BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

be granted until respondents submit satisfactory

1. Republic v. Drugmakers Laboratories, Inc., BA/BE test results for Refam.
G.R. No. 190837, 5 March 2014
Instead of submitting satisfactory BA/BE test results
FACTS: for Refam, respondents filed a petition for prohibition
and annulment of Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997
The FDA was created pursuant to Republic Act No. before the RTC, alleging that it is the DOH, and not
(RA) 3720. Primarily in order "to establish safety or the FDA, which was granted the authority to issue
efficacy standards and quality measures for foods, and implement rules concerning RA 3720. As such,
drugs and devices, and cosmetic product[s]. the issuance of the aforesaid circulars and the manner
of their promulgation contravened the law and the
On March 15, 1989, the Department of Health Constitution.
(DOH), thru then-Secretary Alfredo R.A. Bengzon,
issued Administrative Order No. (AO) 67, s. 1989, ISSUE:
entitled "Revised Rules and Regulations on
Registration of Pharmaceutical Products." Among WON FDA may validly issue and implement
others, it required drug manufacturers to register Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997. (YES)
certain drug and medicine products with the FDA
before they may release the same to the market for RULING:
sale. In this relation, a satisfactory
bioavailability/bioequivalence7 (BA/BE) test is It is undisputed that RA 3720, as amended by
needed for a manufacturer to secure a CPR for these Executive Order No. 175, s. 1987 prohibits, inter alia,
products. the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products
without obtaining the proper CPR from the FDA. In
However, the implementation of the BA/BE testing this regard, the FDA has been deputized by the same
requirement was put on hold because there was no law to accept applications for registration of
local facility capable of conducting the same. pharmaceuticals and, after due course, grant or reject
such applications. To this end, the said law expressly
The issuance of Circular No. 1, s. 1997 8 resumed the authorized the Secretary of Health, upon the
FDA’s implementation of the BA/BE testing recommendation of the FDA Director, to issue rules
requirement with the establishment of BA/BE testing and regulations that pertain to the registration of
facilities in the country. pharmaceutical products.

We have here (The respondents) a pharmaceutical On the other hand, Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997
company that manufactured “refam” - for the cannot be considered as administrative regulations
treatment of adults and children suffering from because they do not: (a) implement a primary
pulmonary and extra-pulmonary tuberculosis. legislation by providing the details thereof; (b)
interpret, clarify, or explain existing statutory
Respondent applied and were issued with CPR valid regulations under which the FDA operates; and/or (c)
for 5 years. At that time there was no requirement of ascertain the existence of certain facts or things upon
the BA/BE testing since it was put on hold. which the enforcement of RA 3720 depends. In fact,
the only purpose of these circulars is for the FDA
Later on they tried to apply again for the CPR but the to administer and supervise the implementation of
BA/BE testing was a requirement, thus they the provisions of AO 67, s. 1989, including those
complied. However the test came back that the covering the BA/BE testing requirement,
Refam is "not bioequivalent with the reference drug. consistent with and pursuant to RA 3720.
FDA stated that no more further revalidations shall

1 DIGESTED BY: Alcala, Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

Therefore, the FDA has sufficient authority to issue FACTS:

the said circulars and since they would not affect the
substantive rights of the parties that they seek to This case stemmed from CGA entered into a Contract
govern – as they are not, strictly speaking, to Sell a subdivision lot with the SPS. Ignacio in
administrative regulations in the first place – no prior Bulacan in instalment basis (originally from 3 years
hearing, consultation, and publication are needed for to 5 years) with an amount of ₱2.3M (then became
their validity. ₱2.7M due to the extension of instalment).

DISCUSSION: CGA was paying religiously until they discovered

that the property was actually part of 2 consolidated
Administrative agencies may exercise quasi- lots that the respondents acquired from Adriano and
legislative or rule-making powers only if there exists Sison.
a law which delegates these powers to them.
Accordingly, the rules so promulgated must be within Adriano and Sison were former tenant-beneficiaries
the confines of the granting statute and must involve of Imperial (subdivision). According to CGA,
no discretion as to what the law shall be, but merely Imperial applied for the retention of five hectares of
the authority to fix the details in the execution or her land under Republic Act No. 6657, which the
enforcement of the policy set out in the law itself, so Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
as to conform with the doctrine of separation of
powers and, as an adjunct, the doctrine of non- CGA filed a complaint against the repsondents for
delegability of legislative power. rescission of contract before the RTC. CGA claimed
that the respondents fraudulently concealed the fact
Classification of administrative regulation as a that the subject property was part of a property under
legislative rule, litigation, thus the contract to sell was rescissible.

1. Legislative rule – are in the nature of Instead of filing an answer, the respondents filed a
subordinate legislation and designed to motion to dismiss asserting that the RTC had no
implement a primary legislation by providing the jurisdiction over the case.
details thereof. They usually implement existing
law, imposing general, extra-statutory The respondents claimed that the case falls within the
obligations pursuant to authority properly exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB since it
delegated by Congress and effect a change in involved the sale of a subdivision lot. CGA opposed
existing law or policy which affects individual the motion to dismiss, claiming that the action is for
rights and obligations. rescission of contract, not specific performance, and
is not among the actions within the exclusive
2. An interpretative rule – are intended to jurisdiction of the HLURB.
interpret, clarify or explain existing statutory
regulations under which the administrative body ISSUE:
operates.
WON HLURB has exclusive jurisdiction over the
3. Contingent rule – contingent rules are those petitioner’s action. (YES)
issued by an administrative authority based on
the existence of certain facts or things upon RULING:
which the enforcement of the law depends.
HLURB had exclusive jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the complaint since it involved a contract to
2. Christian Gen. Assembly vs. Ignacio, G.R. sell a subdivision lot based on the provisions of PD
No. 164789, 27 August 2009 No. 957 and PD No. 1344.

2 DIGESTED BY: Alcala, Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

PD No. 957 was intended to closely supervise and condominiums. The intention was aimed at providing
regulate the real estate subdivision and condominium for an appropriate government agency, the HLURB,
businesses in order to curb the growing number of to which all parties aggrieved in the implementation
swindling and fraudulent manipulations perpetrated of provisions and the enforcement of contractual
by unscrupulous subdivision and condominium rights with respect to said category of real estate may
sellers and operators. take recourse. The business of developing
subdivisions and corporations being imbued with
Section 3 of PD No. 957 granted the National public interest and welfare, any question arising from
Housing Authority (NHA) the "exclusive jurisdiction the exercise of that prerogative should be brought to
to regulate the real estate trade and business. the HLURB which has the technical know-how on
the matter. In the exercise of its powers, the HLURB
Via an executive order it transferred the regulatory must commonly interpret and apply contracts and
and quasi-judicial functions of the NHA to the determine the rights of private parties under such
Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) contracts. This ancillary power is no longer a
which was later renamed to as the HLURB. uniquely judicial function, exercisable only by the
regular courts.
In determining the HLURB’s quasi-legislative
powers, we must inquire on the law that established it Q: So does that mean that all cases involving
(PD 957). subdivision lots automatically fall under HLURB’s
jurisdiction?
CGA claims that since the respondents cannot
comply with their obligations under the contract, i.e., A: NO. For an action to fall within the exclusive
to deliver the property free from all liens and jurisdiction of the HLURB, the decisive element is
encumbrances, CGA is entitled to rescind the the nature of the action as enumerated in Section 1
contract and get a refund of the payments already of P.D. 1344. On this matter, we have consistently
made. held that the concerned administrative agency, the
National Housing Authority (NHA) before and now
This cause of action clearly falls under the actions the HLURB, has jurisdiction over complaints aimed
contemplated by Paragraph (b), Section 1 of PD No. at compelling the subdivision developer to comply
1344, which reads: with its contractual and statutory obligations.

SEC. 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the

real estate trade and business and in addition to its
powers provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, 3. Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of
Appeals
the National Housing Authority shall have exclusive
G.R. No. 118712
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following 6 October 1995
nature:
TOPIC: Power of Administrative Agencies
xxx
Doctrine: The power of administrative agencies is
B. Claims involving refund and any other thus confined to implementing the law or putting it
claims filed by subdivision lot or into effect. Corollary to this is that administrative
condominium unit buyer against the project regulations cannot extend the law and amend a
owner, developer, dealer, broker or legislative enactment, for settled is the rule that
salesman administrative regulations must be in harmony with
the provisions of the law. And in case there is a
The provisions of PD 957 were intended to discrepancy between the basic law and an
encompass all questions regarding subdivisions and

3 DIGESTED BY: Alcala, Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

implementing rule or regulation, it is the former that discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or
prevails. the spirit of a legislative enactment.

Facts: In this regard, it must be stressed that the function of

-Respondents are landowners whose landholdings promulgating rules and regulations may be
were acquired by the DAR and subjected to transfer legitimately exercised only for the purpose of
schemes to qualified beneficiaries under the carrying the provisions of the law into effect.
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL,
Republic Act No. 6657). The power of administrative agencies is thus
-Aggrieved by the alleged lapses of the DAR and the confined to implementing the law or putting it into
Landbank with respect to the valuation and payment effect. Corollary to this is that administrative
of compensation for their land pursuant to the regulations cannot extend the law and amend a
provisions of RA 6657. legislative enactment, for settled is the rule that
-Respondents questioned the validity of DAR administrative regulations must be in harmony with
Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992 and DAR the provisions of the law. And in case there is a
Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990, and discrepancy between the basic law and an
sought to compel the DAR to expedite the pending implementing rule or regulation, it is the former that
summary administrative proceedings to finally prevails.
determine the just compensation of their properties,
and the Landbank to deposit in cash and bonds the DAR clearly overstepped the limits of its power to
amounts respectively "earmarked," "reserved" and enact rules and regulations when it issued
"deposited in trust accounts" for private respondents, Administrative Circular No. 9. There is no basis in
and to allow them to withdraw the same. allowing the opening of a trust account on behalf of
the landowner as compensation for his property
-Private respondents argued that Administrative because, as heretofore discussed, Section 16(e) of RA
Order No. 9, Series of 1990 was issued without 6657 is very specific that the deposit must be made
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds." In the same vein,
because it permits the opening of trust accounts by petitioners cannot invoke LRA Circular Nos. 29, 29-
the Landbank, in lieu of depositing in cash or bonds A and 54 because these implementing regulations
in an accessible bank designated by the DAR, the cannot outweigh the clear provision of the law.
compensation for the land before it is taken, and the
titles are cancelled as provided under Section 16(e) of 4. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court
RA 6657. of Appeals
G.R. No. 108358
Issue: WON DAR Admin. Order No. 9, Series of 20 January 1995
1990 should be declared null and void insofar as it
provides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of TOPIC: Administrative opinions and rulings
deposits in cash or bonds consistent and in harmony with the law they seek to
apply and implement, deserve weight and respect by
Ruling: the courts
Yes.
Doctrine: The authority of the Secretary of Finance,
The conclusive effect of administrative construction in conjunction with the Commissioner of Internal
is not absolute. Action of an administrative agency Revenue, to promulgate all needful rules and
may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial regulations for the effective enforcement of internal
department if there is an error of law, a grave abuse revenue laws cannot be controverted. Neither can it
of power or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of be disputed that such rules and regulations, as well as

4 DIGESTED BY: Alcala, Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

administrative opinions and rulings, ordinarily should The authority of the Secretary of Finance, in
deserve weight and respect by the courts. Much more conjunction with the Commissioner of Internal
fundamental than either of the above, however, is that Revenue, to promulgate all needful rules and
all such issuances must not override, but must remain regulations for the effective enforcement of internal
consistent and in harmony with, the law they seek to revenue laws cannot be controverted. Neither can it
apply and implement. Administrative rules and be disputed that such rules and regulations, as well as
regulations are intended to carry out, neither to administrative opinions and rulings, ordinarily should
supplant nor to modify, the law. deserve weight and respect by the courts.

Facts: Much more fundamental than either of the above,

however, is that all such issuances must not override,
On 22 August 1986, during the period when the but must remain consistent and in harmony with, the
President of the Republic still wielded legislative law they seek to apply and implement.
powers, Executive Order No. 41 was promulgated Administrative rules and regulations are intended to
declaring a one-time tax amnesty on unpaid income carry out, neither to supplant nor to modify, the law.
taxes, later amended to include estate and donor's There is no pretension that the tax amnesty returns
taxes and taxes on business, for the taxable years and due payments made by. the taxpayer did not
1981 to 1985. conform with the conditions expressed in the amnesty
order
ROH Auto Products Ph Inc. filed Tax Amnesty
Returns and Supplemental Tax Amnesty Returns and If, as the Commissioner argues, Executive Order No.
paid the corresponding amnesty taxes due. Prior to 41 had not been intended to include 1981-1985 tax
the filing, CIR assessed ROH with deficiency income liabilities already assessed (administratively) prior to
and business taxes for its fiscal year. ROH argued 22 August 1986, the law could have simply so
that since they have availed of the tax amnesty, provided in its exclusionary clauses. It did not. The
deficiency tax notice should be cancelled and conclusion is unavoidable, and it is that the executive
withdrawn. Request was denied by the CIR on the order has been designed to be in the nature of a
ground of Revenue Memo Order No. 41 had general grant of tax amnesty subject only to the cases
construed amnesty coverage to include only specifically excepted by it.
assessments issued by the BIR after the promulgation
of the EO on Aug., 22 1986 and not to assessments CTA Ruling: “Lastly, by its very nature, 'a tax
theretofore made. amnesty, being a general pardon or intentional
overlooking by the State of its authority to impose
ROH appealed the CIR’s denial ruling that the penalties on persons otherwise guilty of evasion or
Commissioner failed to present any case or law violation of a revenue or tax law, partakes of an
which proves that an assessment can withstand or absolute forgiveness or waiver by the Government of
negate the force and effects of a tax amnesty. its right to collect what otherwise would be due it,
and in this sense, prejudicial thereto, particularly to
Issue: WON the position taken by the Commissioner give tax evaders, who wish to relent and are willing
coincides with the meaning and intent of Executive to reform a chance to do so and thereby become a
Order No. 41. part of the new society with a clean slate .' (Republic
vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 196 SCRA 335,
Ruling: 340 [1991] citing Commissioner of Internal Revenue
vs . Botelho Shipping Corp ., 20 SCRA 487) To
No. The SC Agrees to both the Court of Appeals and follow [the restrictive application of Revenue
Court of Tax Appeals that Executive Order No. 41 is Memorandum Order No. 4-87 pressed by petitioner
quite explicit and requires hardly anything beyond a Commissioner would be to work against the raison
simple application of its provisions.

5 DIGESTED BY: Alcala, Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

d'etre of E.O. 41, as amended, i.e., to raise

government revenues by encouraging taxpayers to The Act No. 3155 is entirely valid. The legislation
declare their untaxed income and pay the tax due passed it to protect the cattle industry in the country
thereon. (E.O. 41, first paragraph)]" and to prevent the introduction of cattle diseases
through importation. It is a valid exercise of police
power and the legislature did not exceed the use of its
5. Cruz v. Youngberg
G.R. L-34674 power.
26 October 1931
It was a valid delegation. The provision of the law
conferring the power given to the Governor-General
TOPIC: valid delegation of powers, completeness
to suspend or not, at his discretion, the provided in
test
thy act does not constitute an unlawful delegation.
The true distinction, therefore, is between the
DOCTRINE: The true distinction, therefore, is
delegation of power to make the law, which
between the delegation of power to make the law,
necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall
which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it
be, and conferring an authority or discretion as to
shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as
its execution, to be exercised under and in
to its execution, to be exercised under and in
pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to
pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the
the latter no valid objection can be made (Judge
latter no valid objection can be made
Ranney v. Commissioners of Clinton Counter. In
this case, the Governor General does not have the
FACTS:
power to dictate what the law shall be, only to
suspend or not the prohibition, which a valid power
Petitioner sought the declaration of Act No. 3155, or delegated to him. The law is complete.
the act prohibiting the importation of foreign cattle
and conferring the power to the Bureau of Animal
Industry to issue permits, unconstitutional. The 6. Romulo Mabanta v. Home Development
petitioner also questioned the valid delegation of Mutual Fund, G.R. No. 131082, 19 June 2000
power to the governor general as the statute left it ** PD No. 1752 (amending the act creating HDMF)
upon his discretion to suspend the prohibition. The ** RA No. 7742 – amended PD No. 1752
petitioner also questioned the completeness of the
law as it amended the Tariff Law. FACTS: Petitioner, a law firm, was exempted from
the Pag-IBIG Fund coverage from January 1 to
Respondent demurred to the petition that the case December 31 1995 by respondent Home
fails to state the facts to constitute a cause of action: Development Mutual Fund (hereafter HDMF)
(1) even if Act 3155 were unconstitutional, the because of a superior retirement plan. The HDMF
petitioner would not be entitled to the relief Board of Trustees issued a board resolution amending
demanded because Act No, 3052 effective, and (2) and modifying the Rules and Regulations
the Act is unconstitutional Implementing R.A. No. 7742, one provides that for a
company to be entitled to a waiver or suspension of
ISSUE: Fund coverage, it must have a plan providing for both
provident/retirement and housing benefits superior to
1. WON Act is constitutional those provided under the Pag-IBIG Fund.
2. WON it is a valid delegation of power to the
Bureau of Animal Industry Petitioner submitted to the HDMF a letter explaining
that the Amendments to the Rules are invalid. In that
RULING: the amendments are void insofar as they abolished

6 DIGESTED BY: Alcala, Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

the exemption granted by Section 19 of P.D. 1752, as

amended. The repeal of such exemption involves the In the present case, when the Board of Trustees of the
exercise of legislative power, which cannot be HDMF that employers should have both
delegated to HMDF. HDMF disapproved provident/retirement and housing benefits for all its
PETITIONER’s application on the ground that the employees in order to qualify for exemption from the
requirement that there should be both a provident Fund, it effectively amended Section 19 of P.D. No.
retirement fund and a housing plan is clear in the use 1752. And when the Board subsequently abolished
of the phrase “and/or,” and that the Rules that exemption through the 1996 Amendments, it
Implementing R.A. No. 7742 did not amend nor repealed Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752. Such
repeal Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752 but merely amendment and subsequent repeal of Section 19 are
implement the law. The respondent Board was both invalid, asp- they are not within the delegated
merely exercising its rule-making power under power of the Board.
Section 13 of P.D. No. 1752. It had the option to use
“and” only instead of “or” in the rules on waiver in
7. Lupangco v. Court of Appeal
order to effectively implement the Pag-IBIG Fund G.R. No. L-77372
Law. By choosing “and,” the Board has clarified the 29 April 1988
confusion brought about by the use of “and/or” in
Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752, as amended.
TOPIC: CA jurisdiction over admin bodies
exercising quasi-judicial functions; reasonableness of
ISSUE: WON the board of HDMF exceeded its
acts of admin bodies
delegated power (YES)

DOCTRINE: While the CA has original exclusive

RULING: The court held that Section 19 of P.D. No.
jurisdiction over cases decided by quasi-judicial
1752 intended that an employer with a provident plan
administrative bodies, there has to be a final order or
or an employee housing plan superior to that of the
ruling resulting from the proceedings where the
fund may obtain exemption from coverage. If the law
administrative body exercised its quasi-judicial
had intended that the employee should have both a
function
superior provident plan and a housing plan in order to
qualify for exemption, it would have used the words
FACTS:
“and” instead of “and/or.”

The law obviously contemplates that the existence of Petitioners, who are reviewees for the accountancy
either plan is considered as sufficient basis for the licensure examinations filed for an injunction
grant of an exemption; needless to state, the following the Resolution 105 or the additional
concurrence of both plans is more than sufficient. By instructions on how those who will take the exams
removing the disjunctive word “or” in the should prepare, prohibiting going to review schools
implementing rules the respondent Board has the day before the exam, etc.
exceeded its authority.
The Respondent (Professional Regulatory
It is without doubt that the HDMF Board has rule- Commission) filed a dismissal claiming that the
making power as provided in P.D. No. 1752. lower court did not have jurisdiction. The lower court
However, it is well-settled that rules and regulations, declared that it had jurisdiction and found the
which are the product of a delegated power to create resolution to be unconstitutional. CA reversed the
new and additional legal provisions that have the decision stating that the RTC did not have
effect of law, should be within the scope of the jurisdiction, since it’s a co-equal body of PRC and
statutory authority granted by the legislature to the the enforcement of the resolution is valid.
administrative agency.

7 DIGESTED BY: Alcala, Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

DOCTRINE: An administrative circular the purpose

ISSUE: of which is to enforce or implement an existing law
requires publication in the Official Gazette or in a
1. WON the RTC has jurisdiction over the newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines
case? for it to be validly implemented.
2. WON the resolution is valid?
FACTS: De Jesus, et al. were employees of the
RULING: Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA). They
were receiving honoraria as designated members of
Yes. CA was incorrect in citing the cases that state the LWUA Board Secretariat and the Pre-
the co-equalness of the SEC and the Court of First Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee.
Instance, it was so since it was according to the law.
In the case at bar, the PRC was created by a RA 6758, entitled An Act Prescribing a Revised
Presidential Decree and it states that the PRC is an Compensation and Position Classification System in
agency under the Office of the President. It is a well the Government and For Other Purposes took effect.
settled jurisprudence that acts of the Office of the Section 12* of said law provides for the
President can be reviewed by the Court of First consolidation of allowances and additional
Instance. The court finds no reason as to why the compensation into standardized salary rates. Certain
Resolution of the PRC should be exempted from the additional compensations, however, were exempted
general jurisdiction of the RTC. from consolidation.

While the CA has original exclusive jurisdiction Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
over cases decided by quasi-judicial issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10
administrative bodies, there has to be a final order (DBM-CCC No. 10), discontinuing without
or ruling resulting from the proceedings where the qualification all allowances and fringe benefits
administrative body exercised its quasi-judicial granted on top of basic salary.
function. This cannot be the case as the PRC was
exercising purely administrative functions when it Pursuant to the aforesaid Law and Circular, Leonardo
issued the resolution. Jamoralin, as corporate auditor, disallowed on post
audit, the payment of honoraria to De Jesus, et al.
The resolution is not valid. aixiom in administrative The latter filed appeal before the COA on the validity
law that administrative authorities should not act of the subject Circular, arguing that the latter was
arbitrarily and capriciously in the issuance of rules void for being inconsistent with the provisions of
and regulations. The Resolution is not only Rep. Act 6758 (the law it is supposed to implement)
unreasonable and arbitrary but it infringes on the and for having not been published in the Official
examinees’ right to liberty as the PRC has no right to Gazette. COA dismissed the appeal.
tell them how to prepare for their exams. They cannot
be restrained from taking all the lawful steps needed ISSUE: WON DBM-CCO No. 10 is legally effective
to assure the fulfillment of their ambition to become despite its lack of publication (NO)
public accountants. They have every right to make
use of their faculties in attaining success in their RULING: Following the doctrine enunciated in
endeavors Tanada v. Tuvera, publication in the Official Gazette
or in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines is required since DBM-CCC No. 10 is in
8. De Jesus v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No.
the nature of an administrative circular the purpose of
109023, 12 August 1998
which is to enforce or implement an existing law.
Stated differently, to be effective and enforceable,

8 DIGESTED BY: Alcala, Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

DBM-CCC No. 10 must go through the requisite Petitioner argues that said orders are valid due to the
publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper rule-making authority of administrative agencies.
of general circulation in the Philippines.
ISSUE: WON the administrative orders 84 and 84-1
Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and proper?
executive orders promulgated by the President in the
exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are RULING:
validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, No. Administrative agencies may only enforce
directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative policies and impose penalties within the confines of
rules and regulations must also be published if their the law in which the agency is tasked to enforce. At
purpose is to enforce or implement existing law that time, the old fisheries law did not expressly
pursuant to a valid delegation. prohibit electro fishing. When the enforcement of an
executive rule goes beyond the statute, said rule must
Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in be invalid. Therefore, AO 84 and 84-1 are not proper.
nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the
10. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court
administrative agency and not the public, need not be of Appeals
published. Neither is publication required of the so- G.R. No. 119761
called letters of instructions issued by administrative 9 August 1996
superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be
followed by their subordinates in the performance of
DOCTRINE: Absent the twin requirements of notice
their duties.
and hearing, a legislative rule promulgated by an
administrative agency is without effect.
9. People v. Maceren
G.R. No. L-32166 FACTS:
18 October 1977 Respondent Fortune Tabacco Corp is the owner of
the Champion, Hope, and More cigarette brands.
DOCTRINE: Administrative agencies may only R.A. 7654 was enacted, amending the National
enforce rules and impose penalties within the limits Internal Revenue Code, which provides for a 55
of the statute that directs said agency to enforce. percent tax rate on locally manufactured cigarettes
bearing a foreign brand and 45 percent on other
FACTS: locally manufactured cigarettes.
Respondents were held liable under a fisheries Two days before the effectivity of R.A. 7654, the
administrative order for electro fishing. The lower BIR issued Circular No. 37-93 (RMC 37-93),
court ruled that the use of electric current is not expressly classifying Champion, Hope and More
prohibited under Sec. 11 of the fisheries law therefore brands as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a
it cannot be held unlawful by admin agencies. (Sec. foreign brand, thereby subjecting respondent to the
11 of the Fisheries law prohibits the use of obnoxious 55 percent ad valorem tax.
or poisonous substances in fishing) Respondent requested for a review of RMC 37-93,
request was denied, respondent was then assessed to
Order No. 84 was then promulgated by the Sec. of an ad valorem tax deficiency amounting to about
Agriculture and Natural Resources, which prohibits PHP 9.6 million. Respondent filed a petition for
electro fishing in all Philippine waters and provided review with the CTA, the tax court ruled in favor of
penalties for violations thereof. Admin Order No. 84- respondent.
1 was then promulgated, amending the Order No. 84 On appeal to the CA, petitioner argues that RMC 37-
by restricting the ban against electrofishing to 93 is merely an interpretative ruling, therefore it does
freshwater fisheries. not need prior notice and hearing.

9 DIGESTED BY: Alcala, Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

too high. Even though it was reduced to 10%-15%,

ISSUE: WON RMC 37-93 was proper. there was still resistance, Hence this petition.

RULING: PCF argues that although DECS is authorized by law

No. An interpretative rule provides guidelines to the to regulate school fees, the power does not include
law which the admin agency is in charge of enforcing the power to increase the school fees.
while a legislative rule provides more details than the
originating statute and increases the burden to those Sec argues that they do have the power to increase
governed. As provided in the admin code, a the school fees based on the Task Force they made to
legislative rule requires notice and hearing (notice conduct a study to see if they should increase the
shall be in the form of a newspaper of general School Fees and that they are empowered by the law
circulation at least 2 weeks before the hearing). In to do so.
this case, RMC 37-93 is clearly a legislative rule
which specifically classified respondents as a locally ISSUE:
manufactured cigarette brand bearing a foreign name, Does DECS have the power to increase the school
making them taxable with a 55 percent rate under fees?
R.A. 7654. Prior to the RMC, respondent was a
locally manufactured cig brand NOT bearing a RULING:
foreign name, with a tax rate of 45 percent. The YES, they do. Under Sec 70 of BP 232 or the
imposition of a higher tax would be burdensome Education Act of 1982 states that “ The Minister of
upon the respondent and it would be against the Education and Culture, charged with the
principle of due process if respondent was not administration and enforcement of this Act, shall
afforded due process and hearing. Therefore, RMC promulgate the necessary implementing rules and
37-93 is invalid for lack of notice and hearing. regulations.".

Therefore, absent any statute that revokes or limits

the power of the Secretary of Education and DECS,
11. Philippine Consumers Foundation v.
Secretary of Education, they are vested with the power to increase school
G.R. No. 78385, fees.
31 August 1987
12. Cawad v. Abad,
TOPIC: Limitations of Power of Agencies G.R. No. 207145,
28 July 2015
DOCTRINE:
Absent any statute that revokes or limits the TOPIC: Power of Agencies to Modify the Law
power of the Secretary of Education and DECS,
they are vested with the power to increase school DOCTRINE:
fees. Circulars released by Agencies have the power of
the law however, they can be invalidated when
FACTS: they go against the original law which they modify
PCF (Philippine Consumers Foundation is a non- or try to enforce.
stock corporate entity while the Secretary of
Education (Sec) is the head of DECS (Department of FACTS:
Education, Culture and Sports). The Sec issued an The Petitioners are members of the Philippine Public
order to increase tuition fees of schools by 15%-20%. Health Association Inc. while the respondent is the
PCF were against the increase stating that they were Secretary of Budget and Management. The Magna

10 DIGESTED BY: Alcala, Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

Carta of Philippine Health Workers was passed in

13. Department of Finance v. Asia United Bank,
1992 and provides for Longevity Pay and Subsistence G.R. Nos. 240163 & 240168-69,
Pay. Pres. Arroyo with Congress passed a joint 1 December 2021
resolution giving Pres. Arroyo powers to modify the
Compensation of Government Workers. Respondents
TOPIC: Limitations on Issuances Promulgated by
passed a Joint Circular which modifies the Magna
Agencies
Carta of Public Health Workers by including
additional requisites to the law for the additional pay
DOCTRINE:
for subsistence, hazard and longevity.
Administrative issuances must not override,
supplant, or modify the law; they must remain
Petitioners argue that there is grave abuse on the part
consistent with the law they intend to carry out.
of the respondents since they added requirements to
the Magna Carta that are not originally there.
FACTS:
The petitioner is the Department of Finance while the
Respondents contend that they are within their
Respondents are banks affected by the regulations of
powers when they issued the circular and the
the Department of Finance. The Petitioners issued a
modifications.They also use the Joint Resolution of
Revenue Regulation numbered 4-2011 which
Congress and the President giving them the powers
provides that a Bank may deduct only those costs
as well.
which can be attributed to Regular Banking Units
from their taxable income subject to regular income
ISSUE:
tax.
Whether or not the Respondents acted within
their powers when they modified the Magna
Respondents assail the Revenue Regulations because
Carta?
it has no basis in the Tax Code and goes against
multiple sections of the Tax Code specifically, the
RULING:
method of accounting and allocation of costs and
YES, they acted within their powers. The Supreme
expenses. The RTC granted the petition of the
Court explains “they cannot be said to have been
Respondents to declare the Revenue Regulations
issued with grave abuse of discretion for not only are
Void.
they reasonable, they were likewise issued well
within the scope of authority granted to the
Petitioner contends that they are within their power
respondents. In fact, as may be gathered from prior
provided for in the Tax Code to implement the Code.
issuances on the matter, the circular did not make any
substantial deviation therefrom, but actually
ISSUE:
remained consistent with, and germane to, the
Whether RR 4-2011 is void for going against the
purposes of the law.”.
Tax Code?
Therefore, the respondents were acting within their
RULING:
powers given and prescribed by law. Additionally,
YES, RR 4-2011 is void. The Supreme Court
they were consistent with the spirit of the law, Magna
explains “It is settled that administrative issuances
Carta, with their modifications; however the
must not override, supplant, or modify the law; they
modifications that they proposed must be struck
must remain consistent with the law they intend to
down since it goes against the Magna Carta by
carry out. When the application of an administrative
lowering the hazard pay below the prescribed rate (in
issuance modifies existing laws or exceeds the
the magna carta).
intended scope, the issuance becomes void, not only

11 DIGESTED BY: Alcala, Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas

 BEDA LAW FRIENDS - DIGEST
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS

for being ultra vires, but also for being

unreasonable.”.

Therefore, the issuance of RR 4-2011 is void for

being contrary to the Tax Code by enforcing a
specific method of accounting and expanding the
scope of allocation for Costs and Deductions (Sec 34
and Sec 50 of the Tax Code, respectively).

12 DIGESTED BY: Alcala, Anchores, Egina, Habaña, Pascual and Villegas