having
been found to be unconstitutional, was not a law; that it was inoperative, conferring no Pursuant to the aforesaid Law and Circular, respondent Leonardo Jamoralin, as
rights and imposing no duties, and hence affording no basis for the challenged corporate auditor, disallowed on post audit, the payment of honoraria to the herein
decree. ​The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination, is an petitioners. Aggrieved, petitioners appealed to the COA, questioning the validity and
operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The enforceability of the Circular. More specifically, petitioners contend that the Circular is
past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the inconsistent with the provisions of Rep. Act 6758 (the law it is supposed to
subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects — implement) and, therefore, void. And it is without force and effect because it was not
with respect to particular conduct, private and official…” published in the Official Gazette; petitioners stressed.

Similarly, the implementation/enforcement of presidential decrees prior to their In its decision, the COA upheld the validity and effectivity of the Circular and
publication in the Official Gazette is "an operative fact which may have consequences sanctioned the disallowance of petitioners' honoraria. Hence, the present petition.
which cannot be justly ignored​.” However, "the government, as a matter of policy,
refrains from prosecuting violations of criminal laws until the same shall have Petitioners’ contentions: The Circular is violative of Sec. 12 of Rep. Act 6758 which
been published in the Official Gazette or in some other publication, even authorizes payment of additional compensation not integrated into the standardized
though some criminal laws provide that they shall take effect immediately​." salary which incumbents were enjoying prior to July. 1, 1989.

Respondent’s contentions: Pointed out that to allow honoraria without statutory,

presidential or DBM authority, as in this case, would run counter to Sec. 8, Article
NPC vs. Pinatubo Commercial, G.R. No. 176006, Mar. 26, 2010
IX-B of the Constitution which proscribes payment of "additional or double
compensation, unless specifically authorized by law." Therefore, the grant of
De Jesus vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 109023, Aug. 12, 1998 honoraria or like allowances requires a specific legal or statutory authority. And the
Circular need not be published for it is merely an interpretative regulation of a law
Petitioners: RODOLFO S. DE JESUS, EDELWINA DE PARUNGAO, VENUS M.
already published
POZON AND other similarly situated personnel of the LWUA
Respondents: COA AND LEONARDO L. JAMORALIN in his capacity as COA-LWUA
ISSUE: ​WON DBM-CCC No. 10 (Circular) has legal force and effect notwithstanding
Corporate Auditor
the absence of publication thereof in the Official Gazette.

FACTS: ​Petitioners are employees of the Local Water Utilities Administration

HELD: ​NO. Following the doctrine enunciated in Tanada, publication in the Official
(LWUA). They were receiving honoraria as designated members of the LWUA Board
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines is required since
Secretariat and the Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee.
the Circular is in the nature of an administrative circular the purpose of which is to
enforce or implement an existing law. Stated differently, to be effective and
Republic Act No. 6758 entitled "An Act Prescribing A Revised Compensation and
enforceable, the Circular must go through the requisite publication in the Official
Position Classification System in the Government and For Other Purposes", took
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.
effect. Section 12 of said law provides for the consolidation of allowances and
additional compensation into standardized salary rates. Certain additional
In the present case under scrutiny, it is decisively clear that the Circular, which
compensations, however, were exempted from consolidation.
completely disallows payment of allowances and other additional compensation to
government officials and employees, starting November 1, 1989, is not a mere
interpretative or internal regulation. It is something more than that. And why not, when
it, tends to deprive government workers of their allowances and additional
compensation sorely needed to keep body and soul together. At the very least, before and effect. In other words, said two Acts merely enumerate and make a list
the said circular under attack may be permitted to substantially reduce their income, of what should be published in the Official Gazette, presumably, for the
the government officials and employees concerned should be apprised and alerted by guidance of the different branches of the Government issuing same, and of
the publication of subject circular in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general the Bureau of Printing.
circulation in the Philippines — to the end that they be given amplest opportunity to ● However, section 11 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that
voice out whatever opposition they may have, and to ventilate their stance on the statutes passed by Congress shall, in the absence of special provision,
matter. This approach is more in keeping with democratic precepts and rudiments of take effect at the beginning of the fifteenth day after the completion of
fairness and transparency. the publication of the statute in the Official Gazette. Article 2 of the new
Civil Code (Republic Act 386) equally provides that laws shall take effect
after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official
People vs. Que Po Lay, G.R. No. L-6791, Mar. 29, 1954
Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. It is true that Circular No. 20 of
Petitioner:​ THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
the Central Bank is not a statute or law but being issued for the
Respondent: ​QUE PO LAY
implementation of the law authorizing its issuance, it has the force and
effect of law according to settled jurisprudence.
FACTS:
● Moreover, ​as a rule, circulars and regulations especially like the
● Que Po Law appeals the decision of the CFI of Manila, finding him guilty of
Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank in question which prescribes a
violating Central Bank Circular No. 20 in connection with section 34 of RA
penalty for its violation should be published before becoming effective​,
265, and sentencing him to suffer six months imprisonment, to pay a fine of
this, on the general principle and theory that before the public is bound by its
● P1,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the
contents, especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must
costs.
first be published and the people officially and specifically informed of said
● The charge was that Que Po Lay failed to sell $7,000 (U.S. dollars, U.S.
contents and its penalties.
checks and U.S. money orders) to the Central Bank through its agents within
● In the present case, although Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank was issued
one day following the receipt of such foreign exchange as required by the
in the year 1949, it was not published until November 1951, that is, about 3
said circular.
months after appellant's conviction of its violation. ​It is clear that said
● The appeal was based on the claim that the said circular was not published
Circular, particularly its penal provision, did not have any legal effect
in the Official Gazette and therefore has no force and effect. He contended
and bound no one until its publication in the Official Gazette or after
that CA 638 an Act 2930 both required said circular to be published in the
November 1951. In other words, appellant could not be held liable for
Official Gazette, since it has an order or notice of general applicability
its violation, for it was not binding at the time he was found to have
● The SolGen answered, saying that CA 638 and Act 2930 do not require the
failed to sell the foreign exchange in his possession within one day
publication in the Official Gazette of said circular for it to have force and
following his taking possession thereof.
effect

ISSUE:
WON Circular No. 20 needs to published in the Official Gazette for it to have force
and effect of law

HELD: YES.
● We agree with the Solicitor General that ​the laws in question do not
require the publication of the circulars, regulations or notices therein
mentioned in order to become binding and effective. All that said two
laws provide is that laws, resolutions, decisions of the Supreme Court and
Court of Appeals, notices and documents required by law to be of no force
Tanada vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, Apr. 24, 1985 The school's graduation exercises were thereafter set; but three days before the
graduation, Teodoro represented by his mother, and with his father as counsel,
sought the invalidation of the ranking thus made,by instituting the above-mentioned
People vs. Maceren, G.R. No. L-32166, Oct. 18, 1977
civil case against the respondents along with the District Supervisor and the
Academic Supervisor of the place.
US vs. Panlilio, G.R. No. L-9876, Dec. 8, 1914
The complaint alleged the following:
- That the teachers of the school (respondents), as the "Committee on the Rating of
People vs. Santos, G.R. No. 44291, Aug. 15, 1936
Students for Honor", committed grave abuse of official discretion.
- That Teodoro had been a consistent honor pupil from Grade I to Grade V, while
SEC. vs. LPG Refillers, G.R. No. 159149, June 26, 2006 Patricia Liñgat (second placer) had never been a close rival of petitioner before,
except in Grade V wherein she ranked third; that Teodoro had been prejudiced, while
his closest rival had been so much benefited, by the circumstance that Socorro
Corona vs. United Harbor Pilots Assocation, G.R. No. 111953, Dec. 12, 1997 Medina (first placer), was coached and tutored during the summer vacation by Mrs.
Alpas who became the teacher of both pupils in English in Grade VI, resulting in the
Maceda vs. Energy Regulatory Board, G.R. No. 96266, July 18, 1991 far lead Medina obtained over the other pupil.
- That the committee referred to in this case had been illegally constituted as the
same was composed of all the Grade VI teachers only, in violation of the Service
CHAPTER 6: ADJUDICATORY POWER Manual for Teachers of the Bureau of Public Schools which provides that the
committee to select the honor students should be composed of all teachers in Grades
PADS Task Force vs. CA, G.R. No. 83578, Mar. 16, 1989 V and VI.
- That respondents changed the final ratings on the grading sheets of Medina and
Patricia Liñgat from 80% to 85%, and some teachers giving petitioner a starting grade
Cojuangco vs. PCGG, G.R. Nos. 92319, Oct. 2, 1990 of 75%, which proves that there was already an intention to pull him to a much lower
rank at the end of the school year; that several district.
Santiago Jr. vs. Bautista, G.R. No. L-25024, Mar. 30, 1970 - That the words "first place" in petitioner's certificate in Grade I was erased and
replaced with: the words "second place", which is an instance of the unjust and
Petitioner-appellant: Teodoro Santiago Jr., minor, Represented by his Mother, Mrs. discriminating abuses committed by the respondent teachers in the disputed selection
Angelita C. Santiago, of honor pupils they made.
Respondents-appellees: Juanita Bautista, Rosalinda Alpas, Rebecca Matugas, Milkita - That petitioner personally appealed the matter to the School Principal, to the District
Inamac, Romeo Agustin, Aida Camino, Luna Sarmago, Aurora Lorena, Soledad Supervisor, and to the Academic Supervisor, but said officials "passed the buck to
Francisco and Mr. Flor Marcelo each other" to delay his grievances.
- Petitioners prayed that the court set aside the final list of honor students in Grade VI
FACTS: At the time Civil Case No. 2012 was commenced, appellant Teodoro and, during the pendency of the suit, enjoin the respondent teachers from officially
Santiago, Jr. was a Grade 6 student at Sero Elementary School in Cotabato City. As and formally publishing and proclaiming the said honor pupils.
the school year was then about to end, the "Committee On The Rating Of Students
For Honor" was constituted by the teachers concerned for the purpose of selecting The injunction prayed for was denied. As scheduled, the graduation exercises was
the "honor students". The respondents deliberated and finally adjudged Socorro held with the same protested list of honor students. The respondents filed a motion to
Medina, Patricia Liñgat and Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr. as first, second and third dismiss the motion to dismiss, which the court granted. Upon receipt of a copy, the
honors, respectively. petitioner moved for the reconsideration thereof, but the same proved to be futile,
hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: ​WON the "Committee on the Ratings of Students for Honor" is the "tribunal, facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
board or officer exercising judicial functions" against which an action for certiorari may proceedings, as the law requires, of such tribunal, board or officer.
lie under Section 1 of Rule 65.
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment or order
HELD: NO. ​The so called committee on the rating of students for honor whose subject thereof, together with copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and
actions are questioned in this case exercised neither judicial nor quasi judicial pertinent thereto.
functions in the performance of its assigned task.

It will be gleaned that before a tribunal board, or officer may exercise judicial or quasi
Smart Comm. vs. NTC, G.R. No. 151908, Aug. 12, 2003
judicial acts, it is necessary that there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights
of persons or property under which adverse claims to such rights are made, and the
controversy ensuing therefrom is brought, in turn, before the tribunal, board or officer Guerzon vs. CA, G.R. No. 77707, Aug. 8, 1988
clothed with power and authority to determine what that law is and thereupon Petitioner: ​PEDRO W. GUERZON
adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties. Respondents: ​COURT OF APPEALS, BUREAU OF ENERGY UTILIZATION, F. C.
CAASI, JR., and PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION
As pointed out by appellees, however, there is nothing on record about any rule of
law that provides that when teachers sit down to assess the individual merits of their FACTS:
pupils for purposes of rating them for honors, such function involves the determination ● Pedro Guerzon executed with Basic Landoil Energy Corporation (which was
of what the law is and that they are therefore automatically vested with judicial or later acquired by respondent Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation), a
quasi judicial functions. Worse still, this Court has not even been appraised by contract denominated as "Service Station Lease" for the use and operation
petitioner of the pertinent provisions of the Service Manual of Teachers for Public of respondent SHELL's properties, facilities and equipment, which included
Schools appellees allegedly violated in the composition of the committee they four (4) pieces of fuel dispensing pumps and one (1) piece air compressor,
constituted thereunder, and, in the performance of that committee's duties. for a period of five (5) years.
● Petitioner likewise executed with the same Corporation a "Dealer's Sales
To be sure, the lower court's holding that appellant's failure to accompany his petition Contract" for the sale by petitioner of SHELL's petroleum and other products
with a copy of the judgment or order subject thereof together with copies of all in the leased service station
pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto "is fatal to his cause" is ● Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU) approved the Dealer's Sales Contract
supported not only by the provision of that Rule but by precedents as well. Moreover, pursuant to which petitioner was appointed
petitioner mentions in his petition various other documents or papers — as the ● dealer of SHELL's gasoline and other petroleum products which he was to
Service Manual for Teachers allegedly violated by respondents in the constitution of sell at the gasoline station located at Cagayan de Oro City. On the same
their committee; altered grading sheets; and erasures in his Grade I certificate — day, respondent BEU issued a certificate of authority in petitioner's favor,
which petitioner never bothered to attach to his petition. There could be no doubt then which had a 5-year period of validity, in line with the terms of the contract
that he miserably failed to comply with the requirement of Rule 65 above-mentioned. ● Days before the contract expired, SHELL through its District Manager —
Reseller Mindanao wrote to petitioner informing him that the Company was
LEGAL BASIS not renewing the Dealer's Sales Contract together with the service station
Rule 65, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides: lease and reminding him to take appropriate steps to wind up his business
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. — activities at the station and, on the appropriate date to hand over the station
with
When any tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions, has acted without or ● all its facilities and equipment to the representative of respondent. A copy of
in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no this letter was furnished respondent BEU, through the latter's Mindanao
appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a Division Office
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court alleging the
 ● SHELL wrote petitioner reiterating the decision not to extend the Dealer's ● As explicitly stated in the law, in connection with the exercise of
Sales Contract, demanding the surrender of the quasi-judicial powers, the Bureau's jurisdiction is limited
● station premises and all company owned equipment to the respondent's ● to cases involving violation or non-compliance with any term or condition of
representative. any certificate, license or permit issued by it or of any of its orders,
● BEU, through respondent Caasi Jr., officer-in-charge of its Mindanao Office, decisions, rules or regulations.
issued an order, directing petitioner to vacate the service station and turn it ● Viewed from any angle, respondent F.C. Caasi, Jr., in issuing the assailed
over to SHELL, and show cause in writing why no administrative criminal order, acted beyond his authority and overstepped the powers granted by
proceedings shall be instituted against petitioner for said violation P.D. No. 1206, as amended. The assailed order was, therefore, null and
● Pursuant to the order, SHELL was able to secure possession of the gasoline void.
station together with the requisite equipments and accessories
● Petitioner filed with the RTC of Misamis Oriental a complaint for certiorari,
injunction and damages with preliminary mandatory injunction to annul the
Antipolo Realty vs. NHA, G.R. No. L-50444, Aug. 31, 1987
disputed order of respondent F.C. Caasi, Jr. However, this was dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction to annul the order of a quasi-judicial body of equivalent
category as the Regional Trial Court. CHAPTER 7: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
● Petitioner filed in the CA a petition for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary
mandatory injunction against Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, F.C.
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Valencia, G.R.No. 183890, Apr. 13, 2011
Caasi, Jr. and the Bureau of Energy Utilization seeking the annulment of
respondent Caasi, Jr.'s order and the restoration to petitioner of possession
of the service station and the equipment removed therefrom Dela Cruz vs. Malunao, A.M. No. P-11-3019, Mar. 20, 2012
● CA denied due course and dismissed the petition

Bantolino vs. Coca-Cola, GR No. 153660, June 10, 200

ISSUE:
WON the Bureau of Energy Utilization, the agency charged with regulating the
operations and trade practices of the petroleum industry, has the power to order a First Lepanto vs. CA, G.R. No. 110571, Mar. 10, 1994
service station operator-lessee to vacate the service station and to turn over its
possession to the oil company-lessor upon the expiration of the dealership and lease
agreements Villa vs. Lazaro, G.R. No. 69871, Aug. 24, 1990

HELD: NO. Paterok vs. Bureau of Customs, G.R. Nos. 90660-61, Jan. 21, 1991
● It is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency has only such powers
as are expressly granted to it by law and those that are necessarily implied
in the exercise thereof. Lumiqued vs. Exevea, G.R. No. 117565, Nov. 18, 1997
● The Bureau of Energy Utilization does not have the power to order a service
station operator-lessee to vacate the service station and to turn over its Casimiro vs. Tandog, G.R. No. 146137, June 8, 2005
possession to the oil company-lessor upon the expiration of the dealership
and lease agreements. Jurisdiction to order a lessee to vacate the leased Petitioner: Haydee Casimiro
premises is vested in the civil courts in an appropriate case for unlawful Respondent: Mayor Filipino Tandog
detainer or accion publiciana (Secs. 19 (2), B.P. Blg. 129, as amended.)
There is nothing in P.D. No. 1206, as amended, that would suggest that the FACTS: ​Petitioner began her service in the government as assessment clerk in the
same or similar jurisdiction has been granted to the Bureau of Energy Office of the Treasurer of San Jose, Romblon. In 1983, she was appointed Municipal
Utilization. Assessor.
 CA:​ Affirmed the CSC decision.
Administrative Officer II Nelson M. Andres, submitted a report based on an Hence the present petition.
investigation he conducted into alleged irregularities in the office of petitioner. The
report spoke of an anomalous cancellation of Tax Declarations in the name of ISSUE: ​WON petitioner was afforded procedural and substantive due process when
Teodulo Matillano and the issuance of a new one in the name of petitioner's brother she was terminated from her employment.
Ulysses Cawaling and Tax Declarations in the name of Antipas San Sebastian and
the issuance of new ones in favor of petitioner's brother-in-law Marcelo Molina. HELD: YES. ​The first clause of Section 1 of Article III of the Bill of Rights states that:
SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
Immediately thereafter, respondent Mayor Tandog issued Memorandum Order No. process of law, . . .
17, placing the petitioner under preventive suspension for thirty (30) days. Three (3) In order to fall within the aegis of this provision, two conditions must concur, namely,
days later, Mayor Tandog issued Memorandum Order No. 15, directing petitioner to that there is deprivation of life, liberty and property and such deprivation is done
answer the charge of irregularities in her office. In her answer, petitioner denied the without proper observance of due process. When one speaks of due process,
alleged irregularities claiming that the cancellation of the tax declaration in favor of however, a distinction must be made between matters of procedure and matters of
her brother Ulysses Cawaling was done prior to her assumption to office as municipal substance.
assessor, and that she issued new tax declarations in favor of her brother-in-law
Marcelo Molina by virtue of a deed of sale executed by Antipas San Sebastian in In essence, procedural due process "refers to the method or manner by which the law
Molina's favor. is enforced." The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic
requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard. ​In administrative
Thru Memorandum Order No. 17, respondent Mayor extended petitioner's preventive proceedings​, such as in the case at bar, ​procedural due process simply means
suspension for another thirty (30) days to give him more time to verify and collate the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of
evidence relative to the alleged irregularities. the action or ruling complained of. "To be heard" does not mean only verbal
arguments in court; one may be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be
Memorandum Order No. 18 was issued by respondent Mayor directing petitioner to heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of
answer in writing the affidavit-complaint of Noraida San Sebastian Cesar and Teodulo procedural due process.
Matillano. Noraida alleged that Tax Declarations covering parcels of land owned by
her parents were transferred in the name of a certain Marcelo Molina, without the In administrative proceedings, procedural due process has been recognized to
necessary documents. Noraida further claimed that Marcelo Molina had not yet paid include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of
the full purchase price of the land covered by the said Tax Declarations. For his part, proceedings which may affect a respondent's legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be
Teodulo Matillano claimed that he never executed a deed of absolute sale over the heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and
parcel of land in favor of Ulysses Cawaling, petitioner's brother. evidence in ​one's favor, and to defend one's rights; (3) a tribunal vested with
competent jurisdiction ​and so constituted as to afford a person charged
Petitioner submitted a letter, stating she had already explained her side to Noraida; administratively a reasonable guarantee ​of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a
and as to the complaint of Teodulo, she alleged that it was a certain Lilia Barrientos finding by said tribunal which is supported by ​substantial evidence submitted for
who executed a deed of absolute sale over the parcel of land subject of the complaint consideration during the hearing or contained in the ​records or made known to the
in favor of her brother, Ulysses Cawaling. Not satisfied, respondent Mayor created a parties affected.
fact-finding committee to investigate the matter.
In the case at bar, what appears in the record is that a hearing was conducted which
Mayor:​ Issued an Administrative Order dismissing the petitioner from service. petitioner attended and where she answered questions propounded by the members
❖ Petitioner appealed to the CSC. of the fact-finding committee. Records further show that the petitioner was accorded
CSC:​ Affirmed the Mayor’s order of dismissal. every opportunity to present her side. She filed her answer to the formal charge
❖ Petitoner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Denied. against her.
❖ Petitioner elevated the case to CA.
Kinship alone does not establish bias and partiality. Bias and partiality cannot be CHAPTER 8: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
presumed. In administrative proceedings, no less than substantial proof is required.
Mere allegation is not equivalent to proof. Mere suspicion of partiality is not enough.
Villaflor vs. CA, G.R. No. 95694, Oct. 9, 1997
There should be hard evidence to prove it, as well as manifest showing of bias and
partiality stemming from an extrajudicial source or some other basis. Thus, in the
case at bar, there must be convincing proof to show that the members of the Commissioner vs. Navarro, G.R. No. L-33146, May 31, 1977
fact-finding committee unjustifiably leaned in favor of one party over the other. In
addition to palpable error that may be inferred from the decision itself, extrinsic
Centeno vs. Centeno, G.R. No. 140825, Oct. 13, 2000
evidence is required to establish bias. The petitioner miserably failed to substantiate
her allegations. In effect, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty
prevails. Nuesa vs. CA, G.R. No. 132048, March 6, 2002

Neither are we persuaded by petitioner's argument that the affidavit is hearsay

because the complainants were never presented for cross examination. In Regional Dir. vs. CA, G.R. No. 110193 Jan. 27, 1994
administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly
applied; administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict Laguna CATV vs. Maraan, G.R. No. 139492, Nov. 19, 2002
judicial sense.

Magalang vs. Pagcor, G.R. No. 190566, Dec. 11, 2013

Lozano vs. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 125221, June 19, 1997

Bangus Fry Fisherfolk vs. Lanzanas, G.R. No. 131442, July 10, 2003
Globe Telecom vs. NTC, G.R. No. 143964, July 26, 2004

Bernardo vs. Abalos, G.R. No. 137266, Dec. 5, 2001

Lopez vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 127139, Feb. 19, 1999

URC vs. LLDA, G.R. No. 142571, May 5, 2011

NIA vs. Enciso, G.R. No. 142571, May 5, 2006

Corpus vs. Cuaderno, G.R. No. L-16969, April 30, 1966

Petitioner:​ R. MARINO CORPUS
Respondent:​ MIGUEL CUADERNO, SR.

FACTS:
● Cuaderno, Sr. was Governor of the Central Bank of the Philippines.
● On January 13, 1949 Corpus was appointed Economist in the Department of
Economic Research of said bank. Thereafter he received promotions in
 position and salary. By 1954 he was director of the Department of Loans and
Credit and Rural Banks Administration.
Madrigal vs. Lecaroz, G.R. No. L-46218, Oct. 23, 1990
● On December 15, 1954 a number of employees of the bank filed an
administrative complaint against him. Upon their petition he was suspended
from office on February 8, 1995. After investigation he was found guilty on Cabada vs. Alunan, G.R. No. 119645, Aug. 22, 1996
five counts and upon recommendation of the Governor was penalized with
suspension without pay from February 8, 1955 to August 30, 1955, the date
Datiles and Co. vs. Sucaldito, G.R. No. L-42380, June 22, 1990
the Monetary Board of the bank rendered its decision
● On August 31, 1955 Corpus received a letter from Cuaderno informing him
that he had been "reinstated in the service of the bank" with the designation NFA vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 115121-25, Feb. 9, 1996
of "Technical Assistant to the Governor." On January 17, 1956 he was
Petitioner​: National Food Authority (NFA)
appointed Special Assistant to the Governor, in charge of the Export
Respondents​: Court of Appeals, Judge Abesamis, Judge Ortiz, Judge Velasco,
Department.
Judge Ulep, Judge Sultan (all QC judges), COL. FELIX M. ​MANUBAY​, ​MASADA
● Several of his co-employees in the same department filed an administrative
SECURITY AGENCY, ​CONTINENTAL​ ​WATCHMAN​ AND SECURITY AGENCY,
complaint against him, alleging a number of acts of misfeasance. The
ALBERTO T. ​LASALA​, and NORMAN D. ​MAPAGAY
Monetary Board, upon recommendation of the Governor, suspended him
● Corpus instituted the present action, alleging that his suspension was
FACTS​: Under the previous NFA Administrator Gabaldon, twelve security agencies
unwarranted and had been brought about by Cuaderno's malicious
were awarded one-year contracts, after public bidding, to protect the properties and
machinations.
facilities all over the country of the NFA. Among them were private respondents Col.
● While this case was still pending in the lower court, the three-man committee
Felix M. Manubay (doing business under the name Greenview Investigation and
created to investigate the 1958 administrative charges against Corpus
Security Agency), Continental Watchman and Security Agency, Alberto T. Lasala
reported to the Monetary Board that it found no basis to recommend
(doing business under the name PSF Watchman and Investigation Agency) and
disciplinary against him and therefore urged that he be reinstated, to which
Norman D. Mapagay (doing business under the name Peoples Protective and
the Monetary Board did.
Security Agency).
● The lower court rendered the decision appealed from, absolving Cuaderno
from liability but ordering Corpus to pay damages, as aforesaid, the
In August 1992, petitioner Romeo G. David became NFA Administrator. He caused a
allegation of libel having been duly proven.
review of all security service contracts, procedures on the accreditation of private
security agencies and the bidding for security services.
ISSUE:

In March 1993, new terms for accreditation, bidding and hiring of security agencies
were made. The bidding areas were also reclassified and reduced from fourteen NFA
HELD:
regions to only five NFA areas nationwide.

On April 6, 1993, Administrator David issued Special Order No. 04-07 creating a
Prequalification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) to undertake the
prequalification of prospective bidders, conduct the bidding, evaluate the bids
tendered and recommend to the Administrator the bids accepted. Notices for
prequalification and bidding for security services were published in a newspaper of
national circulation.
All incumbent security contractors were required to prequalify and only those ISSUES​:
prequalified were to be allowed to participate in the prebidding and bidding scheduled 1. Whether or not a public bidding may be dispensed with considering the emergency
on June 4 and 18, 1993, respectively. Forty-one security agencies, composed of the situation.
incumbents and new applicants, including private respondent Masada Security 2. Whether or not the respondents must exhaust all administrative remedies before
Agency, submitted the necessary documents for prequalification. going to court.

Of the incumbent security agencies, only respondents Manubay, Continental and RULING​:
Masada participated in the prebidding and were declared on June 17, 1993 1. No. A competitive public bidding aims to protect the public interest by giving the
prequalified to bid. The PBAC disqualified respondent Mapagay for failure to submit public the best possible advantages thru open competition. It is a mechanism that
proof of his financial capability to support his bid and Lasala for alleged failure to meet enables the government agency to avoid or preclude anomalies in the execution of
the five-year service requirement. public contracts.

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 93, Quezon City issued on July 20, 1993 a Assuming ​arguendo​ that an emergency actually existed and the negotiated contracts
preliminary injunction ordering the PBAC to refrain from proceeding with the bidding were justified, petitioners' continued failure to conduct a public bidding and select the
until the merits of cases filed by Lanting Security and Watchman Agency and bidder within a reasonable time casts doubts on the good faith behind the negotiated
respondent Lasala, had been heard and resolved. Lasala, whose agency had failed to contracts. Petitioners' manifest reluctance to hold a public bidding and award a
qualify, had filed a complaint for restraining order to prevent the PBAC from holding contract to the winning bidder smacks of favoritism and partiality toward the security
the public bidding. agencies to whom it awarded the negotiated contracts and cannot be countenanced.
Gravador vs. Mamigo, G.R. No. L-24989, July 21, 1967
During the effectivity of the writ of preliminary injunction, Administrator David sent
notices of termination dated July 30, 1993, to all incumbent security agencies, 2. No. The respondents need not exhaust all administrative remedies when they were
including four of herein private respondents. Private respondents were informed that compelled by the urgency of the situation to go to court praying to stop the
their services were to end on August 16, 1993 inasmuch as their respective contracts implementation of the negotiated security contracts. The principle of exhaustion of
had expired and they no longer enjoyed the trust and confidence of the NFA. administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It is subject to exceptions. While
the Administrative Code of 1987 provides that a party aggrieved by the award of a
On August 4, 1993, Administrator David contracted the services of seven new contract to another may file an appeal to the National Food Authority Board or Council
security agencies starting August 16, 1993 on a month-to-month basis pending of Trustees and the Secretary of Agriculture, such actions would not have provided
resolution of the injunction against the bidding. Private respondents forthwith filed respondents with a plain, speedy and adequate remedy thereby depriving them of
separate complaints with the Regional Trial Court, Branches 85, 89, 88, 105 and 98, due process.
Quezon City for prohibition, mandamus and damages with a prayer for the issuance
of a preliminary injunction and restraining order.

Almine vs. CA, G.R. No. 80719, Sept. 26, 1989

The trial courts issued five separate restraining orders and injunctions ordering the
NFA to desist from terminating the services of respondents, and from awarding and
installing the new security agencies replacing them. Smart Communications vs. NTC, G.R. No. 151908, Aug. 12, 2003

Upon appeal before the CA, David alleged grave abuse of discretion by the trial court
UP Board of Regents vs. Rasul, G.R. No. 91551, Aug. 16, 1991
judges. The Court of Appeals partially granted David’s prayer:
- (1) by ruling that NFA can validly terminate the contracts with the incumbent
security agencies Arrow Transportation Corp. vs. BOT, G.R. No. L-39655, Mar. 21, 1975
- (2) by ruling that the NFA is enjoined from awarding the contracts to the
Petitioner: ​ARROW TRANSPORTATION CORP.
seven new security agencies.
Respondent: ​BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION and SULTAN RENT-A-CAR, INC go into the merits of the controversy and resolve what could be a debilitating
uncertainty by working out a solution to the problem posed.
FACTS: ​Both petitioner and private respondent Sultan Rent-a-Car are domestic
corporations. The former has in his favor a certificate of public convenience to As was set forth in Executive Order No. 101 which prescribes the procedure to be
operate a public utility bus air-conditioned-auto-truck service from Cebu City to followed by respondent Board, it is the policy of the State, as swiftly as possible, to
Mactan International Airport and vice-versa with the use of twenty (20) units. Private improve the deplorable condition of vehicular traffic, obtain maximum utilization of
respondent filed a petition with the respondent Board for the issuance of a certificate existing public motor vehicles and eradicate the harmful and unlawful trade of
of public convenience to operate a similar service on the same line. Eight days later, clandestine operators, as well as update the standards of those carrying such
without the required publication, the Board issued an order granting it provisional business, making it "imperative to provide, among other urgently needed measures,
permit to operate such auto-truck service on the line applied for. more expeditious methods in prescribing, redefining, or modifying the lines and mode
of operation of public utility motor vehicles that now or thereafter, may operate in this
There was a motion for reconsideration and for the cancellation of such provisional country." It is essential then both from the standpoint of the firms engaged as well as
permit filed, but without awaiting final action thereon, this petition was filed. This is of the riding public to ascertain whether or not the procedure followed in this case and
the explanation: "That petitioner has not waited for the resolution of his Motion for very likely in others of a similar nature satisfies the procedural due process
Reconsideration before going to this Court considering that the question involved requirement. Thus its ripeness for adjudication becomes apparent.
herein is purely a legal one, aside from the fact that the issuance of the Order without
the Board having acquired jurisdiction of the case yet, is patently illegal or was
performed without jurisdiction."
Tan vs. Veteran’s Backpay Commission, G.R. No. L-12944, Mar. 30, 1959

As a preliminary injunction was likewise sought, a hearing was scheduled. However, it

was cancelled, this Court issuing a resolution instead, requiring respondents to file an Reyna vs. COA, G.R. No. 157219, Feb. 8, 2011
answer. In the answer submitted the facts alleged were substantially admitted. It
denied the allegation that there must be a publication before a provisional permit can
Remolona vs. CSC, G.R. No. 137473, Aug. 2, 2001
be issued, reference being made, as noted, to which authorized respondent Board to
grant provisional permits when warranted by compelling circumstances and to
proceed promptly along the method of legislative inquiry.

Attorney Manuel Imbong appearing for petitioner and Assistant Solicitor General
Reynato S. Puno appearing for respondent Board of Transportation. Thereafter, the
parties were given twenty days to file their respective memoranda and an additional
ten-day period to submit replies thereto if so minded. In time, all the pleadings were
submitted, and the case was ready for decision.

ISSUE: ​WON the controversy is ripe for judicial determination.

HELD: YES. ​Where a motion for reconsideration is pending with the court or
administrative agency whose decision or order is assailed in a petition for certiorari,
the resolution of said motion should ordinarily be awaited, and prior thereto an
objection grounded on prematurity or ripeness of the certiorari petition can be raised.
However, the Supreme Court would minimize the technical aspect of the ripeness
concept where the issue raised is important and the matter to be resolved is
impressed with strong public interest; in which event the Court would be impelled to