LUCENA GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL, INC., notified and entitled to be heard.

tled to be heard. If such Same; Same; Same; Traffic Congestion; That

petitioner, vs. JAC LINER, INC., respondent. ordinance is alleged to be unconstitutional, the traffic congestion is a public, not merely a
Solicitor General shall also be notified and private, concern, cannot be gainsaid.That
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Jurisdiction; entitled to be heard. (Emphasis and italics traffic congestion is a public, not merely a
Solicitor General; Nowhere, however, is it supplied) Nowhere, however, is it stated in the private, concern, cannot be gainsaid. In Calalang
stated in the above-quoted rules that failure to above-quoted rules that failure to notify the v. Williams which involved a statute authorizing
notify the Solicitor General about the action is a Solicitor General about the action is a the Director of Public Works to promulgate
jurisdictional defect.Petitioner argues that jurisdictional defect. In fact, Rule 3, Section 22 rules and regulations to regulate and control
since the trial court failed to serve a copy of its gives the courts in any action involving the traffic on national roads, this Court held: In
assailed orders upon the Office of the Solicitor validity of any ordinance, inter alia, enacting said law, therefore, the National
General, it never acquired jurisdiction over the Assembly was prompted by considerations of
discretion to notify the Solicitor General.
case, it citing Section 22, Rule 3 of the Rules public convenience and welfare. It was inspired
which provides: SEC. 22. Notice to the Solicitor Municipal Corporations; Local Government by a desire to relieve congestion of traffic,
General.In any action involving the validity of Units; Police Power; As with the State, the local which is, to say the least, a menace to public
any treaty, law, ordinance, executive order, government may be considered as having safety. Public welfare, then, lies at the bottom
presidential decree, rules or regulations, the properly exercised its police power only if there of the enactment of said law, and the state in
court in its discretion, may require the is a concurrence of a lawful subject and lawful order to promote the general welfare may
appearance of the Solicitor General who may be method.Respecting the issue of whether interfere with personal liberty, with property,
heard in person or through representative duly police power was properly exercised when the and with business and occupations. (Emphasis
designated by him. (Emphasis and italics subject ordinances were enacted: As with the supplied) The questioned ordinances having
supplied) Furthermore, petitioner invokes State, the local government may be considered
been enacted with the objective of relieving
Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 63 which respectively as having properly exercised its police power traffic congestion in the City of Lucena, they
provide: SEC. 3. Notice on Solicitor General.In only if the following requisites are met: (1) the involve public interest warranting the
any action which involves the validity of a interests of the public generally, as
interference of the State. The first requisite for
statute, executive order or regulation, or any distinguished from those of a particular class, the proper exercise of police power is thus
other governmental regulation, the Solicitor require the interference of the State, and (2) present.
General shall be notified by the party assailing the means employed are reasonably necessary
the same and shall be entitled to be heard upon for the attainment of the object sought to be Same; Same; Same; Same; Statutory
such question. SEC. 4. Local government accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon Construction; The examination of legislative
ordinances.In any action involving the validity individuals. Otherwise stated, there must be a motivation is generally prohibited.
of a local government ordinance, the concurrence of a lawful subject and lawful Respondents suggestion to have this Court look
corresponding prosecutor or attorney of the method. behind the explicit objective of the ordinances
local government unit involved shall be similarly which, to it, was actually to benefit the private

1
interest of petitioner by coercing all bus plying routes to and from Lucena City are thus that the Sangguniang Panlungsod had identified
operators to patronize its terminal does not lie. compelled to close down their existing the cause of traffic congestion to be the
Lim v. Pacquing instructs: . . . [T]his Court terminals and use the facilities of petitioner. x x indiscriminate loading and unloading of
cannot look into allegations that PD No. 771 x As in De la Cruz and Lupangco, the ordinances passengers by buses on the streets of the city
was enacted to benefit a select group which assailed herein are characterized by proper, hence, the conclusion that the
was later given authority to operate the jai-alai overbreadth. They go beyond what is terminals contributed to the proliferation of
under PD No. 810. The examination of reasonably necessary to solve the traffic buses obstructing traffic on the city streets. Bus
legislative motivation is generally prohibited. problem. Additionally, since the compulsory use terminals per se do not, however, impede or
(Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 29 L. Ed. 2d of the terminal operated by petitioner would help impede the flow of traffic. How the
438 [1971] per Black, J.) There is, in the first subject the users thereof to fees, rentals and outright proscription against the existence of all
place, absolute lack of evidence to support charges, such measure is unduly oppressive, as terminals, apart from that franchised to
ADCs allegation of improper motivation in the correctly found by the appellate court. What petitioner, can be considered as reasonably
issuance of PD No. 771. In the second place, as should have been done was to determine necessary to solve the traffic problem, this
already averred, this Court cannot go behind exactly where the problem lies and then to stop Court has not been enlightened. If terminals
the expressed and proclaimed purposes of PD it right there. The true role of Constitutional lack adequate space such that bus drivers are
No. 771, which are reasonable and even Law is to effect an equilibrium between compelled to load and unload passengers on
laudable. (Italics supplied) authority and liberty so that rights are exercised the streets instead of inside the terminals, then
within the framework of the law and the laws reasonable specifications for the size of
Same; Same; Same; Same; Overbreadth are enacted with due deference to rights. terminals could be instituted, with permits to
Doctrine; The ordinances assailed herein are (Italics supplied) A due deference to the rights operate the same denied those which are
characterized by overbreadththey go beyond
of the individual thus requires a more careful unable to meet the specifications. In the subject
what is reasonably necessary to solve the traffic formulation of solutions to societal problems. ordinances, however, the scope of the
problem; A due deference to the rights of the proscription against the maintenance of
individual thus requires a more careful Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Nuisances;
terminals is so broad that even entities which
formulation of solutions to societal problems. Bus Terminals; Bus terminals per se do not might be able to provide facilities better than
With the aim of localizing the source of traffic impede or help impede the flow of traffic; In the the franchised terminal are barred from
congestion in the city to a single location, the subject ordinances, the scope of the
operating at all.
subject ordinances prohibit the operation of all proscription against the maintenance of
bus and jeepney terminals within Lucena, terminals is so broad that even entities which Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;
including those already existing, and allow the might be able to provide facilities better than Absent any showing, nay allegation, that the
operation of only one common terminal located the franchised terminal are barred from terminals are encroaching upon public roads,
outside the city proper, the franchise for which operating at all.From the memorandum filed they are not obstaclesthe buses which
was granted to petitioner. The common carriers before this Court by petitioner, it is gathered indiscriminately load and unload passengers on

2
the city streets are.As for petitioners nuisance per accidens, not per se. Unless a need, subject only to a few notable exceptions,
argument that the challenged ordinances were thing is nuisance per se, however, it will excuse the bypassing of an individuals
enacted pursuant to the power of the rights. It is no exaggeration to say that a person
Sangguniang Panlungsod to [r]egulate traffic may not be abated via an ordinance, without invoking a right guaranteed under Article III of
on all streets and bridges; prohibit judicial proceedings, as was done in the case at the Constitution is a majority of one even as
encroachments or obstacles thereon and, when bar. against the rest of the nation who would deny
necessary in the interest of public welfare, Same; Same; Same; Constitutional Law; him that right.
authorize the removal of encroachments and Whether an ordinance is effective is an issue
illegal constructions in public places: Absent PETITION for review on certiorari of the
different from whether it is reasonably
any showing, nay allegation, that the terminals decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
necessary.As for petitioners claim that the
are encroaching upon public roads, they are not challenged ordinances have actually been
obstacles. The buses which indiscriminately proven effective in easing traffic congestion:
load and unload passengers on the city streets Whether an ordinance is effective is an issue The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
are. The power then of the Sangguniang different from whether it is reasonably Castillo, Laman, Tan, Pantaleon & San Jose
Panlungsod to prohibit encroachments and necessary. It is its reasonableness, not its for petitioner.
obstacles does not extend to terminals. effectiveness, which bears upon its
constitutionality. If the constitutionality of a law Manalo, Puno & Jocson Law Offices for
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same;
were measured by its effectiveness, then even respondent.
The operation of bus terminals is a legitimate
business which, by itself, cannot be said to be tyrannical laws may be justified whenever they
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
injurious to the rights of property, health, or happen to be effective.
comfort of the community; Unless a thing is Respondent, JAC Liner, Inc., a common carrier
Same; Same; Same; Same; The weight of
nuisance per se, however, it may not be abated operating buses which ply various routes to and
popular opinion must be balanced with that of
via an ordinance, without judicial from Lucena City, assailed, via a petition for
an individuals rights.The Court is not
proceedings.Neither are terminals public prohibition and injunction1 against the City of
unaware of the resolutions of various barangays
nuisances as petitioner argues. For their Lucena, its Mayor, and the Sangguniang
in Lucena City supporting the establishment of a
operation is a legitimate business which, by Panlungsod of Lucena before the Regional Trial
common terminal, and similar expressions of
itself, cannot be said to be injurious to the Court (RTC) of Lucena City, City Ordinance Nos.
support from the private sector, copies of which
rights of property, health, or comfort of the 1631 and 1778 as unconstitutional on the
were submitted to this Court by petitioner. The
community. But even assuming that terminals ground that, inter alia, the same constituted an
weight of popular opinion, however, must be
are nuisances due to their alleged indirect invalid exercise of police power, an undue
balanced with that of an individuals rights.
effects upon the flow of traffic, at most they are taking of private property, and a violation of the
There is no question that not even the strongest
moral conviction or the most urgent public
3
constitutional prohibition against monopolies. (c) It shall not grant any third party any privilege WHEREAS, in line with the worsening traffic
The salient provisions of the ordinances are: and/or concession to operate a bus, mini-bus condition of the City of Lucena, and with the
and/or jeepney terminal. purpose of easing and regulating the flow of the
Ordinance No. 16312 same, it is imperative that the Buses, Mini-
Passenger buses, mini-buses, and jeepney type Buses and out-of-town jeepneys be prohibited
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE LUCENA mini-buses coming from other municipalities
GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL, INC., A FRANCHISE from maintaining terminals within the City, but
and/or local government units shall avail of the instead directing to proceed to the Lucena
TO CONSTRUCT, FINANCE, ESTABLISH, OPERATE facilities of the Lucena Grand Central Terminal
AND MAINTAIN A COMMON BUS-JEEPNEY Grand Central Terminal for purposes of picking-
which is hereby designated as the officially up and/or dropping off their passengers;4
TERMINAL FACILITY IN THE CITY OF LUCENA sanctioned common terminal for the City of
xxx Lucena; Respondent, who had maintained a terminal
within the city, was one of those affected by the
SECTION 1.There is hereby granted to the e) Section 5 of Ordinance No. 1557, Series of
ordinances.
Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc., its 1995, is hereby amended to read as follows:
successors or assigns, hereinafter referred to as The Lucena Grand Central Terminal is the
the grantee, a franchise to construct, finance, permanent common terminal as this is the Petitioner, Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc.,
establish, operate, and maintain a common bus- entity which was given the exclusive franchise claiming legal interest as the grantee of the
jeepney terminal facility in the City of Lucena. by the Sangguniang Panlungsod under exclusive franchise for the
SECTION 2.This franchise shall continue for a Ordinance No. 1631; (Emphasis and italics
operation of the common terminal,5 was
period of twenty-five years, counted from the supplied)
allowed to intervene in the petition before the
approval of this Ordinance, and renewable at These ordinances, by granting an exclusive trial court.
the option of the grantee for another period of franchise for twenty five years, renewable for
twentyfive (25) years upon such expiration. another twenty five years, to one entity for the In the hearing conducted on November 25,
1998, all the parties agreed to dispense with the
xxx construction and operation of one common bus
and jeepney terminal facility in Lucena City, to presentation of evidence and to submit the case
SECTION 4.Responsibilities and Obligations of be located outside the city proper, were for resolution solely on the basis of the
the City Government of Lucena.During the professedly aimed towards alleviating the traffic pleadings filed.6
existence of the franchise, the City Government congestion alleged to have been caused by the By Order of March 31, 1999,7 Branch 54 of the
of Lucena shall have the following existence of various bus and jeepney terminals Lucena RTC rendered judgment, the dispositive
responsibilities and obligations: within the city, as the Explanatory Note portion of which reads:
Whereas Clause adopting Ordinance No. 1778
xxx
states:

4
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing No. 1778 insofar as said ordinance prohibits or By Decision of December 15, 2000,13 the
premises, judgment is hereby rendered, as curtails petitioner from maintaining and appellate court dismissed the petition and
follows: operating its own bus terminal subject to the affirmed the challenged orders of the trial
conditions provided for in Ordinance No. 1557, court. Its motion for reconsideration14 having
1. Declaring City Ordinance No. 1631 as valid, Sec. 3, which authorizes the construction of been denied by the appellate court by
having been issued in the exercise of the police terminal outside the poblacion of Lucena City; Resolution dated June 5, 2001,15 petitioner
power of the City Government of Lucena insofar and likewise, insofar as said ordinance directs once again comes to this Court via petition for
as the grant of franchise to the Lucena Grand and compels the petitioner to use the Lucena review,16 this time assailing the Decision and
Central Terminal, Inc., to construct, finance, Grand Central Terminal, Inc., and furthermore, Resolution of the Court of Appeals.
establish, operate and maintain common bus- insofar as it declares that no other terminals
jeepney terminal facility in the City of Lucena; shall be situated, constructed, maintained or Decision on the petition hinges on two issues,
established inside or within the City of Lucena; to wit: (1) whether the trial court has
2. But however, declaring the provision of
and furthermore; jurisdiction over the case, it not
Sec. 4(c) of Ordinance No. 1631 to the effect
that the City Government shall not grant any 5. The Motion to Dismiss filed by the having furnished the Office of the Solicitor
third party any privilege and/or concession to Intervenor, Lucena Grand Central Terminal Inc., General copy of the orders it issued therein,
operate a bus, mini-bus and/or jeepney dated October 19, 1998, is hereby DENIED for and (2) whether the City of Lucena properly
terminal, as illegal and ultra vires because it lack of merit. exercised its police power when it enacted the
contravenes the provisions of Republic Act No. subject ordinances.
7160, otherwise known as The Local SO ORDERED. (Emphasis and italics supplied)8
Petitioner argues that since the trial court failed
Government Code;
to serve a copy of its assailed orders upon the
3. Declaring City Ordinance No. 1778 as null Office of the Solicitor General, it never acquired
and void, the same being also an ultra vires act Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration9 of the jurisdiction over the case, it citing Section 22,
of the City Government of Lucena arising from trial courts order having been denied by Order Rule 3 of the Rules which provides:
an invalid, oppressive and unreasonable of August 6, 1999,10 it elevated it via petition
for review under Rule 45 before this Court.11 SEC. 22. Notice to the Solicitor General.In any
exercise of the police power, more specifically,
This Court, by Resolution of November 24, action involving the validity of any treaty, law,
declaring illegal [sections 1(b), 3(c) and 3(e)];
1999,12 referred the petition to the Court of ordinance, executive order, presidential decree,
4. Ordering the issuance of a Writ of Appeals with which it has concurrent rules or regulations, the court in its discretion,
Prohibition and/or Injunction directing the jurisdiction, no special and important reason may require the appearance of the Solicitor
respondents public officials, the City Mayor and having been cited for it to take cognizance General who may be heard in person or through
the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Lucena, to thereof in the first instance. representative duly designated by him.
cease and desist from implementing Ordinance (Emphasis and italics supplied)

5
Furthermore, petitioner invokes Sections 3 and Section 4 of Rule 63, which more specifically accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon
4 of Rule 63 which respectively provide: deals with cases assailing the constitutionality, individuals. Otherwise stated, there must be a
not just the validity, of a local government concurrence of a lawful subject and lawful
SEC. 3. Notice on Solicitor General.In any ordinance, directs that the Solicitor General method.18
action which involves the validity of a statute, shall also be notified and entitled to be heard.
executive order or regulation, or any other Who will notify him, Sec. 3 of the same rule That traffic congestion is a public, not merely a
governmental regulation, the Solicitor General providesit is the party which is assailing the private, concern, cannot be gainsaid. In Calalang
shall be notified by the party assailing the same v. Williams 19 which involved a statute
local governments ordinance.
and shall be entitled to be heard upon such authorizing the Director of Public Works to
question. promulgate rules and regulations to regulate
and control traffic on national roads, this Court
SEC. 4. Local government ordinances.In any More importantly, however, this Court finds held:
action involving the validity of a local that no procedural defect, fatal or otherwise,
government ordinance, the corresponding attended the disposition of the case. For In enacting said law, therefore, the National
prosecutor or attorney of the local government respondent actually served a copy of its petition Assembly was prompted by considerations of
unit involved shall be similarly notified and upon the Office of the Solicitor General on public convenience and welfare.
entitled to be heard. If such ordinance is alleged October 1, 1998, two days after it was filed. The
to be unconstitutional, the Solicitor General Solicitor General has issued a Certification to It was inspired by a desire to relieve congestion
shall also be notified and entitled to be heard. that effect.17 There was thus compliance with of traffic, which is, to say the least, a menace to
(Emphasis and italics supplied) above-quoted rules. public safety. Public welfare, then, lies at the
bottom of the enactment of said law, and the
state in order to promote the general welfare
may interfere with personal liberty, with
Nowhere, however, is it stated in the above- Respecting the issue of whether police power property, and with business and occupations.20
quoted rules that failure to notify the Solicitor was properly exercised when the subject (Emphasis supplied)
General about the action is a jurisdictional ordinances were enacted: As with the State, the
defect. local government may be considered as having
properly exercised its police power only if the
The questioned ordinances having been
following requisites are met: (1) the interests of
the public generally, as distinguished from enacted with the objective of relieving traffic
In fact, Rule 3, Section 22 gives the courts in any congestion in the City of Lucena, they involve
action involving the validity of any ordinance, those of a particular class, require the
interference of the State, and (2) the means public interest warranting the interference of
inter alia, discretion to notify the Solicitor the State. The first requisite for the proper
General. employed are reasonably necessary for the
attainment of the object sought to be exercise of police power is thus present.

6
 subject ordinances prohibit the operation of all police regulation, there was in this instance a
bus and jeepney terminals within Lucena, clear invasion of personal or property rights,
Respondents suggestion to have this Court look including those already existing, and allow the personal in the case of those individuals
behind the explicit objective of the ordinances operation of only one common terminal located desirous of patronizing those night clubs and
which, to it, was actually to benefit the private outside the city proper, the franchise for which property in terms of the investments made and
interest of petitioner by coercing all bus was granted to petitioner. The common carriers salaries to be earned by those therein
operators to patronize its terminal does not plying routes to and from Lucena City are thus employed. (Italics supplied)26
lie.21 Lim v. Pacquing 22 instructs: compelled to close down their existing
terminals and use the facilities of petitioner. In Lupangco v. Court of Appeals,27 this Court, in
declaring unconstitutional the resolution
. . . [T]his Court cannot look into allegations that In De la Cruz v. Paras,25 this Court declared subject thereof, advanced a similar
PD No. 771 was enacted to benefit a select unconstitutional an ordinance characterized by consideration. That case involved a resolution
group which was later given authority to overbreadth. In that case, the Municipality of issued by the Professional Regulation
operate the jai-alai under PD No. 810. The Bocaue, Bulacan prohibited the operation of all Commission which prohibited examinees from
examination of legislative motivation is night clubs, cabarets and dance halls within its attending review classes and receiving handout
generally prohibited. (Palmer v. Thompson, 403 jurisdiction for the protection of public morals. materials, tips, and the like three days before
U.S. 217, 29 L. Ed. 2d 438 [1971] per Black, J.) Held the Court: the date of examination in order to preserve
There is, in the first place, absolute lack of the integrity and purity of the licensure
It cannot be said that such a sweeping exercise examinations in accountancy. Besides being
evidence to support ADCs allegation of of a lawmaking power by Bocaue could qualify
improper motivation in the issuance of PD No. unreasonable on its face and violative of
under the term reasonable. The objective of academic freedom, the measure was found to
771. In the second place, as already averred,
fostering public morals, a worthy and desirable be more sweeping than what was necessary,
this Court cannot go behind the expressed and end can be attained by a measure that does not
proclaimed purposes of PD No. 771, which are viz.:
encompass too wide a field. Certainly the
reasonable and even laudable. (Italics ordinance on its face is characterized by Needless to say, the enforcement of Resolution
supplied)23 overbreadth. The purpose sought to be No. 105 is not a guarantee that the alleged
This leaves for determination the issue of achieved could have been attained by leakages in the licensure examinations will be
whether the means employed by the Lucena reasonable restrictions rather than by an eradicated or at least minimized. Making the
Sangguniang Panlungsod to attain its professed absolute prohibition. The admonition in examinees suffer by depriving them of
objective were reasonably necessary and not Salaveria should be heeded: The Judiciary legitimate means of review or preparation on
unduly oppressive upon individuals. should not lightly set aside legislative action those last three precious days when they should
when there is not a clear invasion of personal or be refreshing themselves with all that they have
With the aim of localizing the source of traffic property rights under the guise of police learned in the review classes and preparing
congestion in the city to a single location,24 the regulation. It is clear that in the guise of a their mental and psychological make-up for the
7
examination day itselfwould be like uprooting From the memorandum33 filed before this Petitioner argues, however, that other solutions
the tree to get rid of a rotten branch. What is Court by petitioner, it is gathered that the for the traffic problem have already been tried
needed to be done by the respondent is to find Sangguniang Panlungsod had identified the but proven ineffective.
out the source of such leakages and stop it right cause of traffic congestion to be the
there. If corrupt officials or personnel should be indiscriminate loading and unloading of But the grant of an exclusive franchise to
terminated from their loss, then so be it. Fixers passengers by buses on the streets of the city petitioner has not been shown to be the only
or swindlers should be flushed out. Strict proper, hence, the conclusion that the solution to the problem.
guidelines to be observed by examiners should terminals contributed to the proliferation of While the Sangguniang Panlungsod, via
be set up and if violations are committed, then buses obstructing traffic on the city streets. Ordinance No. 1557,34 previously directed bus
licenses should be suspended or revoked. x x x owners and operators to put up their terminals
Bus terminals per se do not, however, impede
(Emphasis and italics supplied)28 outside the poblacion of Lucena City,
or help impede the flow of traffic. How the
As in De la Cruz29 and Lupangco,30 the outright proscription against the existence of all petitioner informs that said ordinance only
ordinances assailed herein are characterized by terminals, apart from that franchised to resulted in the relocation of terminals to other
overbreadth. They go beyond what is petitioner, can be considered as reasonably well-populated barangays, thereby giving rise to
reasonably necessary to solve the traffic necessary to solve the traffic problem, this traffic congestion in those areas.35 Assuming
problem. Additionally, since the compulsory use Court has not been enlightened. If terminals that information to be true, the Sangguniang
of the terminal operated by petitioner would lack adequate space such that bus drivers are Panlungsod was not without remedy. It could
subject the users thereof to fees, rentals and compelled to load and unload passengers on have defined, among other considerations, in a
charges, such measure is unduly oppressive, as the streets instead of inside the terminals, then more precise manner, the area of relocation to
correctly found by the appellate court.31 What reasonable specifications for the size of avoid such consequences.
should have been done was to determine terminals could be instituted, with permits to As for petitioners argument that the challenged
exactly where the problem lies and then to stop operate the same denied those which are ordinances were enacted pursuant to the
it right there. unable to meet the specifications. power of the Sangguniang Panlungsod to
The true role of Constitutional Law is to effect In the subject ordinances, however, the scope [r]egulate traffic on all streets and bridges;
an equilibrium between authority and liberty so of the proscription against the maintenance of prohibit encroachments or obstacles thereon
and, when necessary in the interest of public
that rights are exercised within the framework terminals is so broad that even entities which
of the law and the laws are enacted with due might be able to provide facilities better than welfare, authorize the removal of
the franchised terminal are barred from encroachments and illegal constructions in
deference to rights. (Italics supplied)32
public places:36 Absent any showing, nay
operating at all.
A due deference to the rights of the individual allegation, that the terminals are encroaching
thus requires a more careful formulation of upon public roads, they are not obstacles. The
solutions to societal problems. buses which indiscriminately load and unload
8
passengers on the city streets are. The power rights of property, of health or of comfort of the opinion, however, must be balanced with that
then of the Sangguniang Panlungsod to prohibit community. If it be a nuisance per accidens it of an individuals rights.
encroachments and obstacles does not extend may be so proven in a hearing conducted for
to terminals. that purpose. It is not per se a nuisance There is no question that not even the strongest
warranting its summary abatement without moral conviction or the most urgent public
Neither are terminals public nuisances as judicial intervention. (Italics supplied)38 need, subject only to a few notable exceptions,
petitioner argues. For their operation is a will excuse the bypassing of an individuals
legitimate business which, by itself, cannot be In Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. v. Municipality of rights. It is no exaggeration to say that a person
said to be injurious to the rights of property, Tarlac 39 where the appellant-municipality invoking a right guaranteed under Article III of
health, or comfort of the community. similarly argued that the terminal involved the Constitution is a majority of one even as
therein is a nuisance that may be abated by the against the rest of the nation who would deny
But even assuming that terminals are nuisances Municipal Council via an ordinance, this Court him that right.40
due to their alleged indirect effects upon the held: Suffice it to say that in the abatement of
flow of traffic, at most they are nuisance per nuisances the provisions of the Civil Code WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
accidens, not per se. (Articles 694-707) must be observed and SO ORDERED.
Unless a thing is nuisance per se, however, it followed. This appellant failed to do.
may not be abated via an ordinance, without Petitin denied.
As for petitioners claim that the challenged
judicial proceedings, as was done in the case at ordinances have actually been proven effective Notes.Absent any undue damage or injury
bar. in easing traffic congestion: Whether an suffered by a party by reason of the enactment
In Estate of Gregoria Francisco v. Court of ordinance is effective is an issue different from and implementation of a municipal resolution,
whether it is reasonably necessary. It is its the fourth element of the offense of causing
Appeals,37 this Court held:
reasonableness, not its effectiveness, which undue injury is wanting. (Bunye vs.
Respondents can not seek cover under the bears upon its constitutionality. If the Sandiganbayan, 306 SCRA 663 [1999])
general welfare clause authorizing the constitutionality of a law were measured by its
abatement of nuisances without judicial Local governments do not have the inherent
effectiveness, then even tyrannical laws may be
proceedings. That tenet applies to a nuisance power to tax except to the extent that such
justified whenever they happen to be effective.
per se, or one which affects the immediate power might be delegated to them either by
safety of persons and property and may be The Court is not unaware of the resolutions of the basic law or by statute. [Lucena Grand
summarily abated under the undefined law of various barangays in Lucena City supporting the Central Terminal, Inc. vs. JAC Liner, Inc., 452
necessity (Monteverde v. Generoso, 52 Phil. establishment of a common terminal, and SCRA 174(2005)]
123 [1982]). The storage of copra in the similar expressions of support from the private
quonset building is a legitimate business. By its sector, copies of which were submitted to this
nature, it can not be said to be injurious to Court by petitioner. The weight of popular
9
 denied. No less than the Constitution between its employees and those of competitor
recognizes the right of enterprises to adopt and companies; What the company merely seeks to
G.R. No. 162994. September 17, 2004.* enforce such a policy to protect its right to avoid is a conflict of interest between the
DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DETAILMAN- reasonable returns on investments and to employee and the company that may arise out
PTGWO and PEDRO A. TECSON, petitioners, vs. expansion and growth. Indeed, while our laws of such relationships.From the wordings of
GLAXO WELLCOME PHILIPPINES, INC., endeavor to give life to the constitutional policy the contractual provision and the policy in its
respondent. on social justice and the protection of labor, it employee handbook, it is clear that Glaxo does
does not mean that every labor dispute will be not impose an absolute prohibition against
Labor Law; Dismissals; Glaxos policy prohibiting decided in favor of the workers. The law also relationships between its employees and those
an employee from having a relationship with an recognizes that management has rights which of competitor companies. Its employees are
employee of a competitior company is a valid are also entitled to respect and enforcement in free to cultivate relationships with and marry
exercise of management prerogative.No the interest of fair play. persons of their own choosing. What the
reversible error can be ascribed to the Court of company merely seeks to avoid is a conflict of
Appeals when it ruled that Glaxos policy Same; Same; The challenged company policy interest between the employee and the
prohibiting an employee from having a does not violate the equal protection clause of company that may arise out of such
relationship with an employee of a competitor the Constitution.The challenged company relationships.
company is a valid exercise of management policy does not violate the equal protection
prerogative. Glaxo has a right to guard its trade clause of the Constitution as petitioners Same; Same; Constructive Dismissal; Definition
secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing erroneously suggest. It is a settled principle that of Constructive Dismissal.The Court finds no
strategies and other confidential programs and the commands of the equal protection clause merit in petitioners contention that Tecson was
information from competitors, especially so are addressed only to the state or those acting constructively dismissed when he was
that it and Astra are rival companies in the under color of its authority. Corollarily, it has transferred from the Camarines Norte-
highly competitive pharmaceutical industry. been held in a long array of U.S. Supreme Court Camarines Sur sales area to the Butuan City-
decisions that the equal protection clause Surigao City-Agusan del Sur sales area, and
Same; Same; While our laws endeavor to give erects no shield against merely private conduct, when he was excluded from attending the
life to the constitutional policy on social justice however, discriminatory or wrongful. The only companys seminar on new products which
and the protection of labor, it does not mean exception occurs when the state in any of its were directly competing with similar products
that every labor dispute will be decided in favor manifestations or actions has been found to manufactured by Astra. Constructive dismissal
of the workers; The law also recognizes that have become entwined or involved in the is defined as a quitting, an involuntary
management has rights which are also entitled wrongful private conduct. Obviously, however, resignation resorted to when continued
to respect and enforcement in the interest of the exception is not present in this case. employment becomes impossible,
fair play.That Glaxo possesses the right to unreasonable, or unlikely; when there is a
protect its economic interests cannot be Same; Same; Glaxo does not impose an demotion in rank or diminution in pay; or when
absolute prohibition against relationships
10
a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by (Glaxo) as medical representative on October Subsequently, Tecson entered into a romantic
an employer becomes unbearable to the 24, 1995, after Tecson had undergone training relationship with Bettsy, an employee of Astra
employee. None of these conditions are present and orientation. Pharmaceuticals3 (Astra), a competitor of
in the instant case. The record does not show Glaxo. Bettsy was Astras Branch Coordinator in
that Tecson was demoted or unduly Thereafter, Tecson signed a contract of Albay. She supervised the district managers and
discriminated upon by reason of such transfer. employment which stipulates, among others, medical representatives of her company and
that he agrees to study and abide by existing prepared marketing strategies for Astra in that
PETITION for review on certiorari of the company rules; to disclose to management any
area.
decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. existing or future relationship by consanguinity
or affinity with co-employees or employees of Even before they got married, Tecson received
The facts are stated in the resolution of the competing drug companies and should several reminders from his District Manager
Court. management find that such relationship poses a regarding the conflict of interest which his
Luciano R. Caraang for petitioners. possible conflict of interest, to resign from the relationship with Bettsy might engender. Still,
company. love prevailed, and Tecson married Bettsy in
Castillo, Laman, Tan, Pantaleon and San Jose September 1998.
for respondent. The Employee Code of Conduct of Glaxo
similarly provides that an employee is expected In January 1999, Tecsons superiors informed
RESOLUTION to inform management of any existing or future him that his marriage to Bettsy gave rise to a
relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co- conflict of interest. Tecsons superiors reminded
TINGA, J.:
employees or employees of competing drug him that he and Bettsy should decide which one
Confronting the Court in this petition is a novel companies. If management perceives a conflict of them would resign from their jobs, although
question, with constitutional overtones, of interest or a potential they told him that they wanted to retain him as
involving the validity of the policy of a much as possible because he was performing
conflict between such relationship and the
pharmaceutical company prohibiting its his job well.
employees employment with the company, the
employees from marrying employees of any
management and the employee will explore the
competitor company.
possibility of a transfer to another department
in a non-counterchecking position or Tecson requested for time to comply with the
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
preparation for employment outside the company policy against entering into a
assailing the Decision1 dated May 19, 2003 and
relationship with an employee of a competitor
the Resolution dated March 26, 2004 of the company after six months.
company. He explained that Astra, Bettsys
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62434.2
Tecson was initially assigned to market Glaxos employer, was planning to merge with Zeneca,
Petitioner Pedro A. Tecson (Tecson) was hired products in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte another drug company; and Bettsy was
by respondent Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. sales area. planning to avail of the redundancy package to

11
be offered by Astra. With Bettsys separation was not issued samples of products which were was denied by the appellate court in its
from her company, the potential conflict of competing with similar products manufactured Resolution dated March 26, 2004.5
interest would be eliminated. At the same time, by Astra. He was also not included in product
they would be able to avail of the attractive conferences regarding such products. Petitioners filed the instant petition, arguing
Because the parties failed to resolve the issue at therein that (i) the Court of Appeals erred in
redundancy package from Astra.
the grievance machinery level, they submitted affirming the NCMBs finding that the Glaxos
Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO vs. the matter for voluntary arbitration. Glaxo policy prohibiting its employees from marrying
Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. offered Tecson a separation pay of onehalf () an employee of a competitor company is valid;
month pay for every year of service, or a total and (ii) the Court of Appeals also erred in not
In August 1999, Tecson again requested for finding that Tecson was constructively
more time to resolve the problem. In of P50,000.00 but he declined the offer. On
November 15, 2000, the National Conciliation dismissed when he was transferred to a new
September 1999, Tecson applied for a transfer sales territory, and deprived of the opportunity
in Glaxos milk division, thinking that since Astra and Mediation Board (NCMB) rendered its
Decision declaring as valid Glaxos policy on to attend products seminars and training
did not have a milk division, the potential
relationships between its employees and sessions.6
conflict of interest would be eliminated. His
application was denied in view of Glaxos least- persons employed with competitor companies, Petitioners contend that Glaxos policy against
movement-possible policy. and affirming Glaxos right to transfer Tecson to employees marrying employees of competitor
another sales territory. companies violates the equal protection clause
In November 1999, Glaxo transferred Tecson to of the Constitution because it creates invalid
the Butuan City-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur Aggrieved, Tecson filed a Petition for Review
with the Court of Appeals assailing the NCMB distinctions among employees on account only
sales area. Tecson asked Glaxo to reconsider its of marriage. They claim that the policy restricts
decision, but his request was denied. Decision.
the employees right to marry.7
Tecson sought Glaxos reconsideration On May 19, 2003, the Court of Appeals
promulgated its Decision denying the Petition They also argue that Tecson was constructively
regarding his transfer and brought the matter dismissed as shown by the following
to Glaxos Grievance Committee. Glaxo, for Review on the ground that the NCMB did
not err in rendering its Decision. The appellate circumstances: (1) he was transferred from the
however, remained firm in its decision and gave
court held that Glaxos policy prohibiting its Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales area to
Tescon until February 7, 2000 to comply with the Butuan-Surigao-Agusan sales area, (2) he
the transfer order. Tecson defied the transfer employees from having personal relationships
with employees of competitor companies is a suffered a diminution in pay, (3) he was
order and continued acting as medical
excluded from attending seminars and training
representative in the Camarines Sur-Camarines valid exercise of its management prerogatives.4
sessions for medical representatives, and (4) he
Norte sales area. Tecson filed a Motion for Reconsideration of was prohibited from promoting respondents
During the pendency of the grievance the appellate courts Decision, but the motion products which were competing with Astras
proceedings, Tecson was paid his salary, but products.8
12
In its Comment on the petition, Glaxo argues According to Glaxo, Tecsons marriage to Bettsy, to Butuan City, Glaxo assumed that his transfer
that the company policy prohibiting its an employee of Astra, posed a real and from the Bicol region to the Butuan City sales
employees from having a relationship with potential conflict of interest. Astras products area would be favorable to him and his family
and/or marrying an employee of a competitor were in direct competition with 67% of the as he would be relocating to a familiar territory
company is a valid exercise of its management products sold by Glaxo. Hence, Glaxos and minimizing his travel expenses.15
prerogatives and does not violate the equal enforcement of the foregoing policy in Tecsons
protection clause; and that Tecsons case was a valid exercise of its management In addition, Glaxo avers that Tecsons exclusion
reassignment from the Camarines Norte- prerogatives.12 In any case, Tecson was given from the seminar concerning the new anti-
Camarines Sur sales area to the Butuan City- several months to remedy the situation, and asthma drug was due to the fact that said
Surigao City and Agusan del Sur sales area does was even encouraged not to resign but to ask product was in direct competition with a drug
which was soon to be sold by Astra, and hence,
not amount to constructive dismissal.9 his wife to resign from Astra instead.13
would pose a potential conflict of interest for
Glaxo insists that as a company engaged in the Glaxo also points out that Tecson can no longer him. Lastly, the delay in Tecsons receipt of his
promotion and sale of pharmaceutical products, question the assailed company policy because sales paraphernalia was due to the mix-up
it has a genuine interest in ensuring that its when he signed his contract of employment, he created by his refusal to transfer to the Butuan
employees avoid any activity, relationship or was aware that such policy was stipulated City sales area (his paraphernalia was delivered
interest that may conflict with their therein. In said contract, he also agreed to to his new sales areainstead of Naga City
responsibilities to the company. Thus, it expects resign from respondent if the management because the supplier thought he already
its employees to avoid having personal or family finds that his relationship with an employee of a transferred to Butuan).16
interests in any competitor company which may competitor company would be detrimental to
influence their actions and decisions and The Court is tasked to resolve the following
the interests of Glaxo.14
consequently deprive Glaxo of legitimate issues: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred
Glaxo likewise insists that Tecsons in ruling that Glaxos policy against its
profits. The policy is also aimed at preventing a
competitor company from gaining access to its reassignment to another sales area and his employees marrying employees from
secrets, procedures and policies.10 exclusion from seminars regarding respondents competitor companies is valid, and in not
new products did not amount to constructive holding that said policy violates the equal
It likewise asserts that the policy does not dismissal.It claims that in view of Tecsons protection clause of the Constitution; (2)
prohibit marriage per se but only proscribes refusal to resign, he was relocated from the Whether Tecson was constructively dismissed.
existing or future relationships with employees Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales area to
of competitor companies, and is therefore not the Butuan City-Surigao City and Agusan del Sur The Court finds no merit in the petition.
violative of the equal protection clause. It sales area. Glaxo asserts that in effecting the The stipulation in Tecsons contract of
maintains that considering the nature of its reassignment, it also considered the welfare of employment with Glaxo being questioned by
business, the prohibition is based on valid Tecsons family. Since Tecsons hometown was petitioners provides:
grounds.11 in Agusan del Sur and his wife traces her roots
13
10. You agree to disclose to management any b. To refrain from using their position in relationship with an employee of a competitor
existing or future relationship you may have, Glaxo Wellcome or knowledge of Company company is a valid exercise of management
either by consanguinity or affinity with co- plans to advance their outside personal prerogative.
employees or employees of competing drug interests, that of their relatives, friends and
companies. Should it pose a possible conflict of Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets,
other businesses.
interest in management discretion, you agree to manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies
resign voluntarily from the Company as a c. To avoid outside employment or other and other confidential programs and
interests for income which would impair their information from competitors, especially so
matter of Company policy.
effective job performance. that it and Astra are rival companies in the
The same contract also stipulates that Tescon highly competitive pharmaceutical industry.
agrees to abide by the existing company rules of d. To consult with Management on such
Glaxo, and to study and become acquainted activities or relationships that may lead to The prohibition against personal or marital
with such policies.18 In this regard, the conflict of interest. relationships with employees of competitor
Employee Handbook of Glaxo expressly informs companies upon Glaxos employees is
1.1. Employee Relationships reasonable under the circumstances because
its employees of its rules regarding conflict of
interest: Employees with existing or future relationships relationships of that nature might compromise
either by consanguinity or affinity with co- the interests of the company. In laying down
1. Conflict of Interest employees of competing drug companies are the assailed company policy, Glaxo only aims to
expected to disclose such relationship to the protect its interests against the possibility that a
Employees should avoid any activity, competitor company will gain access to its
investment relationship, or interest that may Management. If management perceives a
conflict or potential conflict of interest, every secrets and procedures.
run counter to the responsibilities which they
owe Glaxo Wellcome. effort shall be made, together by management That Glaxo possesses the right to protect its
and the employee, to arrive at a solution within economic interests cannot be denied. No less
Specifically, this means that employees are six (6) months, either by transfer to another than the Constitution recognizes the right of
expected: department in a non-counter checking position, enterprises to adopt and enforce such a policy
or by career preparation toward outside
a. To avoid having personal or family interest, to protect its right to reasonable returns on
employment after Glaxo Wellcome. Employees investments and to expansion and growth.20
financial or otherwise, in any competitor
must be prepared for possible resignation Indeed, while our laws endeavor to give life to
supplier or other businesses which may within six (6) months, if no other solution is
consciously or unconsciously influence their the constitutional policy on social justice and
feasible.19 the protection of labor, it does not mean that
actions or decisions and thus deprive Glaxo
Wellcome of legitimate profit. No reversible error can be ascribed to the Court every labor dispute will be decided in favor of
of Appeals when it ruled that Glaxos policy the workers. The law also recognizes that
prohibiting an employee from having a management has rights which are also entitled
14
to respect and enforcement in the interest of In any event, from the wordings of the Bettsy. Since Tecson knowingly and voluntarily
fair play.21 contractual provision and the policy in its entered into a contract of employment with
employee handbook, it is clear that Glaxo does Glaxo, the stipulations therein have the force of
As held in a Georgia, U.S.A case,22 it is a not impose an absolute prohibition against law between them and, thus, should be
legitimate business practice to guard business relationships between its employees and those complied with in good faith.29 He is therefore
confidentiality and protect a competitive of competitor companies. Its employees are estopped from questioning said policy.
position by even-handedly disqualifying from free to cultivate relationships with and marry
jobs male and female applicants or employees persons of their own choosing. What the The Court finds no merit in petitioners
who are married to a competitor. Consequently, company merely seeks to avoid is a conflict of contention that Tecson was constructively
the court ruled that an employer that interest between the employee and the dismissed when he was transferred from the
discharged an employee who was married to an company that may arise out of such Camarines Norte-Camarines Sur sales area to
employee of an active competitor did not relationships. As succinctly explained by the the Butuan City-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur
violate Title VII of the Civil sales area, and when he was excluded from
appellate court, thus:
attending the companys seminar on new
Rights Act of 1964.23 The Court pointed out The policy being questioned is not a policy products which were directly competing with
that the policy was applied to men and women against marriage. An employee of the company similar products manufactured by Astra.
equally, and noted that the employers business remains free to marry anyone of his or her Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting,
was highly competitive and that gaining inside choosing. The policy is not aimed at restricting a an involuntary resignation resorted to when
information would constitute a competitive personal prerogative that belongs only to the continued employment becomes impossible,
advantage. individual. However, an employees personal unreasonable, or unlikely; when there is a
The challenged company policy does not violate decision does not detract the employer from demotion in rank or diminution in pay; or when
the equal protection clause of the Constitution exercising management prerogatives to ensure a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by
as petitioners erroneously suggest. It is a settled maximum profit and business success. . . 28 an employer becomes unbearable to the
principle that the commands of the equal employee.30 None of these conditions are
The Court of Appeals also correctly noted that present in the instant case. The record does not
protection clause are addressed only to the the assailed company policy which forms part of
state or those acting under color of its show that Tecson was demoted or unduly
respondents Employee discriminated upon by reason of such transfer.
authority.24 Corollarily, it has been held in a
long array of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that Code of Conduct and of its contracts with its As found by the appellate court, Glaxo properly
the equal protection clause erects no shield employees, such as that signed by Tescon, was exercised its management prerogative in
against merely private conduct, however, made known to him prior to his employment. reassigning Tecson to the Butuan City sales
discriminatory or wrongful.25 The only Tecson, therefore, was aware of that restriction area:
exception occurs when the state26 in any of its when he signed his employment contract and
when he entered into a relationship with
15
. . . In this case, petitioners transfer to another dismissal for allegedly terminating his employ because of his satisfactory performance
place of assignment was merely in keeping with employment when he refused to accept his and suggested that he ask Bettsy to resign from
the policy of the company in reassignment to a new area, the Court upheld her company instead. Glaxo likewise acceded to
the right of the drug company to transfer or his repeated requests for more time to resolve
avoidance of conflict of interest, and thus valid . reassign its employee in accordance with its the conflict of interest. When the problem
. . Note that [Tecsons] wife holds a sensitive operational demands and requirements. The could not be resolved after several years of
supervisory position as Branch Coordinator in ruling of the Court therein, quoted hereunder, waiting, Glaxo was constrained to reassign
her employer-company which requires her to Tecson to a sales area different from that
also finds application in the instant case:
work in close coordination with District handled by his wife for Astra. Notably, the Court
Managers and Medical Representatives. Her By the very nature of his employment, a drug did not terminate Tecson from employment but
duties include monitoring sales of Astra salesman or medical representative is expected only reassigned him to another area where his
products, conducting sales drives, establishing to travel. He should anticipate reassignment home province, Agusan del Sur, was included. In
and furthering relationship with customers, according to the demands of their business. It effecting Tecsons transfer, Glaxo even
collection, monitoring and managing Astras would be a poor drug corporation which cannot considered the welfare of Tecsons family.
inventory . . . she therefore takes an active even assign its representatives or detail men to Clearly, the foregoing dispels any suspicion of
participation in the market war characterized as new markets calling for opening or expansion or unfairness and bad faith on the part of Glaxo.34
it is by stiff competition among pharmaceutical to areas where the need for pushing its
companies. Moreover, and this is significant, products is great. More so if such reassignments WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for lack of
petitioners sales territory covers Camarines Sur merit. Costs against petitioners.
and Camarines Norte while his wife is As noted earlier, the challenged policy has been
supervising a branch of her employer in Albay. implemented by Glaxo impartially and SO ORDERED.
The proximity of their areas of responsibility, all disinterestedly for a long period of time. In the
case at bar, the record shows that Glaxo gave Petition denied. Re: Request for the Transfer of
in the same Bicol Region, renders the conflict of Station of the 10th MCTC, Merida-Isabel, Leyte
interest not only possible, but actual, as Tecson several chances to eliminate the conflict
of interest brought about by his relationship from Merida to Isabel, Leyte
learning by one spouse of the others market
strategies in the region would be inevitable. with Bettsy. When their relationship was still in Note.An employer, as an exercise of
[Managements] appreciation of a conflict of its initial stage, Tecsons supervisors at Glaxo management prerogative, has the right to
interest is therefore not merely illusory and constantly reminded him about its effects on his adopt valid and equitable grounds as basis for
employment with the company and on the terminating or transferring employees. (De La
wanting in factual basis . . .31
companys interests. After Tecson married Salle University vs. De La Salle University
In Abbott Laboratories (Phils.), Inc. v. National Bettsy, Glaxo gave him time to resolve the Employees Association, 330 SCRA 363 [2000])
Labor Relations Commission,32 which involved conflict by either resigning from the company or [Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO vs.
a complaint filed by a medical representative asking his wife to resign from Astra. Glaxo even
against his employer drug company for illegal expressed its desire to retain Tecson in its
16
A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390. August 5, 1998.* not act on the motion if there is no proper Court cannot apply in a motion to quash search
notice and/or proof of service of the notice on warrant. For without the proper notice of
CESAR B. MERIS, complainant, vs. JUDGE the adverse party. It is nothing but a useless hearing and proof of service thereof, the rights
CARLOS C. OFILADA, respondent. piece of paper filed with the court. It is not a of either party will be adversely affected.
A.M. No. RTJ-98-1411. August 5, 1998.* motion. It presents no question which the court Moreover, the ground invoked by movant was
could decide. The court has no reason to that the warrant charged no offense. The
FRANCISCO R. HERNANDEZ, complainant, vs. consider it and the clerk has no right to receive fundamental test in considering a motion to
JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA, respondent. it without that compliance with the rules. Harsh quash on this ground is whether the facts
as they may seem, these rules were introduced alleged, if hypothetically admitted, will establish
Remedial Law; Notice; Proof of Service; Notice
to avoid a capricious change of mind in order to the essential elements of the offense as defined
addressed only to the Clerk of Court and not to
provide due process to both parties and ensure by the law.
the parties concerned fails compliance with
impartiality in the trial.
Section 5 of Rule 15.A perusal of the request Same; Same; Judges; The judge must demand
for advanced resetting of the motion to quash Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Due what the rule requires, i.e., proof of such notice
search warrant would show that although it process demands proper obedience to on the adverse party, otherwise, a contentious
stated the time and date of hearing, it failed to motion, as the motion to quash in this case
comply with Sec. 5 of Rule 15 as the notice was matter of the motion to quash is a search should be considered a mere scrap of paper
addressed only to the clerk of court and not to warrant.Due process demands proper which should not have even been received for
the parties concerned as required. Neither was obedience to procedural rules, especially when filing.The issues require a fuller examination
there proof of service of the motion on the the subject matter of the motion to quash is a especially since a criminal complaint had
adverse party despite the undertaking of search warrant. Since searches are in already been filed in court. The prosecution,
counsel for movant to notify the public derogation of the inviolable right of the people too, must be given its day in courtthe burden
prosecutor of the request as required by Sec. 6 to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
of proof thereof being placed squarely on its
of Rule 15Sec. 6. Proof of service, to be filed and effects, it necessarily follows that the shoulders. A prudent judge would, in the
with motion.No motion shall be acted upon applicant should rely on the strength of his absence of the opposing party in the hearing of
by the court, without proof of service of the evidence to support the application or the a motion as pivotal as a motion to quash,
notice thereof, except when the court is subsequent legal custody of the seized articles. inquire from the other party or verify from the
satisfied that the rights of the adverse party or Otherwise, upon prima facie proof that the records the proof of service of notice rather
parties are not affected. movant for the quashal of the warrant was the than proceed with the hearing. This is but an
owner of the seized lumber and that he lawfully elementary notion of fair play. He should not
Same; Same; Same; Court will not act on the acquired them, he is entitled to the quashal of rely on a partys undertaking to notify the
motion if there is no proper notice and/or proof the search warrant and the restoration to him adverse party of a scheduled hearing. The judge
of service of the notice on the adverse party. of the seized articles. It is clear therefore that must demand what the rule requires, i.e., proof
In Manakil v. Revilla we held that the court will the exception in Sec. 6, Rule 15, of the Rules of
17
of such notice on the adverse party, otherwise, be directed to the parties concerned and stating the purpose of determining the existence of a
a contentious motion, as the motion to quash in the time and place for the hearing of the strong evidence against the accused. On the
the case before respondent Judge, should be motion, is a worthless piece of paper which the face of his orders dated 16 June 1995 and 17
considered a mere scrap of paper which should clerk of court has no right to receive and the July 1995 which granted bail to the accused,
not have even been received for filing. court has no authority to act upon. respondent Judge did not make any finding that
the evidence against the accused was not
Same; Same; Bail; Judges; In granting the Same; Same; Same; Same; In granting bail to strong as to warrant the grant of bail. Hence,
motion for application of bail which did not the four (4) accused who were at large, the orders should not be sustained or given any
contain a notice of hearing directed to the respondent Judge violated the rule that bail is semblance of validity.
parties and where the accused had never been unavailing to the accused who has not
placed under the cus- voluntarily surrendered or to one who has yet Same; Same; Same; Same; The unseemly haste
to be placed under legal custody.The records with which respondent Judge granted the
tody of the court, respondent Judge show that respondent Judge had not been as motions filed by the accused (a) to quash search
demonstrated his lack of knowledge and zealous as he should have been in observing the warrant ex parte in A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 and
understanding of the basic principles of law and standard and fundamental procedure (b) for bail in A.M. No. RTJ-981411 is indicative
procedures.The actuations of respondent mandated by the Rules of Court in criminal of his patent injustice, partiality, nay, his gross
Judge in Crim. Case No. 1441-M-94 showed his cases. In granting bail to the four (4) accused ignorance of the law bordering on
utter disregard of the rules and settled who were at large, respondent Judge violated incompetence.The unseemly haste with
jurisprudence thus constituting gross ignorance the rule that bail is unavailing to the accused which respondent Judge granted the motions
of the law. In granting the motion for who has not voluntarily surrendered or to one filed by the accused (a) to quash search warrant
application of bail which did not contain a ex parte in A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 and (b) for bail
who has yet to be placed under legal custody.
notice of hearing directed to the parties and in A.M. No. RTJ-981411 is indicative of his
where the accused had never been placed Same; Same; Same; Same; It is still mandatory
patent injustice, partiality, nay, his gross
under the custody of the court, respondent for the court to conduct a hearing and ask ignorance of the law bordering on
Judge again demonstrated his lack of searching and clarificatory questions for the incompetence. It should be mentioned that
knowledge and understanding of the basic purpose of determining the existence of a respondent Judge was previously charged with
principles of law and procedures. A perusal of strong evidence against the accused.The eight (8) other administrative cases ranging
the Motion to Voluntarily Surrender the refusal of the prosecution to adduce evidence from gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of
Accused with Motion to Bail shows that the that the guilt of the accused was strong or its authority and discretion, incompetence,
notice of hearing was directed solely to the failure to interpose an objection to the motion dishonesty, dereliction of duty, misconduct,
clerk of court and did not contain a place and for bail was not a justifiable reason for conduct unbecoming of a judge, oppression and
time of hearing. A motion that does not meet respondent Judge to grant bail. It is still direct bribery. Although seven (7) of the eight
the requirements of Secs. 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing (8) cases were dismissed without hearing for
the Rules of Court, particularly that the notice and ask searching and clarificatory questions for
18
various reasons, in Santos v. Ofilada, the Court The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Nueva Vizcaya, dated 22 January 1996, re
through Senior Associate Justice Florenz D. conveyance of the narra lumber (Annex 4);1
Regalado found the same respondent Judge to PER CURIAM: (b) Certificate of Lumber Origin issued by
have whimsically and arbitrarily granted bail in JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA of the Regional Trial CENRO, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, in favor of
Crim. Case No. 1433-M-94 for murder and in Court, Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan, was Remitans Enterprises, 12 Agueda St., Project 8,
Crim. Case No. 1434-M-94 for illegal possession charged with various administrative offenses Q.C., for 11,754 bd.ft. =
of firearm without notice to the prosecution in contained in two (2) separate complaints, in
both cases, for which he was fined P20,000.00 The motion to quash was set for hearing on 31
addition to several others previously filed May 1996 at 8:30 in the morning. However, on
and sternly warned that a repetition of the against him, as will be discussed hereunder.
same or similar acts in the future would 21 May 1996 Jay, through his counsel, Atty.
A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 Romeo Y. De Jesus, moved to have the hearing
definitely warrant a more severe sanction.
advanced to 28 May 1996 on the ground that,
Courts; Judges; Code of Judicial Conduct; The On 16 May 1996 respondent Judge issued according to him, he was informed that the
Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins a judge to Search Warrant No. 20-M-96 against a certain calendar of the Court is not available;
perform his official duties competently, Thomas Jay of Lalakhan, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, for consequently, he requested for 28 May 1996 at
honestly, with diligence and impartiality.Be illegal possession of 3,000 board feet of narra 8:30 in the morning, undertaking at the same
that as it may, this Court finds that respondent lumber valued more or less at P360,000.00 in time to notify the parties concerned. But
Judge has failed to conduct himself in a manner violation of Sec. 68, PD 705, as amended by EO counsel for the respondent, despite his
that will justify his continued stay in the 277, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry undertaking, failed to notify complainant Cesar
judiciary. The Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins a Code of the Philippines. The warrant was served B. Meris, Regional Director, EIIB, who as a result
judge to perform his official duties competently, immediately the following day. On 20 May 1996 failed to appear on 28 May 1996.
honestly, with diligence and impartiality. EIIB Operation Officer Baltazar B. Dulalia filed a
Return, Compliance and Inventory (re search On 27 May 1996 Atty. Salome T. Cansino,
Regretfully, respondent Judge is found
miserably short of the standards set for warrant). Special Counsel of the Department of Justice,
appropriate judicial conduct, which leaves the filed an opposition to the motion to quash the
On 21 May 1996 Thomas Jay filed a Motion to search warrant contending that (a) the pieces of
Court no choice but to cut short his
Quash Search Warrant No. 20-M-96 on the narra lumber seized were not covered by any
membership in and terminate his official
ground that the facts charged did not constitute legal documents required by the Revised
relations with the judiciary.
an offense and that the warrant contained Forestry Code of the Philippines; (b) the
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS in the Supreme averments which if true would make up legal documents submitted by Jay did not cover the
Court. Grave Abuse of Authority, Evident excuses or justifications. Appended to the lumber seized; and, (c) a criminal complaint had
Partiality, Gross Incompetent and Ignorance of motion were photocopies of the following already been filed against Jay by the DENR for
the Law. documents: (a) Certificate of Transport Illegal Possession of Forest
Agreement issued by CENRO, Bayombong,
19
Products in violation of Sec. 68, PD 705, as of Seized/Confiscated Narra Lumber with a Motion to Quash filed by respondent thru
amended by EO 277. commercial value of P150,000.00 by virtue of counsel marked as ANNEX C, Court Order
Search Warrant No. 20-M-96 for violation of Quashing Search Warrant No. 20-M-96 dated
On 28 May 1996, despite the opposition of the Section 68, PD 705 as amended by Executive May 28, 1996 marked as ANNEX D, Motion for
special counsel of the Department of Justice, Order No. 277 without hearing of the case on Reconsideration marked as ANNEX E.
respondent Judge granted the motion to quash the merits. May I request your Honor to look into the
and ordered the immediate release of the narra matter with the aim in view to enhance the
lumber seized from Thomas Jay. The Records show that respondent/owner of seized good image of the Judiciary. Likewise, to
explanation of respondent was that the pieces narra lumber thru Counsel filed a Motion to encourage the public to report erring Judges to
of lumber seized were owned by a legitimate Quash Search Warrant before the Court and set
the Supreme Court and not to the media x x x x
enterprise and covered by proper documents, the case for hearing on May 31, 1996 at 8:30 in
emphasizing that he took into consideration not the morning. Very respectfully yours,
only the opposition of the Department of
Justice but also the deteriorating condition of It is sad to note, however, Honorable Judge ATTY. CESAR B. MERIS
the pieces of lumber which were already long Carlos Ofilada quashed the Search Warrant on
May 28, 1996 motu proprio and ordered the Regional Director, Counsel for EIIB3
exposed to the elements.
release of seized narra lumber to the Cabanatuan City
On 5 June 1996 complainant, in his capacity as respondent herein, which is two (2) days prior
Regional Director for Region III of EIIB, wrote a to the scheduled hearing, May 31, 1996. On 3 July 1996 Regional Director Cesar B. Meris,
letter to Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa which who was also acting as counsel for EIIB, filed an
is textually quoted hereunder Answer (actually an opposition to the motion to
That Economic Intelligence and Investigation quash search warrant). On 10 July 1996 he filed
THE HONORABLE ANDRES R. NARVASA Bureau (EIIB) Region III represented by the his motion for reconsideration (of the order
Regional Director ATTY. CESAR B. MERIS as quashing the search warrant) where he claimed
Chief Justice Counsel attended the scheduled hearing of the that he attended the hearing on the motion to
Supreme Court Motion to quash previously scheduled on 31 May 1996
Quash on May 31, 1996 but sad to note Judge only to be informed that respondent Judge had
Sir: already quashed the search warrant on 28 May
Ofilada already quashed the Search Warrant
I wish to report to HIS HONOR about the No. 20-M-96 on May 28, 1996 without affording 1996 even without the presence of either the
actuation of Honorable Judge Carlos Ofilada, a day in Court on the part of the Government. complainant EIIB Regional Director or the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Malolos, Attached hereto are xerox copies of Search Special Counsel representing the Government.
Bulacan which is prejudicial to the interest of Warrant No. 20-M-96, application for Search His motion for reconsideration and that of
the government by issuing an Order of Release Warrant, marked as ANNEXES A and B, Special Counsel Salome T. Cansino, who
protested the hearing of the motion without
20
proper service and notice, were denied by the rights of the adverse party or parties are not articles.12 It is clear therefore that the
respondent Judge. affected.9 exception in Sec. 6, Rule 15, of the Rules of
Court cannot apply in a motion to quash search
Complainant claims that by ordering the release warrant. For without the proper notice of
of the confiscated narra lumber without hearing hearing and proof of service thereof, the rights
the case on the merits and without affording In Manakil v. Revilla10 we held that the court
will not act on the motion if there is no proper of either party will be adversely affected.
the prosecution a day in court, respondent Moreover, the ground invoked by movant was
Judge committed grave abuse of authority notice and/or proof of service of the notice on
the adverse party. It is nothing but a useless that the warrant charged no offense. The
prejudicial to the interest of the Government. fundamental test in considering a motion to
Section 5, Rule 15, of the Rules of Court piece of paper filed with the court. It is not a
motion. It presents no question which the court quash on this ground is whether the facts
states alleged, if hypothetically admitted, will establish
could decide. The court has no reason to
Sec. 5. Contents of notice.The notice shall be consider it and the clerk has no right toreceive the essential elements of the offense as defined
directed to the parties concerned, and shall it without that compliance with the rules. Harsh by the law.13
state the time and place for the hearing of the as they may seem, these rules were introduced A cursory examination of the search warrant
motion.7 to avoid a capricious change of mind in order to will disclose that the essential elements of the
provide due process to both parties and ensure offense charged are sufficiently alleged. It is not
A perusal of the request for advanced resetting impartiality in the trial.
of the motion to quash search warrant would right, therefore, to resolve the charges at the
show that although it stated the time and date Due process demands proper obedience to very outset without any notice of hearing, or to
of hearing, it failed to comply with Sec. 5 of procedural rules, especially when the subject hear the motion ex parte. The issues require a
Rule 15 as the notice was addressed only to the matter of the motion to quash is a search fuller examination especially since a criminal
clerk of court and not to the parties concerned warrant. Since searches are in derogation of the complaint had already been filed in court. The
as required.8 Neither was there proof of service inviolable right of the people to be secure in prosecution, too, must be given its day in
of the motion on the adverse party despite the their persons, houses, papers and effects,11 it courtthe burden of proof thereof being
undertaking of counsel for movant to notify the necessarily follows that the applicant should placed squarely on its shoulders. A prudent
public prosecutor of the request as required by rely on the strength of his evidence to support judge would, in the absence of the opposing
Sec. 6 of Rule 15 the application or the subsequent legal custody party in the hearing of a motion as pivotal as a
of the seized articles. Otherwise, upon prima motion to quash, inquire from the other party
Sec. 6. Proof of service, to be filed with or verify from the records the proof of service
facie proof that the movant for the quashal of
motion.No motion shall be acted upon by the the warrant was the owner of the seized lumber of notice rather than proceed with the hearing.
court, without proof of service of the notice and that he lawfully acquired them, he is This is but an elementary notion of fair play. He
thereof, except when the court is satisfied that entitled to the quashal of the search warrant should not rely on a partys undertaking to
and the restoration to him of the seized notify the adverse party of a scheduled hearing.

21
The judge must demand what the rule requires, with Motion to Bail praying that the accused within which to file the intended demurrer and
i.e., proof of such notice on the adverse party, be allowed to post bail in the amount of the prosecution the same period to comment
otherwise, a contentious motion, as the motion P10,000.00 each in cash. At the bottom of page thereon.
to quash in the case before respondent Judge, 2 of the motion, the public prosecutor
should be considered a mere scrap of paper manifested in writing that he was submitting In an order dated 30 January 1997 respondent
which should not have even been received for the matter to the sound discretion of the court Judge admitted the demurrer filed by the
filing. provided that the bail be increased to P15,000 accused and submitted the same for resolution
there being no comment from the public
in cash for each accused.
Respondents culpability is further compounded prosecutor.
by his misrepresentation in the order he issued On 16 June 1995 respondent Judge granted the
on 14 August 1996 (denying the motion of the otion and allowed the four (4) accused to post On 20 February 1997 respondent Judge granted
public prosecutor for reconsideration) that he bail in the amount of P10,000.00 each. After the the demurrer to evidence and acquitted all four
was on extended leave of absence from 29 May accused had posted bail, respondent Judge (4) accused for failure of the prosecution to
1996 to 22 July 1996 when the records show lifted the warrant of arrest and set the establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
that he actually applied for leave only from 29 arraignment on 16 August 1995. Consequently, on 19 March 1997 respondent
May 1996 to 3 July 1996 (not up to 22 July At the hearing of 17 July 1995, which does not Judge ordered the release of the cash bond
appear on record to have been previously posted by the accused for their provisional
1996).
scheduled, respondent Judge issued an order liberty.
A.M. No. RTJ-981411 citing as grounds for the grant of bail (a) Francisco R. Hernandez, uncle of the deceased
On 18 April 1994 an Information for murder was voluntary surrender of the accused; (b) no victim, filed a complaint-affidavit before this
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan evidence was presented by the public Court charging respondent Judge with
against four (4) accused, namely, Rolando prosecutor that the evidence of guilt was knowingly rendering unjust orders and for
Garcia, Lopito Gumasing, Eric Gumasing and strong; (c) the public prosecutor did not object improperly granting bail, manifest bias and
Eduardo Gumasing. The Information stated that to the granting of bail; and, (d) the complainant, partiality in favor of the accused in the conduct
all the accused were at large. No bail was wife of the victim, had submitted an affidavit of of the proceedings. After respondent Judge
recommended. On 22 April 1994 warrants of desistance. The four (4) accused were later filed his comment to the complaint, we referred
arrest were issued against the four (4) accused. arraigned, and the affidavit of desistance the case to Associate Justice Fermin A. Martin,
executed by the complainant was marked Jr. of the Court of Appeals for investigation,
On 7 June 1995, or more than one (1) year that during the pre-trial. report and recommendation.
the accused remained at large, Atty. Eufrocio
Marquez appeared before the trial court as After the prosecution rested, the defense In his Report dated 1 June 1998 Justice Martin
counsel for the accused and submitted a manifested its intention to file demurrer to found respondent Judge guilty of gross
Motion to Voluntarily Surrender the Accused evidence. In an order dated 20 January 1997, incompetence and recommended that he be
respondent Judge gave the accused five (5) days
22
meted the penalty of suspension for six (6) accused who were at large, respondent Judge previously charged with eight (8) other
months with stern warning that commission of violated the rule that bail is administrative cases ranging from gross
a similar offense in the future would be dealt ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority
with more severely. unavailing to the accused who has not and discretion, incompetence, dishonesty,
voluntarily surrendered or to one who has yet dereliction of duty, misconduct, conduct
The actuations of respondent Judge in Crim. to be placed under legal custody.15 unbecoming of a judge, op-pression and direct
Case No. 1441-M-94 showed his utter disregard bribery. Although seven (7) of the eight (8)
of the rules and settled jurisprudence thus The refusal of the prosecution to adduce
evidence that the guilt of the accused was cases were dismissed without hearing for
constituting gross ignorance of the law. In various reasons, in Santos v. Ofilada,21 the
granting the motion for application of bail strong or its failure to interpose an objection to
the motion for bail was not a justifiable reason Court through Senior Associate Justice Florenz
which did not contain a notice of hearing D. Regalado found the same respondent Judge
directed to the parties and where the accused for respondent Judge to grant bail. It is still
mandatory for the court to conduct a hearing to have whimsically and arbitrarily granted bail
had never been placed under the custody of the in Crim. Case No. 1433-M-94 for murder and in
court, respondent Judge again demonstrated and ask searching and clarificatory questions16
for the purpose of determining the existence of Crim. Case No. 1434-M-94 for illegal possession
his lack of knowledge and understanding of the of firearm without notice to the prosecution in
basic principles of law and procedures. A a strong evidence against the accused.17 On
the face of his orders dated 16 June 199518 and both cases, for which he was fined P20,000.00
perusal of the Motion to Voluntarily Surrender and sternly warned that a repetition of the
the Accused with Motion to Bail shows that 17 July 199519 which granted bail to the
accused, respondent Judge did not make any same or similar acts in the future would
the notice of hearing was directed solely to the definitely warrant a more severe sanction.
clerk of court and did not contain a place and finding that the evidence against the accused
was not strong as to warrant the grant of bail. Those administrative cases are also enumerated
time of hearing. A motion that does not meet
Hence, the orders should not be sustained or in the Report and Recommendation of the
the requirements of Secs. 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of Office of the Court Administrator dated 15 July
the Rules of Court, particularly that the notice given any semblance of validity.20
1996 thus
be directed to the parties concerned and stating Conclusion
the time and place for the hearing of the It is also worthy to inform the Honorable Court
motion, is a worthless piece of paper which the The unseemly haste with which respondent that there are at least eight (8) administrative
clerk of court has no right to receive and the Judge granted the motions filed by the accused complaints filed against herein respondent
court has no authority to act upon.14 (a) to quash search warrant ex parte in A.M. No. Judge charging him with gross ignorance of the
RTJ-97-1390 and (b) for bail in A.M. No. RTJ- law, grave abuse of authority and discretion,
The records show that respondent Judge had 981411 is indicative of his patent injustice, incompetence, dishonesty, dereliction of duty,
not been as zealous as he should have been in partiality, nay, his gross ignorance of the law misconduct, conduct unbecoming (of a Judge),
observing the standard and fundamental bordering on incompetence. It should be oppression and direct bribery (RTJ-90-588, RTJ-
procedure mandated by the Rules of Court in mentioned that respondent Judge was 91-639, RTJ-92-882, RTJ-93-1040, RTJ-94-1219,
criminal cases. In granting bail to the four (4)
23
RTJ-94-1250, RTJ-94-1267 and RTJ-94-1281). enjoins a judge to perform his official duties Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corp. vs. Court
However, these complaints were subsequently competently, honestly, with diligence and of Appeals
dismissed by this Court. But in RTJ-94-1217, impartiality. Regretfully, respondent Judge is
respondent Judge was charged with found miserably short of the standards set for SO ORDERED.
incompetence, gross ignorance of the law, appropriate judicial conduct, which leaves the Narvasa (C.J.), Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,
oppression and grave misconduct relative to Court no choice but to cut short his Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
criminal cases filed before this Court wherein he membership in and terminate his official Mendoza, Panganiban, Martinez, Quisumbing
granted bail to the accused without hearing. In relations with the judiciary. and Purisima, JJ., concur.
the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated June
16, 1995, the Court imposed on Judge Carlos C. ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Judge Carlos C. Ofilada dismissed from the
Ofilada a FINE of P20,000.00 with a STERN JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA of the Regional Trial service.
WARNING that a repetition of the same or Court, Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan, GUILTY in
A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 for grave abuse of Notes.It is gross misconduct even outright
similar acts in the future shall be dealt with
authority and evident partiality, and in A.M. No. disrespect for the Supreme Court for a
more seriously.
RTJ-98-1411, for gross incompetence, ignorance respondent judge to exhibit indifference to the
It may also be worth to mention that on 17 of the law and evident partiality, all prejudicial resolution requiring him to comment on the
March 1998 another sworn administrative to the interest of the Government and the accusations in the complaints thoroughly and
complaint was filed before this Court against judicial service. These being his second and substantially, while not realizing the importance
respondent Judge for gross ignorance of the law third offenses, respondent is ordered and indispensability of a bail hearing is, to be
and conduct unbecoming of a member of the DISMISSED immediately from the service with sure, gross ignorance of the law. (Tabao vs.
bench.22 Thereafter, in an indorsement dated forfeiture of all his retirement benefits and Espina, 257 SCRA 298 [1996])
14 April 1998 by Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon leave credits with prejudice to his
When the inefficiency springs from a failure to
Jesus P. Guerrero, another complaint which was reemployment in any public office including any
consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law or
filed with the Ombudsman against respondent government owned or controlled corporation.
a principle in the discharge of his duties, a judge
Judge for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA is directed to is either too incompetent and undeserving of
Practices Act and Art. 315 of the Revised Penal
immediately cease and desist from performing the position and title he holds or he is too
Code was referred to this Court for appropriate
the functions of the Office of Regional Trial vicious that the oversight or omission was
action.23 Respondent has yet to submit his
Court Judge of Malolos, Bulacan, and to turn deliberately done in bad faith and in grave
comments on both charges against him.
over all records and property responsibilities to abuse of judicial authority.
Be that as it may, this Court finds that the Clerk of Court of that court who shall issue
respondent Judge has failed to conduct himself the corresponding receipt therefor.
in a manner that will justify his continued stay
in the judiciary. The Code of Judicial Conduct
24
 which may warrant the imposition of in the records or made known to the parties
disciplinary sanctions against them as a result of affected.
G.R. No. 110379. November 28, 1997.* administrative proceedings. As already
observed, the resolution of this case revolves Same; Same; Republic Act 4670 known as the
HON. ARMAND FABELLA, in his capacity as Magna Carta for Public School Teachers
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF around the question of due process of law, not
on the right of government workers to strike. specifically covers administrative proceedings
EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS; DR. NILO
The issue is not whether private respondents involving public school teachers.The
ROSAS, in his capacity as REGIONAL DIRECTOR, legislature enacted a special law, RA 4670
DECS-NCR; DR. BIENVENIDO ICASIANO, in his may be punished for engaging in a prohibited
action but whether, in the course of the known as the Magna Carta for Public School
capacity as the SUPERINTENDENT OF THE Teachers, which specifically covers
QUEZON CITY SCHOOLS DIVISION; ALMA BELLA investigation of the alleged proscribed activity,
their right to due process has been violated. In administrative proceedings involving public
O. BAUTISTA, AURORA C. VALENZUELA and schoolteachers. Section 9 of said law expressly
TERESITA V. DIMAGMALIW, petitioners, vs. short, before they can be investigated and
meted out any penalty, due process must first provides that the committee to hear public
THE COURT OF APPEALS, ROSARITO A. schoolteachers administrative cases should be
SEPTIMO, ERLINDA B. DE LEON, CLARISSA T. be observed.
composed of the school superintendent of the
DIMAANO, WILFREDO N. BACANI, MARINA R. Same; Same; What due process in division as chairman, a representative of the
VIVAR, VICTORIA S. UBALDO, JENNIE L. administrative proceedings include.In local or any existing provincial or national
DOGWE, NORMA L. RONGCALES, EDITA C. administrative proceedings, due process has teachers organization and a supervisor of the
SEPTIMO, TERESITA E. EVANGELISTA, been recognized to include the following: (1) division.
CATALINA R. FRAGANTE, REBECCA D. BAGDOG, the right to actual or constructive notice of the
MARILYNNA C. KU, MARISSA M. SAMSON, institution of proceedings which may affect a Same; Same; In any proceeding, the essence of
HENEDINA B. CARILLO, NICASIO C. BRAVO, respondents legal rights; (2) a real opportunity procedural due process is embodied in the basic
RUTH F. LACANILAO, MIRASOL C. BALIGOD, requirement of notice and a real opportunity to
to be heard personally or with the assistance of
FELISA S. VILLACRUEL, MA. VIOLETA ELIZABETH counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in be heard.In the present case, the various
Y. HERNANDEZ, ANTONIO C. OCAMPO, ones favor, and to defend ones rights; (3) a committees formed by DECS to hear the
ADRIANO S. VALENCIA and ELEUTERIO S. tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and administrative charges against private
VARGAS, respondents. so constituted as to afford a person charged respondents did not include a representative
administratively a reasonable guarantee of of the local or, in its absence, any existing
Constitutional Law; Due Process; The resolution provincial or national teachers organization as
of this case revolves around the question of due honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding
by said tribunal which is supported by required by Section 9 of RA 4670. Accordingly,
process of law, not on the right of government these committees were deemed to have no
workers to strike.In the present case, substantial evidence submitted for
consideration during the hearing or contained competent jurisdiction. Thus, all proceedings
however, the issue is not whether the private undertaken by them were necessarily void.
respondents engaged in any prohibited activity They could not provide any basis for the
25
suspension or dismissal of private respondents. Same; Same; Court will never countenance a private respondents. Moreover, the suspension
The inclusion of a representative of a teachers denial of the fundamental right to due process or dismissal meted on them is baseless. Private
organization in these committees was which is a cornerstone of our legal system. respondents should, as a consequence, be
indispensable to ensure an impartial tribunal. It Contrary to petitioners asseverations, RA 4670 reinstated and awarded all
was this requirement that would have given is applicable to this case. It has not been
substance and meaning to the right to be heard. expressly repealed by the general law PD 807, monetary benefits that may have accrued to
Indeed, in any proceeding, the essence of which was enacted later, nor has it been shown them during the period of their unjustified
procedural due process is embodied in the basic to be inconsistent with the latter. It is a suspension or dismissal. This Court will never
requirement of notice and a real opportunity to fundamental rule of statutory construction that countenance a denial of the fundamental right
repeals by implication are not favored. An to due process, which is a cornerstone of our
be heard.
implied repeal will not be allowed unless it is legal system.
Same; Same; There is no dispute that none of convincingly and unambiguously demonstrated
the teachers appointed by the DECS as PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision
that the two laws are so clearly repugnant and of the Court of Appeals.
members of its investigating committee was patently inconsistent that they cannot co-exist.
ever designated or authorized by a teachers This is based on the rationale that the will of the The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
organization as its representative in the legislature cannot be overturned by the judicial
committee.Mere membership of said The Solicitor General for petitioners.
function of construction and interpretation.
teachers in their respective teachers Courts cannot take the place of Congress in Froilan M. Bacungan and Narciso Albarracin
organizations does not ipso facto make them repealing statutes. Their function is to try to for private respondents.
authorized representatives of such harmonize, as much as possible, seeming
organizations as contemplated by Section 9 of PANGANIBAN, J.:
conflicts in the laws and resolve doubts in favor
RA 4670. Under this section, the teachers of their validity and co-existence. Thus, a
organization possesses the right to indicate its Due process of law requires notice and hearing.
subsequent general law does not repeal a prior
choice of representative to be included by the Hearing, on the other hand, presupposes a
special law, unless the intent to repeal or alter
DECS in the investigating committee. Such right competent and impartial tribunal. The right to
is manifest, although the terms of the general
to designate cannot be usurped by the be heard and, ultimately, the right to due
law are broad enough to include the cases
secretary of education or the director of public process of laws lose meaning in the absence of
embraced in the special law.
schools or their underlings. In the instant case, an independent, competent and impartial
there is no dispute that none of the teachers Statutory Construction; Republic Act 4670 has tribunal.
appointed by the DECS as members of its not been expressly repealed by Presidential
Statement of the Case
investigating committee was ever designated or Decree 807.Because the administrative
authorized by a teachers organization as its proceedings involved in this case are void, no The principium is explained by this Court as it
representative in said committee. delinquency or misconduct may be imputed to resolves this petition for review on certiorari
26
assailing the May 21, 1993 Decision1 of the required petitioner-appellees to explain in counsel walked out. Later, however, counsel,
Court of Appeals2 in CA-G.R. SP No. 29107 writing why they should not be punished for was able to obtain a copy of the guidelines.
which affirmed the trial courts decision,3 as having taken part in the mass action in violation
follows: of civil service laws and regulations, to wit: On April 10, 1991, the teachers filed an
injunctive suit (Civil Case No. 60675) with the
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is 1. grave misconduct; Regional Trial Court in Quezon City, charging
AFFIRMED and the appeal is DISMISSED. the committee appointed by Secretary Cario
2. gross neglect of duty; with fraud and deceit and praying that it be
The Hon. Armand Fabella is hereby ORDERED stopped from further investigating them and
substituted as respondent-appellant in place of 3. gross violation of Civil Service Law and
rules on reasonable office regulations; from rendering any decision in the
former Secretary Isidro Cario and henceforth administrative case. However, the trial court
this fact should be reflected in the title of this 4. refusal to perform official duty; denied them a restraining order.
case.
5. conduct prejudicial to the best interest of They then amended their complaint and made
The Antecedent Facts the service; it one for certiorari and mandamus. They
The facts, as found by Respondent Court, are as alleged that the investigating committee was
6. absence without leave (AWOL)
follows: acting with grave abuse of discretion because
At the same time, Secretary Cario ordered its guidelines for investigation place the burden
On September 17, 1990, then DECS Secretary petitioner-appellee to be placed under of proof on them by requiring them to prove
Cario issued a return-to-work order to all preventive suspension. their innocence instead of requiring Secretary
public school teachers who had participated in Cario and his staff to adduce evidence to
walk-outs and strikes on various dates during The charges were subsequently amended by prove the charges against the teachers.
the period September 26, 1990 to October 18, DECS-NCR Regional Director Nilo Rosas on
1990. The mass action had been staged to November 7, 1990 to include the specific dates On May 30, 1991, petitioner-appellee Adriano S.
demand payment of 13th month differentials, when petitioner-appellees allegedly took part in Valencia of the Ramon Magsaysay High School
clothing allowances and passage of a debt-cap the strike. filed a motion to intervene, alleging that he was
bill in Congress, among other things. in the same situation as petitioners since he had
Administrative hearings started on December likewise been charged and preventively
20, 1990. Petitioner-appellees counsel objected suspended by respondent-appellant Cario for
to the procedure adopted by the committee the same grounds as the other petitioner-
On October 18, 1990, Secretary Cario filed and demanded that he be furnished a copy of appellees and made to shoulder the burden of
administrative cases against herein petitioner- the guidelines adopted by the committee for proving his innocence under the committees
appellees, who are teachers of the the investigation and imposition of penalties. As guidelines. The trial court granted his motion on
Mandaluyong High School. The charge sheets he received no response from the committee, June 3, 1991 and allowed him to intervene.
27
On June 11, 1991, the Solicitor General Accordingly, on March 25, 1992, the trial court attorney. But the Solicitor Generals motion for
answered the petition for certiorari and set the case for hearing, June 8, 1992, it issued reconsideration was denied by the trial court. In
mandamus in behalf of respondent DECS a pre-trial order which reads: its order of July 15, 1992, the court stated:
Secretary. In the main he contended that, in
accordance with the doctrine of primary resort, As prayed for by Solicitor Bernard Hernandez, The Motion For Reconsideration dated July
the trial court should not interfere in the let this case be set for pre-trial conference on 3, 1992 filed by the respondents thru counsel, is
administrative proceedings. June 17, 1992 at 1:30 p.m., so as to expedite hereby DENIED for lack of merit. It appears too
the proceedings hereof. In which case, DECS obvious that respondents simply did not want
The Solicitor General also asked the trial court Secretary Isidro Cario, as the principal to comply with the lawful orders of the Court.
to reconsider its order of June 3, 1991, allowing respondent, is hereby ordered to PERSONALLY
petitioner-appellee Adriano S. Valencia to APPEAR before this Court on said date and The respondents having lost their standing in
intervene in the case. time, with a warning that should he fail to show Court, the Manifestation and Motion, dated
up on said date, the Court will declare him as IN July 3, 1992 filed by the Office of the Solicitor
Meanwhile, the DECS investigating committee DEFAULT. Stated otherwise, for the said Pre- General is hereby DENIED due course.
rendered a decision on August 6, 1991, finding Trial Conference, the Court will not recognize
the petitioner-appellees guilty, as charged and SO ORDERED.
any representative of his.
ordering their immediate dismissal. On July 3, 1992, the Solicitor General informed
By agreement of the parties, the trial the trial court that Cario had ceased to be
On August 15, 1991, the trial court dismissed conference was reset on June 26, 1992.
the petition for certiorari and mandamus for DECS Secretary and asked for his substitution.
However, Secretary Cario failed to appear in But the court failed to act on his motion.
lack of merit. Petitioner-appellees moved for a court on the date set. It was explained that he
reconsideration, but their motion was denied The hearing of the case was thereafter
had to attend a conference in Maragondon,
on September 11, 1991. Cavite. Instead, he was represented by Atty. conducted ex parte with only the teachers
The teachers then filed a petition for certiorari Reno Capinpin, while the other respondents allowed to present their evidence.
with the Supreme Court which, on February 18, were represented by Atty. Jocelyn Pili. But the
On August 10, 1992, the trial court rendered a
1992, issued a resolution en bacn declaring void court just the same declared them as in default.
decision, in which it stated:
the trial courts order of dismissal and The Solicitor General moved for a
reinstating petitioner-appellees action, even as reconsideration, reiterating that Cario could The Court is in full accord with petitioners
it ordered the latters reinstatement pending not personally come on June 26, 1992 because contention that Rep. Act No. 4670 otherwise
decision of their case. of prior commitment in Cavite. It was pointed known as the Magna Carta for Public School
out that Cario was represented by Atty. Reno Teachers is the primary law that governs the
Capinpin, while the other respondents were conduct of investigation in administrative cases
represented by Atty. Jocelyn Pili, both of the filed against public school teachers, with Pres.
DECS-NCR and that both had special powers of
28
Decree No. 807 as its supplemental law. respondents have a cause of action against the benefits and emoluments which may have
Respondents erred in believing and contending petitioner, the same is not sufficient reason to accrued to them during the entire period of
that Rep. Act. No. 4670 has already been detract from the necessity of basic fair play. The their preventive suspension and/or dismissal
superseded by the applicable provisions of Pres. manner of dismissal of the teachers is tainted from the service is hereby likewise ORDERED.
Decree No. 807 and Exec. Order No. 292. Under with illegality. It is a dismissal without due
the Rules of Statutory Construction, a special process. While there was a semblance of SO ORDERED.5
law, Rep. Act. No. 4670 in the case at bar, is not investigation conducted by the respondents From this adverse decision of the trial court,
regarded as having been replaced by a general their intention to dismiss petitioners was former DECS Secretary Isidro Cario filed an
law, Pres. Decree No. 807, unless the intent to already manifest when it adopted a procedure appeal with the Court of Appeals raising the
repeal or alter the same is manifest. A perusal provided for by law, by shifting the burden of following grounds:
of Pres. Decree No. 807 reveals no such proof to the petitioners, knowing fully well that
intention exists, hence, Rep. Act No. 4670 the teachers would boycott the proceedings I. The trial court seriously erred in declaring
stands. In the event that there is conflict thereby giving them cause to render judgment appellants as in default.
between a special and a general law, the former ex-parte.
II. The trial court seriously erred in not
shall prevail since it evidences the legislators
The DISMISSAL therefore of the teachers is not ordering the proper substitution of parties.
intent more clearly than that of the general
statute and must be taken as an exception to justified, it being arbitrary and violative of the
III. The trial court seriously erred in holding
the General Act. The provision of Rep. Act No. teachers right to due process. Due process
that R.A. No. 4670, otherwise known as Magna
4670 therefore prevails over Pres. Decree No. must be observed in dismissing the teachers
Carta for Public School Teachers, should govern
807 in the composition and selection of the because it affects not only their position but
the conduct of the investigations conducted.
members of the investigating committee. also their means of livelihood.
Consequently, the committee tasked to IV. The trial court seriously erred in ruling
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present
investigate the charges filed against petitioners that the dismissal of the teachers are without
petition is hereby GRANTED and all the
was illegally constituted, their composition and due process.6
questioned orders/decisions of the respondents
appointment being violative of Sec. 9 of Rep. are hereby declared NULL and VOID and are As mentioned earlier, the Court of Appeals
Act. No. 4670 hence all acts done by said body hereby SET ASIDE. affirmed the RTC decision, holding in the main
possess no legal color whatsoever.
that private respondents
The reinstatement of all the petitioners to their
Anent petitioners claim that their dismissal was former positions without loss of seniority and were denied due process in the administrative
effected without any formal investigation, the promotional rights is hereby ORDERED. proceedings instituted against them.
Court, after consideration of the circumstances
surrounding the case, finds such claim The payment, if any, of all the petitioners back
meritorious. Although it cannot be gainsaid that salaries, allowances, bonuses, and other

29
Hence, this petition for review.7 Denial of Due Process Moreover, the petitioners here, except
Merlinda Jacinto, were not penalized for the
The Issues At the outset, we must stress that we are exercise of their right to assemble peacefully
tasked only to determine whether or not due and to petition the government for a redress of
Before us, petitioners raise the following issues: process of law was observed in the grievances. Rather, the Civil Service Commission
I administrative proceedings against herein found them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the
private respondents. We note the Solicitor best interest of the service for having absented
Whether or not Respondent Court of Appeals Generals extensive disquisition that themselves without proper authority, from their
committed grave abuse of discretion in holding government employees do not have the right to schools during regular school days, in order to
in effect that private respondents were denied strike.9 On this point, the Court, in the case of participate in the mass protest, their absence
due process of law. Bangalisan vs. Court of Appeals,10 has recently ineluctably resulting in the non-holding of
pronounced, through Mr. Justice Florenz D. classes and in the deprivation of students of
II
Regalado: education, for which they were responsible.
Whether or not Respondent Court of Appeals Had petitioners availed themselves of their free
It is the settled rule in this jurisdiction that
seriously erred and committed grave abuse of timerecess, after classes, weekends or
employees in the public service may not engage
discretion in applying strictly the provision of holidaysto dramatize their grievances and to
in strikes. While the Constitution recognizes the
R.A. No. 4670 in the composition of the
right of government employees to organize, dialogue with the proper authorities within the
investigating committee.
they are prohibited from staging strikes, bounds of law, no onenot the DECS, the CSC
III demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and or even this Courtcould have held them liable
other forms of mass action which will result in for the valid exercise of their constitutionally
Whether or not Respondent Court of Appeals temporary stoppage or disruption of public guaranteed rights. As it was, the temporary
committed grave abuse of discretion in services. The right of government employees to
stoppage of classes resulting from their activity
dismissing the appeal and in affirming the trial organize is limited only to the formation of necessarily disrupted public services, the very
courts decision.8 unions or associations, without including the evil sought to be forestalled by the prohibition
right to strike. against strikes by government workers. Their
These issues, all closely related, boil down to a
single question: whether private respondents More recently, in Jacinto vs. Court of act by its nature was enjoined by the Civil
were denied due process of law. Appeals,11 the Court explained the Service law, rules and regulations, for which
schoolteachers right to peaceful assembly vis- they must, therefore, be made answerable.12
The Courts Ruling
a-vis their right to mass protest: In the present case, however, the issue is not
The petition is bereft of merit. We agree with whether the private respondents engaged in
the Court of Appeals that private respondents any prohibited activity which may warrant the
were denied due process of law. imposition of disciplinary sanctions against
30
them as a result of administrative proceedings. administrative proceedings involving public Sec. 9. Administrative Charges.Administrative
As already observed, the resolution of this case schoolteachers. Section 9 of said law expressly charges against a teacher shall be heard initially
revolves around the question of due process of provides that the committee to hear public by a committee composed of the corresponding
law, not on the right of government workers to schoolteachers administrative cases should be School Superintendent of the Division or a duly
strike. The issue is not whether private composed of the school superintendent of the authorized representative who would at lesst
respondents may be punished for engaging in a division as chairman, a representative of the have the rank of a division supervisor, where
prohibited action but whether, in the course of local or any existing provincial or national the teacher belongs, as chairman, a
the investigation of the alleged proscribed teachers organization and a supervisor of the representative of the local or, in its absence,
activity, their right to due process has been division. The pertinent provisions of RA 4670 any existing provincial or national teachers
violated. In short, before they can be read: organization and a supervisor of the Division,
investigated and meted out any penalty, due the last two to be designated by the Director of
Sec. 8. Safeguards in Disciplinary Procedure. Public Schools. The committee shall submit its
process must first be observed.
Every teacher shall enjoy equitable safeguards findings, and recommendations to the Director
In administrative proceedings, due process has at each stage of any disciplinary procedure and of Public Schools within thirty days from the
been recognized to include the following: (1) shall have: termination of the hearings: Provided, however,
the right to actual or constructive notice of the That where the school superintendent is the
institution of proceedings which may affect a a. the right to be informed, in writing, of the
charges; complainant or an interested party, all the
respondents legal rights; (2) a real opportunity members of the committee shall be appointed
to be heard personally or with the assistance of b. the right to full access to the evidence in by the Secretary of Education.
counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in the case;
ones favor, and to defend ones rights; (3) a The foregoing provisions implement the
tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and c. the right to defend himself and to be Declaration of Policy of the statute; that is, to
so constituted as to afford a person charged defended by a representative of his choice promote the terms of employment and career
administratively a reasonable guarantee of and/or by his organization, adequate time being prospects of schoolteachers.
honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding given to the teacher for the preparation of his
by said tribunal which is supported by defense; and In the present case, the various committees
substantial evidence submitted for formed by DECS to hear the administrative
d. the right to appeal to clearly designated charges against private respondents did not
consideration during the hearing or contained
authorities. No publicity shall be given to any include a representative of the local or, in its
in the records or made known to the parties
disciplinary action being taken against a teacher absence, any existing provincial or national
affected.13
during the pendency of his case. teachers organization as required by Section 9
The legislature enacted a special law, RA 4670 of RA 4670. Accordingly, these committees
known as the Magna Carta for Public School were deemed to have no competent
Teachers, which specifically covers jurisdiction. Thus, all proceedings undertaken
31
by them were necessarily void. They could not there is no dispute that none of the teachers procedural requirements in connection with
provide any basis for the suspension or appointed by the DECS as members of its administrative proceedings involving public
dismissal of private respondents. The inclusion investigating committee was ever designated or schoolteachers. Clearly, private respondents
of a representative of a teachers organization authorized by a teachers organization as its right to due process of law requires compliance
in these committees was indispensable to representative in said committee. with these requirements laid down by RA 4670.
ensure an impartial tribunal. It was this Verba legis non est recedendum.
requirement that would have given substance Contrary to petitioners asseverations,16 RA
and meaning to the right to be heard. Indeed, in 4670 is applicable to this case. It has not been Hence, Respondent Court of Appeals, through
any proceeding, the essence of procedural due expressly repealed by the general law PD 807, Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza who is now a
process is embodied in the basic requirement of which was enacted later, nor has it been shown member of this Court, perceptively and
to be inconsistent with the latter. It is a correctly stated:
notice and a real opportunity to be heard.14
fundamental rule of statutory construction that
Petitioners argue that the DECS complied with repeals by implication are not favored. An Respondent-appellants argue that the Magna
Section 9 of RA 4670, because all the teachers implied repeal will not be allowed unless it is Carta has been superseded by the Civil Service
who were members of the various committees convincingly and unambiguously demonstrated Decree (P.D. No. 807) and that pursuant to the
are members of either the Quezon City that the two laws are so clearly repugnant and latter law the head of a department, like the
Secondary Teachers Federation or the Quezon patently inconsistent that they cannot co-exist. DECS secretary, or a regional director, like the
City Elementary Teachers Federation15 and This is based on the rationale that the will of the respondent-appellant Nilo Rosas, can file
are deemed to be the representatives of a legislature cannot be overturned by the judicial administrative charges against a subordinate,
teachers organization as required by Section 9 function of construction and interpretation. investigate him and take disciplinary action
Courts cannot take the place of Congress in against him if warranted by his findings.
of RA 4670.
repealing statutes. Their function is to try to Respondent-appellants cite in support of their
We disagree. Mere membership of said argument the following provisions of the Civil
harmonize, as much as possible, seeming
teachers in their respective teachers conflicts in the laws and resolve doubts in favor Service Decree (P.D. No. 807):
organizations does not ipso facto make them of their validity and co-existence.17 Thus, a
authorized representatives of such Sec. 37. Disciplinary Jurisdiction.
subsequent general law does not repeal a prior
organizations as contemplated by Section 9 of special law, unless the intent to repeal or alter xxx xxx xxx
RA 4670. Under this section, the teachers is manifest, although the terms of the general
organization possesses the right to indicate its b) The heads of departments, agencies and
law are broad enough to include the cases
choice of representative to be included by the instrumentalities xxx shall have jurisdiction to
embraced in the special law.18
DECS in the investigating committee. Such right investigate and decide matters involving
to designate cannot be usurped by the The aforementioned Section 9 of RA 4670, disciplinary action against officers and
secretary of education or the director of public therefore, reflects the legislative intent to employees under their jurisdiction x x x.
schools or their underlings. In the instant case, impose a standard and a separate set of
32
Sec. 38. Procedure in Administrative Cases findings, and recommendations to the Director The administrative committee considered the
Against Non-Presidential Appointees. of Public Schools within thirty days from the teachers to have waived their right to a hearing
termination of the hearings: Provided, however, after the latters counsel walked out of the
a) Administrative Proceedings may be that where the school superin- preliminary hearing. The committee should not
commenced against a subordinate officer or the have made such a ruling because the walk out
employee by the head of department or officer tendent is the complainant or an interested was staged in protest against the procedures of
of equivalent rank, or head of local government, party, all the members of the committee shall the committee and its refusal to give the
or chiefs of agencies, or regional directors, or be appointed by the Secretary of Education. teachers counsel a copy of the guidelines. The
upon sworn, written complaint of any other committee concluded its investigation and
Indeed, in the case at bar, neither the DECS
persons. ordered the dismissal of the teachers without
[s]ecretary nor the DECS-NCR regional director
There is really no repugnance between the Civil personally conducted the investigation but giving the teachers the right to full access of the
Service Decree and the Magna Carta for Public entrusted it to a committee composed of a evidence against them and the opportunity to
School Teachers. Although the Civil Service division supervisor, secondary and elementary defend themselves. Its predisposition to find
Decree gives the head of department or the school teachers, and consultants. But there was petitioner-appellees guilty of the charges was in
regional director jurisdiction to investigate and no representative of a teachers organization. fact noted by the Supreme Court when in its
decide disciplinary matters, the fact is that such This is a serious flaw in the composition of the resolution in G.R. No. 101943 (Rosario Septimo
power is exercised through committees. In committee because the provision for the v. Judge Martin Villarama, Jr.) it stated:
cases involving public school teachers, the representation of a teachers organization is The facts and issues in this case are similar to
Magna Carta provides that the committee be intended by law for the protection of the rights the facts and issues in Hon. Isidro Cario, et al.
constituted as follows: of teachers facing administrative charges. v. Hon. Carlos C. Ofilada, et al., G.R. No. 100206,
Sec. 9. Administrative Charges.Administrative There is thus nothing in the Magna Carta that is August 22, 1961.
charges against a teacher shall be heard initially in any way inconsistent with the Civil Service As in the Cario v. Ofilada case, the officials of
by a committee composed of the corresponding Decree insofar as procedures for investigation is the Department of Culture and Education are
School Superintendent of the Division or a duly concerned. To the contrary, the Civil Service predisposed to summarily hold the petitioners
authorized representative who would at least Decree, [S]ec. 38(b) affirms the Magna Carta by guilty of the charges against them. In fact, in
have the rank of a division supervisor, where providing that the respondent in an
this case Secretary Cario, without awaiting
the teacher belongs, as chairman, a administrative case may ask for a formal formal administrative procedures and on the
representative of the local or, in its absence, investigation, which was what the teachers did basis of reports and implied admissions found
any existing provincial or national teachers in this case by questioning the absence of a
the petitioners guilty as charged
organization and a supervisor of the Division, representative of a teachers organization in the
the last two to be designated by the Director of investigating committee. and dismissed them from the service in
Public Schools. The committee shall submit its separate decisions dated May 16, 1991 and
33
August 6, 1991. The teachers went to court. The WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition certain procedural requirements does not mean
Court dismissed the case.19 is hereby DENIED for its utter failure to show that it can, in justiciable cases coming before it,
any reversible error on the part of the Court of entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental
Furthermore, this Court sees no valid reason to Appeals. The assailed Decision is thus and essential requirements of due process in
disregard the factual findings and conclusions of trials and investigations of an administrative
AFFIRMED.
the Court of Appeals. It is not our function to character.
assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, SO ORDERED.
testimonial and documentary, adduced by the
parties particularly where, such as here, the
findings of both the trial court and the appellate 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CARDINAL PRIMARY
ANG TIBAY, represented by TORIBIO RIGHTS.There are cardinal primary rights
court coincide.20 TEODORO, manager and proprietor, and
which must be respected even in proceedings of
It is as clear as day to us that the Court of NATIONAL WORKERS' BROTHERHOOD,
Appeals committed no reversible error in petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL this character. The first of these rights is the
affirming the trial courts decision setting aside RELATIONS and NATIONAL LABOR UNION, right to a hearing, which includes the right of
INC., respondents. the party interested or affected to present his
the questioned orders of petitioners; and
ordering the unqualified reinstatement of own case and submit evidence in support
1. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS; thereof. Not only must the party be given an
private respondents and the payment to them POWER.The nature of the Court of Industrial
of salaries, allowances, bonuses and other opportunity to present his case and to adduce
Relations and of its power is extensively evidence tending to establish the rights which
benefits that accrued to their benefit during the discussed in the decision.
entire duration of their suspension or he asserts but the tribunal must consider the
2. ID.; ID.; TECHNICAL RULES OF PROCEDURE; evidence presented. While the duty to
dismissal.21 Because the administrative
proceedings involved in this case are void, no DUE PROCESS OF LAW.The Court of Industrial deliberate does not impose the obligation to
delinquency or misconduct may be imputed to Relations is not narrowly constrained by decide right, it does imply a necessity which
private respondents. Moreover, the suspension technical rules of procedure, and cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having
or dismissal meted on them is baseless. Private Commonwealth Act No. 103 requires it to act something to support its decision. Not only
respondents should, as a consequence, be according to justice and equity and substantial must there be some evidence to support a
merits of the case, without regard to finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be
reinstated22 and awarded all monetary benefits
that may have accrued to them during the technicalities or legal evidence but may inform substantial. The decision must be rendered on
period of their unjustified suspension or its mind in such manner as it may deem just and the evidence presented at the hearing, or at
dismissal.23 This Court will never countenance equitable (Goseco vs. Court of Industrial least contained in the record and disclosed to
a denial of the fundamental right to due Relations et al., G. R. No. 46673). The fact, the parties affected. The Court of Industrial
process, which is a cornerstone of our legal however, that the Court of Industrial Relations Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must
may be said to be free from the rigidity of act on its or his own independent consideration
system.
34
of the law and facts of the controversy, and not the motion for a new trial should be, and the The respondent National Labor Union, Inc., on
simply accept the views of a subordinate in same is hereby, granted, and the entire record the other hand, prays for the vacation of the
arriving at a decision. The Court of Industrial of this case shall be remanded to the Court of judgment rendered by the majority of this Court
Relations should, in all controvercial questions, Industrial Relations, with instruction that it re- and the remanding of the case to the Court of
render its decision in such a manner that the open the case, receive all such evidence as may Industrial Relations for a new trial, and avers:
parties to the proceeding can know the various be relevant, and otherwise proceed in
issues involved, and the reasons for the accordance with the requirements set forth in "1. That Toribio Teodoro's claim that on
decisions rendered. The performance of this September 26, 1938, there was shortage of
the decision.
duty is inseparable from the authority leather soles in ANG TIBAY making it necessary
DECISION on motion for reconsideration on for him to temporarily lay off the members of
conferred upon it.
motion for new trial. the National Labor Union Inc., is entirely false
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR; NEW and unsupported by the records of the Bureau
TRIAL GRANTED.In the light of the foregoing The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. of Customs and the Books of Accounts of native
fundamental principles, it is sufficient to Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Attorney dealers in leather.
observe here that, except as to the alleged Barcelona for the Court of Industrial Relations.
agreement between the Ang Tibay and the "2. That the supposed lack of leather
National Workers' Brotherhood (appendix A), Antonio D. Paguia for National Labor Union. materials claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a
the record is barren and does not satisfy the scheme adopted to systematically discharge all
Claro M. Recto for petitioner "Ang Tibay". the members of the National Labor Union, Inc.,
thirst for a factual basis upon which to
predicate, in a rational way, a conclusion of law. from work.
Jose M. Casal for National Workers'
This result, however, does not now preclude the Brotherhood. "3. That Toribio Teodoro's letter to the
concession of a new trial prayed for by the Philippine Army dated September 29, 1938, (re
respondent National Labor Union, Inc. The LAUREL, J.:
supposed delay of leather soles from the States)
interest of justice would be better served if the was but a scheme to systematically prevent the
The Solicitor-General in behalf of the
movant is given opportunity to present at the forfeiture of this bond despite the breach of his
respondent Court of Industrial Relations in the
hearing the documents referred to in his CONTRACT with the Philippine Army.
above-entitled case has filed a motion for
motion and such other evidence as may be
reconsideration and moves that, for the reasons
relevant to the main issue involved. The "4. That the National Workers' Brotherhood
stated in his motion, we reconsider the
legislation which created the Court of Industrial of ANG TIBAY is a company or employer union
following legal conclusions of the majority
Relations and under which it acts is new. The dominated by Toribio Teodoro, the existence
opinion of this Court:
failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved and functions of which are illegal. (281 U. S.,
is not entirely attributable to the parties XXXX (Spanish) 548, petitioner's printed memorandum, p. 25.)
adversely affected by the result. Accordingly,

35
 "5. That in the exercise by the laborers of reconsideration of the respondent Court of The Court of Industrial Relations is a special
their rights to collective bargaining, majority Industrial Relations and to the motion for new court whose functions are specifically stated in
rule and elective representation are highly trial of the respondent National Labor Union, the law of its creation (Commonwealth Act No.
essential and indispensable. (Sections 2 and 5, Inc. 103). It is more an administrative board than a
Commonwealth Act No. 213.) part of the integrated judicial system of the
In view of the conclusion reached by us and to nation. It is not intended to be a mere receptive
"6. That the century provisions of the Civil be hereinaf ter stated With ref erence to the organ of the Government. Unlike a court of
Code which had been (the) principal source of motion f or a new trial of the respondent justice which is essentially passive, acting only
dissensions and continuous civil war in Spain National Labor Union, Inc., we are of the when its jurisdiction is invoked and deciding
cannot and should not be made applicable in opinion that it is not necessary to pass upon the only cases that are presented to it by the
interpreting and applying the salutary motion for reconsideration of the Solicitor- parties litigant, the function of the Court of
provisions of a modern labor legislation of General. We shall proceed to dispose of the Industrial Relations, as will appear from perusal
American origin where industrial peace has motion for new trial of the respondent labor of its organic law, is more active, affirmative
always been the rule. union. Before doing this, however, we deem it and dynamic. It not only exercises judicial or
necessary, in the interest of orderly procedure quasi-judicial functions in the determination of
"7. That the employer Toribio Teodoro was in cases of this nature, to make several
guilty of unfair labor practice for discriminating disputes between employers and employees
observations regarding the nature of the but its functions are far more comprehensive
against the National Labor Union, Inc., and powers of the Court of Industrial Relations and
unjustly favoring the National Workers' and extensive. It has jurisdiction over the entire
emphasize certain guiding principles which Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and
Brotherhood. should be observed in the trial of cases brought settle any question, matter controversy or
"8. That the exhibits hereto attached are so before it. We have re-examined the entire
dispute arising between, and/or affecting,
inaccessible to the respondents that even with record of the proceedings had before the Court employers and employees or laborers, and
the exercise of due diligence they could not be of Industrial Relations in this case, and we have landlords and tenants or f arm-laborers, and
expected to have obtained them and offered as found no substantial evidence to indicate that
regulate the relations between them, subject
evidence in the Court of Industrial Relations. the exclusion of the 89 laborers here was due to to, and in accordance with, the provisions of
their union affiliation or activity. The whole Commonwealth Act No. 103 (section 1). It shall
"9. That the attached documents and exhibits transcript taken contains what transpired take cognizance for purposes of prevention,
are of such far-reaching importance and effect during the hearing and is more of a record of arbitration, decision and settlement, of any
that their admission would necessarily mean contradictory and conflicting statements of industrial or agricultural dispute causing or
the modification and reversal of the judgment opposing counsel, with sporadic conclusion likely to cause a strike or lockout, arising from
rendered herein." drawn to suit their own views. It is evident that differences as regards wages, shares or
these statements and expressions of views of compensation, hours of labor or conditions of
The petitioner, Ang Tibay, has filed an
counsel have no evidentiary value. tenancy or employment, between employers
opposition both to the motion for
36
and employees or laborers and between between labor and capital in industry and in rigidity of certain procedural requirements does
landlords and tenants or farm-laborers, agriculture. There is in reality here a mingling of not mean that it can, in justiciable cases coming
provided that the number of employees, executive and judicial functions, which is a before it, entirely ignore or disregard the
laborers or tenants or farm-laborers involved departure from the rigid doctrine of the fundamental and essential requirements of due
exceeds thirty, and such industrial or separation of governmental powers. process in trials and investigations of an
agricultural dispute is submitted to the Court by administrative character. There are cardinal
the Secretary of Labor or by any or both of the In the case of Goseco vs. Court of Industrial primary rights which must be respected even in
parties to the controversy and certified by the Relations et al., G. R. No. 46673, promulgated
proceedings of this character:
Secretary of Labor as existing and proper to be September 13, 1939, we had occasion to point
dealth with by the Court for the sake of public out that the Court of Industrial Relations is not (1) The first of these rights is the right to a
interest. (Section 4, ibid.) It shall, before hearing narrowly constrained by technical rules of hearing, which includes the right of the party
the dispute and in the course of such hearing, procedure, and the Act requires it to "act interested or affected to present his own case
endeavor to reconcile the parties and induce according to justice and equity and substantial and submit evidence in support thereof. In the
them to settle the dispute by amicable merits of the case, without regard to language of Chief Justice Hughes, in Morgan v.
agreement. (Paragraph 2, section 4, ibid.) When technicalities or legal forms and shall not be U. S., 304 U. S. 1, -58 S. Ct. 773, 999, 82 Law. ed.
directed by the President of the Philippines, it bound by any technical rules of legal evidence 1129, "the liberty and property of the citizen
shall investigate and study all pertinent facts but may inform its mind in such manner as it shall be protected by the rudimentary
related to the industry concerned or to the may deem just and equitable." (Section 20, requirements of fair play."
industries established in a designated locality, Commonwealth Act No. 103.) It shall not be
restricted to the specific relief claimed or (2) Not only must the party be given an
with a view to determining the necessity and opportunity to present his case and to adduce
demands made by the parties to the industrial
fairness of fixing and adopting f or such industry evidence tending to establish the rights which
or locality a minimum or agricultural dispute, but may include in the
he asserts but the tribunal must consider the
award, order or decision any matter or
wage or share of laborers or tenants, or a determination which may be deemed necessary evidence presented. (Chief Justice Hughes in
maximum "canon" or rental to be paid by the or expedient for the purpose of settling the Morgan v. U. S. 298 U. S. 468, 56 S. Ct. 906, 80
"inquilinos" or tenants or lessees to dispute or of preventing f urther industrial or Law. ed. 1288.) In the language of this Court in
landowners. (Section 5, ibid.) In fine, it may agricultural disputes. (Section 13, ibid.) And in Edwards vs. McCoy, 22 Phil., 598, "the right to
appeal to voluntary arbitration in the the light of this legislative policy, appeals to this adduce evidence, without the corresponding
settlement of industrial disputes; may employ Court have been especially regulated by the duty on the part of the board to consider it, is
mediation or conciliation for that purpose, or rules recently promulgated by this Court to vain. Such right is conspicuously futile if the
recur to the more effective system of official carry into effect the avowed legislative purpose. person or persons to whom the evidence is
investigation and compulsory arbitration in The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial presented can thrust it aside without notice or
order to determine specific controversies Relations may be said to be free from the consideration."

37
 (3) "While the duty to deliberate does not be controlling.' The obvious purpose of this and protected in their right to know and meet the
impose the obligation to decide right, it does similar provisions is to free administrative case against them. It should not, however,
imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, boards from the compulsion of technical rules detract from their duty actively to see that the
namely, that of having something to support its so that the mere admission of matter which law is enforced, and for that purpose, to use the
decision. A decision with absolutely nothing to would be deemed incompetent in judicial authorized legal methods of securing evidence
support it is a nullity, a place when directly proceedings would not invalidate the and informing itself of facts material and
attached." (Edwards vs. McCoy, supra.) This administrative order. (Interstate Commerce relevant to the controversy. Boards of inquiry
principle emanates from the more fundamental Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25, 44, 24 S. Ct. may be appointed for the purpose of
principle that the genius of constitutional 563, 568, 48 Law. ed. 860; Interstate Commerce investigating and determining the facts in any
government is contrary to the vesting of Commission v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 227
unlimited power anywhere. Law is both a grant U. S. 88, 93, 33 S. Ct. 185, 187, 57 Law. ed. 431; given case, but their report and decision are
United States v. Abilene & Southern Ry. Co., 265 only advisory. (Section 9, Commonwealth Act
and a limitation upon power.
U. S. 274, 288, 44 S. Ct. 565, 569, 68 Law. ed. No. 103.) The Court of Industrial Relations may
(4) Not only must there be some evidence to 1016; Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. United States, refer any industrial or agricultural dispute or
support a finding or conclusion (City of Manila 280 U. S. 420, 442, 50 S. Ct. 220, 225, 74 Law. any matter under its consideration or
vs. Agustin, G. R. No. 45844, promulgated ed. 624.) But this assurance of a desirable advisement to a local board of inquiry, a
November 29, 1937, XXXVI 0. G. 1335), but the flexibility in administrative procedure does not provincial fiscal, a justice of the peace or any
evidence must be "substantial." (Washington, go so far as to justify orders without a basis in public official in any part of the Philippines for
Virginia & Maryland Coach Co. v. National Labor evidence having rational probative force. Mere investigation, report and recommendation, and
Relations Board, 301 U. S. 142, 147, 57 S. Ct. uncorroboratborated hearsay or rumor does may delegate to such board or public official
648, 650, 81 Law. ed. 965.) "Substantial such powers and functions as the said Court of
not constitute substantial evidence.
evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means (Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Industrial Relations may deem necessary, but
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind Relations Board, 59 S. Ct. 206, 83 Law. ed. No. such delegation shall not affect the exercise of
might accept as adequate to support a the Court itself of any of its powers. (Section 10,
4, Adv. Op., p. 131.)"
conclusion." ibid.)
(5) The decision must be rendered on the
(Appalachian Electric Power v. National Labor evidence pre-sented at the hearing, or at least (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of
Relations Board, 4 Cir., 93 F. 2d 985, 989; contained in the record and disclosed to the its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own
National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson parties affected. (Interstate Commence independent consideration of the law and facts
Products, 6 Cir., 97 F. 2d 13, 15; Ballston- Commission vs. L. & N. R. Co., 227 U. S. 88, 33 S. of the controversy, and not simply accept the
Stillwater Knitting Co. v. National Labor Ct. 185, 57 Law. ed. 431.) Only by confining the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
Relations Board, 2 Cir., 98 F. 2d 758, 760.) * * * administrative tribunal to the evidence It may be that the volume of work is such that it
The statute provides that 'the rules of evidence disclosed to the parties, can the latter be is literally impossible for the titular heads of the
prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not Court of Industrial Relations personally to
38
decide all controversies coming before them. In adopted to systematically discharge all the is not entirely attributable to the parties
the United States the difficulty is solved with members of the National Labor Union, Inc., adversely affected by the result. Accordingly,
the enactment of statutory authority from work" and this averment is desired to be the motion for a new trial should be, and the
authorizing examiners or other subordinates to proved by the petitioner with the "records of same is hereby granted, and the entire record
render final decision, with right to appeal to the Bureau of Customs and the Books of of this case shall be remanded to the Court of
board or commission, but in our case there is no Accounts of native dealers in leather"; that "the Industrial Relations, with instruction that it
such statutory authority. National Workers' Brotherhood Union of Ang reopen the case, receive all such evidence as
Tibay is a company or employer union may be relevant, and otherwise proceed in
(7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in dominated by Toribio Teodoro, the existence accordance with the requirements set forth
all controversial questions, render its decision in and functions of which are illegal." Petitioner hereinabove. So ordered.
such a manner that the parties to the further alleges under oath that the exhibits
proceeding can know the various issues attached to the petition to prove his substantial Avancea, C. J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz,
involved, and the reasons for the decisions averments "are so inaccessible to the Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.
rendered. The performance of this duty is respondents that even with the exercise of due
inseparable from the authority conferred upon Motion for new trial granted and cause
diligence they could not be expected to have remanded with instructions.
it. obtained them and offered as evidence in the
In the light of the foregoing fundamental Court of Industrial Relations", and that the
principles, it is sufficient to observe here that, documents attached to the petition "are of such
except as to the alleged agreement between far reaching importance and effect that their
the Ang Tibay and the National Workers' admission would necessarily mean the
Brotherhood (appendix A), the record is barren modification and reversal of the judgment
and does not satisfy the thirst for a factual rendered therein." We have considered the
,basis upon which to predicate, in a rational reply of Ang Tibay and its arguments against the
way, a conclusion of law. petition. By and large, after considerable
discussion, we have come to the conclusion that
This result, however, does not now preclude the the interest of justice would be better served if
concession of a new trial prayed for by the the movant is given opportunity to present at
respondent National Labor Union, Inc. In the the hearing the documents referred to in his
portion of the petition hereinabove quoted of motion and such other evidence as may be
the National Labor Union, Inc., it is alleged relevant to the main issue involved. The
legislation which created the Court of Industrial
that "the supposed lack of leather material
Relations and under which it acts is new. The
claimed by Toribio Teodoro was but a scheme
failure to grasp the fundamental issue involved
39
 powers, the Court may not inquire beyond the 26(2) of the Constitution. We are bound by such
certification of the approval of a bill from the official assurances from a coordinate
G.R. No. 105371. November 11, 1993.* presiding officers of Congress.Under the department of the government, to which we
THE PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION, duly doctrine of separation of powers, the Court may owe, at the very least, a becoming courtesy.
rep. by its President, BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS, not inquire beyond the certification of the
approval of a bill from the presiding officers of Same; Equal Protection Clause; Equal protection
Vice-President for Legal Affairs, MARIANO M.
Congress. Casco Philippine Chemical Co. v. simply requires that all persons or things
UMALI, Director for Pasig, Makati and Pasay, similarly situated should be treated alike, both
Metro Manila ALFREDO C. FLORES, and Gimenez laid down the rule that the enrolled
bill is conclusive upon the Judiciary (except in as to rights conferred and responsibilities
Chairman of the Committee on Legal Aid, imposed.The equal protection of the laws is
JESUS G. BERSAMIRA, Presiding Judges of the matters that have to be entered in the journals
like the yeas and nays on the final reading of embraced in the concept of due process, as
Regional Trial Court, Branch 85, QUEZON CITY every unfair discrimination offends the
and Branches 160, 167 and 166, Pasig, Metro the bill.) The journals are themselves also
binding on the Supreme Court, as we held in the requirements of justice and fair play. It has
Manila, respectively: the NATIONAL nonetheless been embodied in a separate
CONFEDERATION OF THE JUDGES old (but still valid) case of U.S. vs. Pons, where
we explained the reason thus: To inquire into clause in Article III, Sec. 1, of the Constitution to
ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, composed provide for a more specific guaranty against any
of the METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT JUDGES the veracity of the journals of the Philippine
legislature when they are, as we have said, clear form of undue favoritism or hostility from the
ASSOCIATION rep. by its President, REINATO government. Arbitrariness in general may be
QUILALA of the MUNICIPAL TRIAL CIRCUIT and explicit, would be to violate both the letter
and spirit of the organic laws by which the challenged on the basis of the due process
COURT, Manila; THE MUNICIPAL JUDGES clause. But if the particular act assailed partakes
LEAGUE OF THE PHILIPPINES rep. by its Philippine Government was brought into
of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the
President, TOMAS G. TALAVERA; by existence, to invade a coordinate and indepen-
dent department of the Government, and to sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal
themselves and in behalf of all the Judges of
interfere with the legitimate powers and protection clause. According to a long line of
the Regional Trial and Sharia Courts, decisions, equal protection simply requires that
Metropolitan Trial Courts and Municipal Courts functions of the Legislature. Applying these
principles, we shall decline to look into the all persons or things similarly situated should be
throughout the Country, petitioners, vs. HON. treated alike, both as to rights conferred and
PETE PRADO, in his capacity as Secretary of the petitioners charges that an amendment was
made upon the last reading of the bill that responsibilities imposed. Similar subjects, in
Department of Transportation and other words, should not be treated differently,
Communications, JORGE V. SARMIENTO, in his eventually became R.A. No. 7354 and that
copies thereof in its final form were not so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly
capacity as Postmaster General, and the discriminate against others. The equal
PHILIPPINE POSTAL CORP., respondents. distributed among the members of each House.
Both the enrolled bill and the legislative protection clause does not require the universal
Constitutional Law; Doctrine of separation of journals certify that the measure was duly application of the laws on all persons or things
powers; Under the doctrine of separation of enacted i.e., in accordance with Article VI, Sec. without distinction. This might in fact

40
sometimes result in unequal protection, as The main target of this petition is Section 35 of constitutionality of statutes. The theory is that
where, for example, a law prohibiting mature R.A. No. 7354 as implemented by the Philippine as the joint act of the Legislature and the
books to all persons, regardless of age, would Postal Corporation through its Circular No. 92- Executive, every statute is supposed to have
benefit the morals of the youth but violate the 28. These measures withdraw the franking first been carefully studied and determined to
liberty of adults. What the clause requires is privilege from the Supreme Court, the Court of be constitutional before it was finally enacted.
equality among equals as determined according Appeals, the Regional Trial Courts, the Hence, unless it is clearly shown that it is
to a valid classification. By classification is Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial constitutionally flawed, that attack against its
meant the grouping of persons or things similar Courts, and the Land Registration Commission validity must be rejected and the law itself
to each other in certain particulars and different and its Registers of Deeds, along with certain upheld. To doubt is to sustain.
from all others in these same particulars. other government offices.
I
ORIGINAL PETITION to declare the The petitioners are members of the lower
courts who feel that their official functions as We consider first the objection based on Article
unconstitutionally of Republic Act No. 7354.
judges will be prejudiced by the abovenamed VI, Sec. 26(1), of the Constitution providing that
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. measures. The National Land Registration Every bill passed by the Congress shall
Authority has taken common cause with them embrace only one subject which shall be
CRUZ, J.: expressed in the title thereof.
insofar as its own activities, such as the sending
The basic issue raised in this petition is the of requisite notices in registration cases, affect The purposes of this rule are: (1) to prevent
independence of the Judiciary. It is asserted by judicial proceedings. On its motion, it has been hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation; (2) to
the petitioners that this hallmark of allowed to intervene. prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature
republicanism is impaired by the statute and by means of provisions in bills of which the title
circular they are here challenging. The Supreme The petition assails the constitutionality of R.A.
No. 7354 on the grounds that: (1) its title gives no intimation, and which might therefore
Court is itself affected by these measures and is be overlooked and carelessly and
thus an interested party that should ordinarily embraces more than one subject and does not
express its purposes; (2) it did not pass the unintentionally adopted; and (3) to fairly
not also be a judge at the same time. Under our apprise the people, through such publication of
system of government, however, it cannot required readings in both Houses of Congress
and printed copies of the bill in its final form legislative proceedings as is usually made, of
inhibit itself and must rule upon the challenge, the subject of legislation that is being
because no other office has the authority to do were not distributed among the members
before its passage; and (3) it is discriminatory considered, in order that they may have
so. We shall therefore act upon this matter not
and encroaches on the independence of the opportunity of being heard thereon, by petition
with officiousness but in the discharge of an
Judiciary. or otherwise, if they shall so desire.1
unavoidable duty and, as always, with
detachment and fairness. We approach these issues with one important It is the submission of the petitioners that
principle in mind, to wit, the presumption of the Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 which withdrew the

41
franking privilege from the Judiciary is not to ensure that sufficient revenues are provisions of the act, and is not calculated to
expressed in the title of the law, nor does it generated by and within the industry to finance mislead the legislature or the people, there is
reflect its purposes. the overall cost of providing the varied range of sufficient compliance with the constitutional
postal delivery and messengerial services as requirement.2
R.A. No. 7354 is entitled An Act Creating the well as the expansion and continuous upgrading
Philippine Postal Corporation, Defining its of services standards by the same. To require every end and means necessary for
Powers, Functions and Responsibilities, the accomplishment of the general objectives of
Providing for Regulation of the Industry and for Sec. 35 of R.A. No. 7354, which is the principal the statute to be expressed in its title would not
Other Purposes Connected Therewith. target of the petition reads as follows: only be unreasonable but would actually render
legislation impossible.3 As has been correctly
The objectives of the law are enumerated in SEC. 35. Repealing Clause.All acts, decrees,
explained:
Section 3, which provides: orders, executive orders, instructions, rules and
regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with The details of a legislative act need not be
The State shall pursue the following objectives the provisions of this Act are repealed or specifically stated in its title, but matter
of a nationwide postal system: modified accordingly. germane to the subject as expressed in the title,
1 a) and Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado
All franking privileges authorized by law are
to enable the economical and speedy transfer hereby repealed, except those provided for adopted to the accomplishment of the object in
of mail and other postal matters, from sender under Commonwealth Act No. 265, Republic view, may properly be included in the act. Thus,
to addressee, with full recognition of their Acts Numbered 69, 180, 1414, 2087 and 5059. it is proper to create in the same act the
privacy or confidentiality; The Corporation may continue the franking machinery by which the act is to be enforced, to
privilege under Circular No. 35 dated October prescribe the penalties for its infraction, and to
2 b) 24, 1977 and that of the Vice-President, under remove obstacles in the way of its execution. If
such arrangements and conditions as may such matters are properly connected with the
to promote international interchange,
obviate abuse or unauthorized use thereof. subject as expressed in the title, it is
cooperation and understanding through the
unnecessary that they should also have special
unhampered flow or exchange of postal matters The petitioners contention is untenable. We do
mention in the title (Southern Pac. Co. v.
between nations; to cause or effect a wide not agree that the title of the challenged act
Bartine, 170 Fed. 725).
range of postal services to cater to different violates the Constitution.
users and changing needs, including but not This is particularly true of the repealing clause,
limited to, philately, transfer of monies and The title of the bill is not required to be an index on which Cooley writes: The repeal of a statute
valuables, and the like; to the body of the act, or to be comprehensive on a given subject is properly connected with
as to cover every single detail of the measure. It the subject matter of a new statute on the
2 d) has been held that if the title fairly indicates the same subject; and therefore a repealing section
general subject, and reasonably covers all the
42
in the new statute is valid, notwithstanding that Court under E.O. 207, PD 1882 and PD 26 was While it is true that a conference committee is
the title is silent on the subject. It would be not included in the original version of Senate the mechanism for compromising differences
difficult to conceive of a matter more germane Bill No. 720 or of House Bill No. 4200. As this between the Senate and the House, it is not
to an act and to the object to be accomplished paragraph appeared only in the Conference limited in its jurisdiction to this question. Its
thereby than the repeal of previous legislations Committee Report, its addition violates Articles broader function is described thus:
connected therewith.4 VI, Sec. 26(2) of the Constitution, reading as
follows: A conference committee may deal generally
The reason is that where a statute repeals a with the subject matter or it may be limited to
former law, such repeal is the effect and not the (2) No bill passed by either House shall become resolving the precise differences between the
subject of the statute; and it is the subject, not a law unless it has passed three readings on two houses. Even where the conference
the effect of a law, which is required to be separate days, and printed copies thereof in its committee is not by rule limited in its
briefly expressed in its title.5 As observed in final form have been distributed to its Members jurisdiction, legislative custom severely limits
one case,6 if the title of an act embraces only three days before its passage, except when the the freedom with which new subject matter can
one subject, we apprehend it was never claimed President certifies to the necessity of its be inserted into the conference bill. But
that every other act which it repeals or alters by immediate enactment to meet a public calamity occasionally a conference committee produces
implication must be mentioned in the title of or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no unexpected results, results beyond its mandate.
the new act. Any such rule would be neither amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the These excursions occur even where the rules
within the reason of the Constitution, nor vote thereon shall be taken immediately impose strict limitations on conference
practicable. thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in committee jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of
the Journal. the authoritarian power of conference
We are convinced that the withdrawal of the committee (Davies, Legislative Law and Process:
franking privilege from some agencies is The petitioners also invoke Sec. 74 of the Rules In A Nutshell, 1986 Ed., p. 81).
germane to the accomplishment of the principal of the House of Representatives, requiring that
objective of R.A. No. 7354, which is the creation amendment to any bill when the House and the It is a matter of record that the Conference
of a more efficient and effective postal service Senate shall have differences thereon may be Committee Report on the bill in question was
system. Our ruling is that, by virtue of its nature settled by a conference committee of both returned to and duly approved by both
as a repealing clause, Section 35 did not have to chambers. They stress that Sec 35 was never a
subject of any disagreement between both 710
be expressly included in the title of the said law.
Houses and so the second paragraph could not 710
II have been validly added as an amendment.
The petitioners maintain that the second SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
These arguments are unacceptable.
paragraph of Sec. 35 covering the repeal of the Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado
franking privilege from the petitioners and this

43
the Senate and the House of Representatives. amendment was made upon the last reading of protection clause. In fact, the franking privilege
Thereafter, the bill was enrolled with its the bill that eventually became R.A. No. 7354 has been withdrawn not only from the Judiciary
certification by Senate President Neptali A. and that copies thereof in its final form were but also the Office of Adult Education; the
Gonzales and Speaker Ramon V. Mitra of the not distributed among the members of each Institute of National Language; the
House of Representatives as having been duly House. Both the enrolled bill and the legislative Telecommunications Office, the Philippine
passed by both Houses of Congress. It was then journals certify that the measure was duly Deposit Insurance Corporation; the National
presented to and approved by President enacted i.e., in accordance with Article VI, Sec. Historical Commission; the Armed Forces of the
Corazon C. Aquino on April 3, 1992. 26(2) of the Constitution. We are bound by such Philippines; the Armed Forces of the Philippines
official assurances from a coordinate Ladies Steering Committee; the City and
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the department of the government, to which we Provincial Prosecutors; the Tanodbayan (Office
Court may not inquire beyond the certification of Special Prosecutor); the Kabataang Barangay;
owe, at the very least, a becoming courtesy.
of the approval of a bill from the presiding the Commission on the Filipino Language; the
officers of Congress. Casco Philippine Chemical III Provincial and City Assessors; and the National
Co. v. Gimenez7 laid down the rule that the Council for the Welfare of Disabled Persons.11
enrolled bill is conclusive upon the Judiciary The third and most serious challenge of the
(except in matters that have to be entered in petitioners is based on the equal protection The equal protection of the laws is embraced in
the journals like the yeas and nays on the final clause. the concept of due process, as every unfair
reading of the bill.)8 The journals are It is alleged that R.A. No. 7354 is discriminatory discrimination offends the requirements of
themselves also binding on the Supreme Court, because while withdrawing the franking justice and fair play. It has nonetheless been
as we held in the old (but still valid) case of U.S. privilege from the Judiciary, it retains the same embodied in a separate clause in Article III, Sec.
vs. Pons,9 where we explained the reason thus: for the President of the Philippines; the Vice- 1, of the Constitution to provide for a more
President of the Philippines; Senators and specific guaranty against any form of undue
To inquire into the veracity of the journals of
Members of the House of Representatives; the favoritism or hostility from the government.
the Philippine legislature when they are, as we Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on
have said, clear and explicit, would be to violate Commission on Elections; former Presidents of
the Philippines; widows of former Presidents of the basis of the due process clause. But if the
both the letter and spirit of the organic laws by particular act assailed partakes of an
which the Philippine Government was brought the Philippines; the National Census and
Statistics Office; and the general public in the unwarranted partiality or prejudice, the sharper
into existence, to invade a coordinate and weapon to cut it down is the equal protection
independent department of the Government, filing of complaints against public offices or
officers.10 clause.
and to interfere with the legitimate powers and
functions of the Legislature. The respondents counter that there is no According to a long line of decisions, equal
discrimination because the law is based on a protection simply
Applying these principles, we shall decline to
look into the petitioners charges that an valid classification in accordance with the equal

44
requires that all persons or things similarly We reject outright the last conjecture as there it is the Judiciary that has been denied the
situated should be treated alike, both as to is no doubt that the statute as a whole was franking privilege. There is no question that if
rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.12 carefully deliberated upon by the political there is any major branch of the government
Similar subjects, in other words, should not be departments before it was finally enacted. that needs the privilege, it is the Judicial
treated differently, so as to give undue favor to There is reason to suspect, however, that not Department, as the respondents themselves
some and unjustly discriminate against others. enough care (or attention) was given to its point out. Curiously, the respondents would
repealing clause, resulting in the unwitting justify the distinction on the basis precisely of
The equal protection clause does not require withdrawal of the franking privilege from the this need and, on this basis, deny the Judiciary
the universal application of the laws on all Judiciary. the franking privilege while extending it to
persons or things without distinction. This might
others less deserving.
in fact sometimes result in unequal protection, We also do not believe that the basis of the
as where, for example, a law prohibiting mature classification was mere courtesy, for it is In their Comment, the respondents point out
books to all persons, regardless of age, would unimaginable that the political departments that available data from the Postal Service
benefit the morals of the youth but violate the would have intended this serious slight to the Office show that from January 1988 to June
liberty of adults. What the clause requires is Judiciary as the third of the major and equal 1992, the total volume of frank mails amounted
equality among equals as determined according departments of the government. The same to P90,424,175.00. Of this amount, frank mails
to a valid classification. By classification is observations are made if the importance or from the Judiciary and other agencies whose
meant the grouping of persons or things similar status of the grantee was the criterion used for functions include the service of judicial
to each other in certain particulars and different the extension of the franking privilege, which is processes, such as the intervenor, the
from all others in these same particulars.13 enjoyed by the National Census and Statistics Department of Justice and the Office of the
Office and even some private individuals but Ombudsman, amounted to P86,481,759. Frank
What is the reason for the grant of the franking not the courts of justice. mails coming from the Judiciary amounted to
privilege in the first place? Is the franking
P73,574,864.00 and those coming from the
privilege extended to the President of the In our view, the only acceptable reason for the petitioners reached the total amount of
Philippines or the Commission on Elections or to grant of the franking privilege was the P60,991,431.00. The respondents conclusion is
former Presidents of the Philippines purely as a perceived need of the grantee for the that because of this considerable volume of
courtesy from the lawmaking body? Is it offered accommodation, which would justify a waiver mail from the Judiciary, the franking privilege
because of the importance or status of the of substantial revenue by the Corporation in the must be withdrawn from it.
grantee or because of its need for the privilege? interest of providing for a smoother flow of
Or have the grantees been chosen pell-mell, as communication between the government and The argument is self-defeating. The
it were without any basis at all for the the people. respondents are in effect saying that the
selection? franking privilege should be extended only to
Assuming that basis, we cannot understand those who do not need it very much, if at all,
why, of all the departments of the government, (like the widows of former Presidents) but not
45
to those who need it badly (especially the while we may concede the need of the National Government, and that it derives substantial
courts of justice). It is like saying that a person Census and Statistics Office for the franking revenues from the sources enumerated in
may be allowed cosmetic surgery although it is privilege, we are intrigued that a similar if not Section 10, on top of the tax exemptions it
not really necessary but not an operation that greater need is not recognized in the courts of enjoys. It is not likely that the retention of the
can save his life. justice. franking privilege by the Judiciary will cripple
the Corporation.
If the problem of the respondents is the loss of (On second thought, there does not seem to be
revenues from the franking privilege, the any justifiable need for withdrawing the At this time when the Judiciary is being faulted
remedy, it seems to us, is to withdraw it privilege from the Armed Forces of the for the delay in the administration of justice,
altogether from all agencies of the government, Philippines Ladies Steering Committee, which, the withdrawal from it of the franking privilege
including those who do not need it. The like former Presidents of the Philippines or their can only further deepen this serious problem.
problem is not solved by retaining it for some widows, does not send as much frank mails as The volume of judicial mail, as emphasized by
and withdrawing it from others, especially the Judiciary.) the respondents themselves, should stress the
where there is no substantial distinction dependence of the courts of justice on the
between those favored, which may or may not It is worth observing that the Philippine Postal postal service for communicating with lawyers
need it at all, and the Judiciary, which definitely Corporation, as a government-controlled and litigants as part of the judicial process. The
needs it. The problem is not solved by violating corporation, was created and is expected to Judiciary has the lowest appropriation in the
the Constitution. operate for the purpose of promoting the public national budget compared to the Legislative
service. While it may have been established and Executive Departments; of the P309 billion
In lumping the Judiciary with the other offices primarily for private gain, it cannot excuse itself budgeted for 1993, only .84%, or less than 1%,
from which the franking privilege has been from performing certain functions for the is allotted to the Judiciary. It should not be hard
withdrawn, Section 35 has placed the courts of benefit of the public in exchange for the to imagine the increased difficulties of our
justice in a category to which it does not franchise extended to it by the government and
courts if they have to affix a purchased stamp to
belong. If it recognizes the need of the the many advantages it enjoys under its charter, every process they send in the discharge of
President of the Philippines and the members like exemption from taxes, customs and tariff their judicial functions.
of Congress for the franking privilege, there is duties.14 Among the services it should be
no reason why it should not recognize a similar prepared to extend is the free carriage of mail We are unable to agree with the respondents
and in fact greater need on the part of the for certain offices of the government that need that Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 represents a
Judiciary for such privilege. While we may the franking privilege in the discharge of their valid exercise of discretion by the Legislature
appreciate the withdrawal of the franking own public functions. under the police power. On the contrary, we
privilege from the Armed Forces of the find its repealing clause to be a discriminatory
Philippines Ladies Steering Committee, we fail We also note that under Section 9 of the law, provision that denies the Judiciary the equal
to understand why the Supreme Court should the Corporation is capitalized at P10 billion protection of the laws guaranteed for all
be similarly treated as that Committee. And pesos, 55% of which is supplied by the persons or things similarly situated. The
46
distinction made by the law is superficial. It is and our own conscience gives us the light to be
not based on substantial distinctions that make right.
real differences between the Judiciary and the
grantees of the franking privilege. ACCORDINGLY, the petition is partially
GRANTED and Section 35 of R.A. No. 7354 is
This is not a question of wisdom or power into declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Circular No. 92-
which the Judiciary may not intrude. It is a 28 is SET ASIDE insofar as it withdraws the
matter of arbitrariness that this Court has the franking privilege from the Supreme Court, the
duty and power to correct. Court of Appeals, the Regional Trial Courts, the
Municipal Trial Courts, the Municipal Circuit
IV Trial Courts, and the National Land Registration
In sum, we sustain R.A. No. 7354 against the Authority and its Registers of Deeds to all of
attack that its subject is not expressed in its title which offices the said privilege shall be
and that it was not passed in accordance with RESTORED. The temporary restraining order
the prescribed procedure. However, we annul dated June 2, 1992, is made permanent.
Section 35 of the law as violative of Article 3, SO ORDERED.
Sec. 1, of the Constitution providing that no
person shall be deprived of the equal Narvasa (C.J.), Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
protection of the laws. Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Melo,
Quiason, Puno and Vitug, JJ., concur.
We arrive at these conclusions with a full
awareness of the criticism it is certain to Bellosillo, J., On leave.
provoke. While ruling against the discrimination
in this case, we may ourselves be accused of Petition partially granted; Sec. 35 of RA No.
similar discrimination through the exercise of 7354 declared unconstitutional.
our ultimate power in our own favor. This is Note.The equal protection clause does not
inevitable. Criticism of judicial conduct, preclude classification of individuals who may
however undeserved, is a fact of life in the be accorded different treatment under the law
political system that we are prepared to accept. as long as the classification is not unreasonable
As judges, we cannot even debate with our arbitrary (Basco vs. Philippine Amusements &
detractors. We can only decide the cases before Gaming Corporation, 197 SCRA 52).
us as the law imposes on us the duty to be fair

47
48