ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: CASES

CASE TOPIC FACTS ISSUE, RULING, & DOCTRINE

ISSUE:
W/N the Secretary of Justice had the power to withdraw the
information filed before the RTC? - YES

RULING:
Under the Revised Administrative Code, the secretary of
justice exercises the power of direct control and
supervision over said prosecutors. He may thus affirm,
nullify, reverse or modify their rulings as he may deem
fit.

Review as an act of supervision and control by the justice

secretary over the fiscals and prosecutors finds basis in the
Prosecutors issued memoranda on both cases recommending doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies which
the indictment of the respondents and information for libel was holds that mistakes, abuses or negligence committed in the
Jalandoni- Secretary of Justice filed with the RTC of Makati against the respondents. initial steps of an administrative activity or by an
Drilon GRN has power of Direct All of the respondents appealed to then Secretary of Justice, administrative agency should be corrected by higher
115239 Control and Franklin Drilon. administrative authorities, and not directly by courts. As a
March 2, Supervision over Drilon issued an order dismissing the resolutions of the rule, only after administrative remedies are exhausted may
2000 prosecutors prosecutors and directing them to withdraw the information filed. judicial recourse be allowed.
· 2 PPA police officers filed in the AAB a complaint for dishonesty
· ISSUE: W/N The AAB had jurisdiction over the subject
and conduct prejudicial against Bungubung, District Manager of administrative cases. – No.
the Port of Manila.
· RULING:
· Bungubung filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that it was the GM
· The DOTC Secretary’s jurisdiction is circumscribed by the
of PPA who had jurisdiction over the case, which was however aforequoted provisions of the PPA Charter and the Civil
dismissed by the AAB in written order, which was issued by Service Law which give him only appellate jurisdiction over
DOTC Secretary Reyes, the same person who created the disciplinary matters involving personnel below that of
AAB via an administrative order. Assistant General Manager.
· What is prescribed by the law and the Beja case is that all
Corona v · Subsequently, another administrative case was filed against complaints against a PPA official or employee below the rank
CA GRN Bungubung, this time by The PPA GM, for the same reasons. of Assistant General Manager shall be filed before the PPA
97356 Sept Authority of the The case was indorsed to the AAB for appropriate action. General Manager by the proper officials, such as the PPA
30, 1992 attached agency police or any aggrieved party. The aggrieved party should

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Questioning the jurisdiction of the AAB over the case, not, however, be one and the same official upon whose lap
Bungubung filed a petition for certiorari and preliminary the complaint he has filed may eventually fall on appeal.
injunction and TRO with the Supreme Court. · The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies
is not a hard and fast rule. It has been repeatedly held
· On the same day of the first administrative complaint against that the principle requiring previous exhaustion of
Bungubung, Secretary Reyes also filed a complaint with the administrative remedies is not applicable where the
AAB against Dinopol, then Manager of the Port of Davao, for the question in dispute is a purely legal one; where the
same reasons, plus for violating the Anti-Graft Law. controverted act is patently illegal or was performed
o PPA GM issued a preventive suspension order. without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction; where
the respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as
· Subsequently, the PPA GM also filed an administrative case an alter ego of the President, bear the implied or
against Dinopol for the same reasons. assumed approval of the latter; where there are
· The AAB found Dinopol guilty in the 2 administrative cases filed circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial
against him and dismissed him from service and the cancellation intervention; or where the respondent has acted in
of other benefits. disregard of due process. The rule does not apply where
insistence on its observance would result in nullification
· of the claim being asserted; and when the rule does not
provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy."

Petitioner bank lodged a complaint charging several persons W/N respondent judge showed gross ignorance of the law
with estafa. Accused appealed the findings of the Investigating
Fiscal and a motion for reconsideration to the DOJ. Both of YES. Respondent judge should not have entertained the
these were denied. Accused filed a Motion for Reinvestigation Motion for Reinvestigation. The former was fully aware that
and to lift the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest. However, neither the latter had appealed the unfavorable ruling of the
the bank nor its counsel was furnished a copy of said Motion. investigating prosecutor to the DOJ. The actions of
Respondent judge granted the Motion for Reinvestigation prosecutors are not unlimited; they are subject to review
without any hearing. Thus, a reinvestigation proceeding was by the secretary of justice who may affirm, nullify,
conducted and the bank was not notified of said proceedings. reverse or modify their actions or opinions. In short, the
Power of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Caballero reversed the earlier secretary of justice, who has the power of supervision
supervision and findings of the previous Investigating Fiscal and then a Motion to and control over prosecuting officers, is the ultimate
control; Definition Dismiss was filed. Neither the bank nor its counsel was notified authority who decides which of the conflicting theories
Comm of Supervision and about the said Motion and no hearing thereon was held to afford of the complainants and the respondents should be
Rural Bank Definition of the Bank an opportunity to oppose the same. Respondent Judge believed. The provincial or city prosecutor has neither
v Talavera Control; DOJ Talavera granted the Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner Bank, the personality nor the legal authority to review or
RTJ-05- Secretary power of arguing that it had been deprived of due process, filed a Motion overrule the decision of the secretary.
1909 April Control over for Reconsideration with Opposition/Comment to the Motion to
6, 2005 Prosecutors Dismiss and Omnibus Motion for the Reinstatement of the In the present case, the accused filed their Motion for

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Criminal Information and for the Recall of Order for Release. Reinvestigation on November 29, 2000, about three months
These were denied by respondent judge. The bank charged after the August 15, 2000 Resolution of the secretary denying
Judge Talavera of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija with serious with finality their Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of
misconduct and/or gross inefficiency and violation of the Code of their Petition for Review. Clearly, therefore, it was grossly
Judicial Conduct. erroneous for respondent judge to order the reinvestigation of
the case by the prosecutor. This action enabled the latter to
reprobate and reverse the secretary’s Resolution. In granting
the Motion for Reinvestigation, respondent effectively
demolished the DOJ’s power of control and supervision over
prosecutors.
Mayor Yabut, et al., were accused of killing SPO3 Dimatulac. W/N the SOJ acted properly - NO
The Provincial Prosecutor and Assistant Prosecutor filed an
Information for homicide because they did not find The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor did not even have the
circumstances which would elevate the crime to murder. decency to agree to defer arraignment despite its continuing
Petitioners, relatives of SPO3 Dimatulac, appealed to the knowledge of the pendency of the appeal. This amounted t
Secretary of Justice, alleging that the crime should be murder defiance of the DOJ’s power of control and supervision over
Power of due to circumstances which qualify it as such. prosecutors. It is important to remember that an appeal to the
supervision and DOJ is an invocation of the Secretary’s power of control
control; Definition While the appeal was being considered by the Secretary of over prosecutors. Decisions or resolutions are subject to
of Supervision and Justice, the RTC where the Information was filed arraigned the appeal to the secretary of justice who, under the Revised
Definition of respondent accused for homicide. The Secretary of Justice Administrative Code, exercises the power of direct
Control; DOJ subsequently resolved the appeal and ordered the Information control and supervision over said prosecutors; and who
Secretary power of for homicide be amended to show that the crime of murder. may thus affirm, nullify, reverse, or modify these rulings.
Control over Later on, through a letter, the Secretary of Justice reversed his
Prosecutors earlier determination and said that the crime committed was Supervision means overseeing or the power or authority
homicide, in view of the arraignment of respondents for of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform
Doctrine of homicide. their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the
Exhaustion of former may take such action or step as prescribed by
Administrative Petitioners here allege that the RTC judge should have been law to make them perform such duties. Control, on the
Remedies; Appeal more circumspect as he knew that by proceeding with the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or
of Prosecutor arraignment, the appeal with the DOJ would be rendered modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer
Resolution finding technically nugatory. Also, they say that the DOJ rule prohibiting had done in the performance of his duties and to
probable cause to appeals from resolutions of prosecutors to the Secretary of substitute the judgment of the former for that of the
Dimatulac v DOJ Secretary Justice once the accused has been arraigned applies only in latter.
Villon G.R. instances where the appellants are the accused, since by
127107 Oct Administrative Due submitting to arraignment, they voluntarily abandon their appeal. Review as an act of supervision and control by the
12, 1998 Process justice secretary over the fiscals and prosecutors finds

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Respondents allege that the decision of the DOJ Secretary, basis in the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
involving as it did the exercise of discretionary powers, is not remedies which holds that mistakes, abuses or
subject to judicial review; that under the principle of separation negligence committed in the initial steps of an
of powers, petitioners’ recourse should have been to the administrative activity or an administrative agency
President. As regards petitioners’ plea that the Secretary be should be corrected by higher administrative authorities,
compelled to amend the information from homicide to murder, and not directly by courts. As a rule, only after
respondents submit that mandamus does not lie as the administrative remedies are exhausted may judicial
determination as to what offense was committed is a prerogative recourse be allowed.
of DOJ, subject only to the control of the President.
Nothing in Crespo v. Mogul, as respondents allege
mistakenly, forecloses the power or authority of the Secretary
of Justice to review resolutions of his subordinates in criminal
cases despite an information already having been filed in
court. The SOJ is only enjoined to refrain, as far as
practicable, from entertaining a petition for review or appeal
from the action of the prosecutor once a complaint or
information is filed in court.

Indubitably, there was, on the part of the public prosecution,

indecent haste in the filing of the information for homicide,
depriving the State and the offended parties of due process.

Another grave error, by the SOJ, is that he should not have

reconsidered his earlier stance that the crime committed was
murder just because the respondents had been arraigned by
the time he resolved the appeal. In so doing, the SOJ
relinquished his power of control and supervision over the
Provincial Prosecutor and the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
and surrendered to the undue haste and inappropriate
conduct of the Judges and the Prosecutors. The SOJ, as
department head, should have courageously exercised his
power of control, especially in circumstances which show
injustice and bad faith.
Beja vs CA Beja was employed by the Philippine Ports Authority and was W/N the order of AAB was valid - NO.
GRN 97141 later appointed as Terminal Supervisor. The General Manager
Mar 31, Authority of the filed an admin case against him for erroneous assessment of 2 laws "attached" (for policy and program coordination) the
1992 Attached Agency storage fees but the case was closed because of lack of merit. PPA to the then Department of Public Works, Transportation

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Later PPA GM again filed for dishonesty, grave misconduct and and Communication. An Attached Agency has a larger
violation of rules and regulations. The case was endorsed to the measure of independence from the Department to which it
Administrative Action Board (AAB) which ordered Beja to be is attached than the one which is under departmental
dismissed and disqualified from service. supervision and control or administrative supervision. (Borne
by the "lateral relationship" between the
Department and the Attached Agency. With respect to
management of personnel, an Attached Agency is free
from Departmental interference and control.

PPA GM is the disciplining authority who may, by himself and

without the approval of the PPA Board of Directors, subject a
respondent in an administrative case to preventive
suspension.
Issue: W/N the above department orders are valid? NO

W/N the above AO is valid? YES

Pursuant to its mandate under R.A. 2000, DPWH issued DO Held: The provision cited expressly states “Department of
215 declaring the Manila-Cavite (Coastal Road) Toll Public Works and Communications”. Reviewing its history
Expressway as limited access facilities. Afterwards, DPWH, though, such department was divided now into Department of
acting thru the TRB, issued Department Order No. 123 allowing Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and Department of
motorcycles with engine displacement of 400 cubic centimeters Transportation and Communications (DOTC). The former is
inside limited access facilities. AO1 then was issued banning tasked to manage the construction, maintenance and repair
“bicycle, tricycle, pedicab, motorcycle or any vehicle (not aspect of government infrastructures while the latter is
motorized)” on limited access highways. The constitutionality of focusing on the planning and policy making. Since the issue
the above laws were assailed since accordingly, they expanded involves planning and policy making, such powers are now
the power of the DPWH in Section 4 of RA 2000 to regulate toll delegated to DOTC and not DPWH.
ways. RA 2000 prescribes that “The Department of Public As to the AO however, administrative orders have the
Works and Communications is authorized to so design any same presumption of validity and constitutionality enjoyed by
limited access facility and to so regulate, restrict, or prohibit statutes. AO1 merely outlines several precautionary
access as to best serve the traffic for which such facility is measures, to which toll way users must adhere. These rules
Mirasol v. intended… it is authorized to divide and separate any limited were designed to ensure public safety and the uninhibited
DPWH access facility into separate roadways by the construction of flow of traffic within limited access facilities. Arguably,
GRN Presumption of raised curbings, central dividing sections, or other physical prohibiting the use of motorcycles in toll ways may not be the
158793 validity of separations, or by designating such separate roadways by "best" measure to ensure the safety and comfort of those
June 8, Administrative signs, markers, stripes, and the proper lane for such traffic by who ply the toll ways. However, the means by which the
2006 Orders appropriate signs, markers, stripes and other devices” government chooses to act is not judged in terms of what is

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 "best," rather, on simply whether the act is reasonable.

ISSUE: W/N the Commission have the authority to

promulgate the rule.—NO.

RULING: The Commission cites no provision of law expressly

supporting its rule against double listing. It suggests that its
Inherent powers power is “necessary for the election of the functions vests din
and functions of it.” But the test is not whether the Act forbids the Commission
administrative The SEC denied the Makati Stock Exchange from operating from imposing a prohibition but whether it empowers the
agencies— SEC unless it agreed not to list for trading on its board, securities Commission to prohibit. In this case, the Commission has no
Makati prohibits listing of already listed in the Manila Stock Exchange. Makati Stock power to impose the condition of the rule which results in
Stock stock securities in Exchange contends that the Commission has no power to discrimination and violation of constitutional rights. It is
Exchange stock exchanges. impose it and that it is illegal, discriminatory, and unjust. fundamental that and admin officer has such powers as are
v. SEC expressly granted to him by the statute.
The case involves a question of jurisdiction of the Board of
Communications over claims for damages suffered by 2
complainants for failure to receive telegrams thru the Radio
Communications of the Philippines Inc. (RCPI)

The 2 cases which were filed before the BoC:

1. Morales claims he was in Manila when his daughter sent
him a telegram from Isabela informing him of the death W/N the Board has authority to adjudicate the claims? No.
of his wife. But the telegram sent through RCPI never
reached him and he had to be personally informed of RCPI argues that the Board has no jurisdiction to entertain
and take cognizance of complaints for injury caused by a
Radio the death of his wife and so to catch up with the burial,
breach in the contractual obligation arising from negligence
Communica he had to take a trip by plane to Isabela. RCPI claims and injury caused by a quasi-delict covered by the Civil
tions of the the telegram was transmitted from Isabela to Cubao Code. The BoC, being a creature of the legislature and
Phil. v. message center but when it was relayed from Cubao, not a court can exercise only such jurisdiction and
Board of the radio signal became intermittent making the copy in powers as are expressly or by necessary implication
Communica Manila unreadable and unintelligible. conferred upon it by a statute. It’s power, to issue
tion GR L- An agency can only 2. Inocencio claims that in 1975, Lourdes sent him a certificates of public convenience. does not carry with it the
power of supervision and control over matters not related to
43653 exercise powers telegram from Tarlac to Laguna for the purpose of
the issuance of certificate of public convenience or in the
November which are conferred informing him of the death of their father but the same performance therewith in a manner suitable to promote public
29, 1977 upon it by a statute. was never received by Inocencio, so he was not able to interest.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 attend the interment of their father in Tarlac.

After hearing, the Board held that the service rendered by RCPI
was inadequate and unsatisfactory and imposed a disciplinary
fee of 200 pesos (each case).
The petitioners and private respondents are all authorized
taxicab operators in Metro Manila. Private respondents,
however, admittedly operate "colorum" or "kabit" taxicab units
(unauthorized motorized operations). Hence, they filed their
petitions with the respondent Board of Transportation for the
legalization of their unauthorized "excess" taxicab units citing
Presidential Decree No. 101, promulgated on January 17, 1973,
"to eradicate the harmful and unlawful trade of clandestine
operators, by replacing or allowing them to become legitimate
and responsible operators."

Within a matter of days, the respondent Board promulgated its

orders setting the applications for hearing and granting W/N BOT acted without jurisdiction -- NO
applicants provisional authority to operate.Thus, the present
petition. Petitioners argue that PD101 must be read with Sec 4 There is nothing in Sec 4 of PD101 that suggests the
of such decree stating that six months after the promulgation of expiration of such powers 6 months after the promulgation of
said degree, BOT shall wage a concerted and relentless drive the decree. Rather, it merely provides for the withdrawal of
towards total elimination of public utility motor vehicles. The the State's waiver of its right to punish said colorum operators
petitioners allege that neither the BOT chairman nor any for their illegal acts.
member thereof had the power, at the time the petitions were
filed, to legitimize clandestine operations under PD 101 as such The court does not interfere with administrative action prior to
power was limited to a period of 6 months from and after the its completion or finality. It is only after judicial review is no
Matienzo v. promulgation of the decree. Thus, after 6 months, they no longer longer premature that SC has the power to ascertain whether
Abellera have such power. administrative findings are not in violation of law.
ASSO OF - The PPA was created by virtue of PD 857 and charged with W/N the AOs are valid – YES
INTL the financing, management, and operations of public ports
SHIPPING throughout the Philippines. PPA has the power to provide pilotage services. It also may
LINES v o PPA issued AO 03-85 which set forth rules and regulations authorize pilot associations to provide pilotage services,
PPA GR governing pilotage services, the conduct of pilots and pilotage which is what the PPA did. In consideration of the privilege to
No. 157484 fees in Philippine ports. render pilotage services and to use port facilities, the different
Mar 06, o It later issued AO 15-95 modifying a provision in the earlier pilot associations are required to remit to the PPA a
2008 AO, which now provide that all harbor pilots/pilots associations government share of at least 10% of the pilot’s gross income

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 shall remit 10% of their gross income derived purely from derived purely from pilotage service.
pilotage service. Under PPA’s charter, the PPA has the authority to
o It also issued AO 09-2000 which mandated the direct impose, fix, prescribe, increase, or decrease such rates,
collection from the shipowners of the 10% government share. charges or fees for the use of port facilities, and for
- Petitioner Association opposed the implementation of AO services rendered by the PPA or by any private
09-2000. PPA agreed to suspend temporarily the organization.
implementation of the direct collection system, but petitioner
subsequently received a letter from PPA informing it of the
implementation of AO 09-2000.

Plaza v. Administrative Figurado Plaza (Plaza) purchased a 900 sq.m. parcel of public ISSUE: W/N the Office of the President (OP) may revoke,
Tuvera, Agencies; land from a certain Luis Peggy thinking it belonged to the latter. modify or disregard the decision of the CFI on the accion
G.R. No. Executive However, its actual occupant, Ernesto Reyes (Reyes), already publiciana, a matter well within its jurisdiction. – YES.
42782. Department; The had a miscellaneous sales application filed before the Bureau
Septembe President may of Lands at the time of Plaza’s purchase; Yes. The jurisdiction over the matter actually belongs to the
r 29, 1989 review, affirm, DARN and the OP (as the former’s alter ego) as the case
reverse or modify Plaza filed an accion publiciana before the CFI Butuan City involves public land. The Court ruled: "x x x The land in
orders and against Reyes which was later on resolved in his favor, question is public land. Its administration, disposition
decisions of the resulting to Reyes’ ejectment. Meanwhile, Plaza opposed and alienation is lodged in the Director of Lands subject
Secretary of Reyes’ miscellaneous sales application before the Bureau, the to the control of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Agriculture and latter finding unanimously with the Secretary of Agricultural and Natural Resources as alter ego of the President (Secs.
Natural Natural Resources that the property was public land, and that 3, 4 and 5, Commonwealth Act 141). The President,
Resources. Reyes was a mere tenant of Plaza whose preferential right to through the Executive Secretary, may review, affirm,
purchase was recognized by the Bureau; reverse, or modify the orders and decisions of the
Disposition of Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
public lands is an Reyes appealed before the Office of the President resulting to (Extensive Enterprises Corp. vs. Sarbio & Co., Inc., et al.,
executive and not the reversal of the DANR’s decision; 17 SCRA 41)."
a judicial function.
Plaza filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus The disposition of public land is an executive, not a
Exhaustion of before the CA against the decision of the OP for totally judicial, function. The decision of the Court of First
Administrative disregarding the CFI’s decision over the accion publiciana, Instance in the action for recovery of possession filed by
Remedies thus amounting to GADALEJ. CA however ruled in Reyes’ Plaza against Reyes did not bind nor bar the Office of the
favor, thereby dismissing the Special Civil Action under Rule President from exercising its power as the final authority in
65 on the ground that the administrative decision already the disposition of lands of the public domain. For one thing,
attained finality and therefore binding upon Plaza; the decision of the Court of First Instance was not yet final
when the Office of the President decided the miscellaneous
Plaza filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 sales applications of Reyes and Plaza.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 before the High Court, hence the instant case.
Furthermore, the administrative case was instituted ahead
of Civil Case No. 1128. Reyes filed his Miscellaneous Sales
Application No. 460-A on September 28,1966 while Civil
Case 1128 as filed by Plaza on November 18, 1966 only.
Plaza should have exhausted his administrative
remedies before going to court. Having failed to do so,
his recourse to the courts was premature. The
dismissal of his complaint by the Court of Appeals was
proper (Cruz vs. Del Rosario, 9 SCRA 755; Gonzales vs.
Secretary of Education, 5 SCRA 657).

DISPOSITION: Petition DISMISSED.

Manto applied with the Bureau of Mines for lease of coal-bearing Issue: W/N the Sec. of Agri. committed grave abuse of
over the subject parcel of land located in Danao City in 1953. A discretion in holding that the precedence in filing of Manto is
decade later, petitioner Ramos also applied for a lease over the sufficient legal basis for the award to the latter. - NO.
same area.
Ruling: there is no abuse of discretion on the part of the Sec.
Pursuant to the Coal Land Act, and the rules and regulations of Agri. in affording Manto a chance to equal the bid of
promulgated by the Sec. of Agri, the Director of Mines caused Ramos, respondent Sec. wisely exercised his discretion on
the publication in two newspapers of gen. Circ. the notice of the matter as Manto had been in possession of the area for
public bidding for the lease of said land. Three bids were 10 years and had invested a considerable amount of money
submitted. Ramos’ bid was accepted by the Director as the most for the exploitation and development thereof. It would be
advantageous to the government and an award was given to more in keeping with eceonomic development of the country
him for the operation and development of the area covered by to distribute the benefits of its natural reseources to as many
the application of Manto. The grant however was subject to the citizens as are qualified to exploit the same.
condition Ramos shall reimburse Manto of the value of the
improvements introduced. Ramos already has six coal mines, while Manto only has
one, where the dispute arose.
Manto appealed to the Sec. of Agri, which reversed the decision
of the Director of Mines. The award was given to Manto, on Although there is no express provision of the rules and
Ramos v condition that he would match the bid of Ramos. regulations governing the lease and development of coal
Sec lands in the Philippines issued by the Secretary of Agriculture
Agriculture The Sec. of Agri held that since the time Manto applied in 1953, and Natural Resources on May 26, 1922, allowing the
applicant to equal the highest bid at the public auction, said
Jan. 28, he had been compliant with all the requirements of the
rules and regulations confer upon the Secretary of Agriculture
1974 GRN government. He had introduced improvements as well on the and Natural Resources wide latitude of discretion in awarding
L 29097 subject parcel of land. the lease to the applicant or to any other qualified persons. It

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 is therein provided as follows: “After due notice and
publication of all applications have been compiled with, lease
may be rewarded by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources to the applicant or to the person or corporation
best qualified, in the opinion of the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, to carry out the provisions of the
lease.”

It should be noted that the provisions regarding the

applicant's privilege to equal the highest bid in case he is
defeated in bidding at the public auction expressly refers to
disposable lands of the public domain. This provision,
although not carried in the rules and regulations regarding
lease of coal lands, is a sound policy that should be applied
to the lease of coal lands inasmuch as said lands are not
disposable and remain the property of the government during
the period of the concession. In applying said policy,
respondent Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
could not have acted more judiciously.

ISSUE:
W/N Whether or not the public prosecutor, in conducting the
HSBC filed a complaint for estafa against Spouses Balangauan. preliminary investigation; and the DOJ, in reviewing the
Assistant City Prosecutor (ACP) found no probable cause. findings of the public prosecutor, both perform adjudicatory
HSBC appealed to the Secretary of the DOJ by means of a functions, in such a way that their finding of no probable
Petition for Review. DOJ Chief State Prosecutor, dismissed the cause to hold petitioners liable to stand for trial, have the
petition. Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied with same effect as judgments of a court? - NO
finality. HSBC appealed to CA. CA reversed the two decisions of
DOJ. Court of Appeals found fault in the DOJ's failure to identify RULING:
and discuss the issues raised by the respondent HSBC in its Preliminary investigation is not a quasi-judicial
Petition for Review filed therewith. And, in support thereof, proceeding, and that the DOJ is not a quasi-judicial
respondent HSBC maintains that it is incorrect to argue that "it agency exercising a quasi-judicial function when it
was not necessary for the Secretary of Justice to have his reviews the findings of a public prosecutor regarding the
resolution recite the facts and the law on which it was based," presence of probable cause.
because courts and quasi-judicial bodies should faithfully Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is often
comply with Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution requiring the only means of discovering the persons who may be
that decisions rendered by them should state clearly and reasonably charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal to
Balanguan distinctly the facts of the case and the law on which the decision prepare his complaint or information.
vs CA GR DOJ is not a Quasi- is based.
174350 Judicial Agency A quasi-judicial agency performs adjudicatory functions such

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 that its awards, determine the rights of parties, and their
decisions have the same effect as judgments of a court. Such
is not the case when a public prosecutor conducts a
preliminary investigation to determine probable cause to file
an Information against a person charged with a criminal
offense, or when the Secretary of Justice is reviewing the
former's order or resolutions. In this case, since the DOJ is
not a quasi-judicial body, Section 14, Article VIII of the
Constitution finds no application.
A complaint was filed against R,a government official, charging ISSUE: W/N The integrity Board was exercising quasi-judicial
him with disloyalty to service, partiality, favoritism, violation of functions. -- NO.
his oath of office, and corruption.
RULING:
A copy of the complaint was submitted to the Integrity Board. The Investigatory Board’s power is limited to investigating the
● The Board found, after hearing, that the charges were facts and making findings in respect thereto.
sufficiently established and concluded that R made use
of his public office for his personal interests. After an investigation by the Integrity Board, the officer that
Not every function ● The Board recommended that R be given a warning, ultimately passes upon and adjudicates the rights of the
wherein judgment and any repetition will have greater consequences. parties is the President, not the Integrity Board.
and discretion are
exercised is a The Integrity Board was created by EO 318, which vested said While it is true that the Integrity Board, in performing its
judicial function. board with the power to “proceed to a thorough and complete duties and exercising its functions may exercise what is
investigation of any specific case of graft, corruption, dereliction known as judicial discretion, because it evaluates the
The test of judicial of duty or irregularity in office, and to submit to the President the evidence submitted to it on the facts and circumstances
function is not the record of such investigation together with its finding and presented, such judicial discretion is only for the purpose of
exercise of judicial recommendation.” evaluation and for the determination of disputed facts.
discretion, but the
power and authority R filed a complaint for certiorari against the Integrity Board. Not every function wherein judgment and discretion are
to adjudicate upon exercised is a judicial function.
the rights and The Integrity Board argues that certiorari does not lie against
obligations of the them, because it exercises only investigatory and advisory The test of judicial function is not the exercise of judicial
Ruperto v. parties before it. powers. It is known that certiorari only lies against bodies discretion, but the power and authority to adjudicate
Torres exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. upon the rights and obligations of the parties before it.
SANTOS Petition for review FEPI allegedly entered into a Project Agreement MSDC, W/N a petition for review under Rule 43 is a proper mode of
vs. GO, via Rule 43 not the whereby FEPI undertook to develop several parcels of land. appeal from a resolution of the Secretary of Justice directing
GRNo. proper mode of Respondent Wilson Go offered to buy Lot 17 from FEPI. Go fully the prosecutor to file an information in a criminal case
156081. Oct appeal from a complied with the terms of the Contract. FEPI, however, failed to

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
19, 2005 Resolution of the develop the property and release the TCT to Go making him NO. Since the DOJ is not a quasi-judicial body and it is
DOJ Sec demand fulfillment of the terms and conditions of their not one of those agencies whose decisions, orders or
agreement. Go then filed a complaint before the HLURB and a resolutions are appealable to the Court of Appeals under
separate complaint for estafa before the Office of the City Rule 43. This mode of appeal to the Supreme Court
Prosecutor. FEPI challenged the jurisdiction of the City covers the judgments, orders or resolutions of the Court
Prosecutor of Pasig City to conduct the preliminary investigation of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court
on the ground that the complainant was not from Pasig City, the or any authorized court and should raise only pure
contract was not executed nor were the payments made in question of law. The Department of Justice is not a court.
Pasig City. City Prosecutor resolved to dismiss the complaint for
estafa for lack of jurisdiction. Go appealed the City Prosecutor’s In this petition are raised factual matters for our resolution,
Resolution to the DOJ, which, in turn reversed the City e.g. the ownership of the subject property, the existence of
Prosecutor’s findings. Santos filed with the Court of Appeals, a deceit committed by petitioners on respondent, and
petition for review pursuant to Rule 43. petitioners’ knowledge or direct participation in the Contract
to Sell. These are factual issues and are outside the scope
of a petition for review on certiorari. The cited questions
require evaluation and examination of evidence, which is the
province of a full-blown trial on the merits.
Carmelo was the chairman of a committee created by the Mayor W/N Carmelo’s committee has the power to cite people in
of Manila “to investigate the anomalies involving the license contempt - NO
inspectors and other personnel of the License Inspection
Division of the Office of the City Treasurer and of the License Before an administrative agency may cite people in
and Permits Division of the Office of the Mayor. contempt, it has to show that it was expressly given the
power to compel attendance of witnesses in its
Ramos was a private citizen who worked as a bookkeeper in proceedings. Only after such showing may an
Casa de Alba. administrative agency apply to the courts for the latter to
use its power to cite people in contempt. Hence
Carmelo and his commission issued subpoenas to Ramos, administrative agencies, in themselves, do not have the
requiring him to appear in an investigation in connection with an power to cite people in contempt; they may only do so by
Powers of administrative case against one Crisanta Estanislao. Ramos applying to the courts.
Administrative refused.
Agencies; The Court does not agree that a delegation of the power to
Carmelo v Subpoena Powers Thereafter, Carmelo went and applied to the CFI for the latter to investigate implies a delegation of the power to take
Ramos cite Ramos in contempt for his non-participation. testimony or evidence of witnesses whose appearance may
G.R. L- Powers of be required by the compulsory process of subpoena. The
17778 Administrative CFI dismissed such petition holding that there is no law Court held that the mayor cannot delegate or confer the
November Agencies; empowering committees created by the mayor to issue power to administer oaths, to take testimony, and to issue
30, 1962 Contempt Powers subpoenas and demand that witnesses testify under oath. subpoenas [and to compel attendance].

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Carmelo contends that the mayor has implied power to The Court, in addition, said that the power that Carmelo’s
investigate city officials and employees appointed by him to the committee has may only be traced to the power(s) of the
end that the power expressly vested in him to suspend and mayor to investigate as implied from his power to suspend or
remove such officials or employees may be justly and fairly remove certain city employees. There was no statutory grant
exercised. This, Carmelo contends, necessitates that the of power to investigate to Carmelo’s committee. And, even
delegation of power to investigate implies the delegation of the granting that the mayor has implied power to require the
power to take testimony and therefore to punish for non- appearance of witnesses before him, the rule is that the
participation (contempt). Mayor cannot delegate this power to a body like Carmelo’s
committee.

Additional Material (very helpful): “The Power of

Administrative Agencies to Issue Subpoena (by Judge Jorge
R. Coquia), 68 SCRA 119
W/N the SDT was valid - YES.

“… administrative agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in

the course of investigations, whether or not adjudication is
involved, and whether or not probable cause is shown and
even before the issuance of a complaint. It is not necessary,
as in the case of a warrant, that a specific charge or
complaint of violation of law be pending or that the order be
Evangelista made pursuant to one. It is enough that the investigation be
v Jarencio Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations for a lawfully authorized purpose. The purpose of the
GRN L- (PARGO) was created with powers to investigate, including subpoena is to discover evidence, not to prove a
29274 power to summon witnesses by subpoena duces tecum.. pending charge, but upon which to make one if the
November Respondent Judge was issued subpoena duces tecum.. He filed discovered evidence so justifies. Such authority was
27, 1975 petition questioning its legality. delegated by the statute.
Issue: W/N the CIR has the power to require the labor
organization to deliver its books of accounts and other
pertinent documents
A complaint was filed against 2 officers of a labor organization
Held: YES. According to the Industrial Peace Act, the books
for allegedly disbursing Union funds. In order to investigate
of accounts of a labor organization shall be open to
such charge, reports of its financial transactions are also
inspection by any officer or member thereof. The power to
Catura v. Power to sought. However, Catura and his companion refused to deliver investigate, to be conscientious and rational, requires an
CIR investigate said reports. inquiry into existing facts and conditions. The documents

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 required in this case constitute essential evidence. It is not
for the Court to whistle down the authority conferred to
administrative agencies to assure the effective
administration of statute. Such power is deemed implied
from its mandate of enforcing the laws, but the exercise of
such power should not be arbitrary as to trench upon private
rights of petitioners entitled to property.

A case was filed against Mead, the president of INSOIL, by the ISSUE: W/N had the authority to file an information against
Provincial Fiscal of Rizal, in RTC Rizal where respondent Judge Mead.—NO.
presides. Mead moved for motion to quash because he claims
that the fiscal had no authority to file an information against him RULING: While respondents contend that there was no
since he cannot determine whether there was in fact pollution of phrase that says that the Commission has exclusive
Mead v Express powers of the waters by INSOIL. He alleged that in effect since there was jurisdiction, it was contended that there was no provision that
Argel GRN admin agencies no information filed, the court did not have jurisdiction to try a states that the fiscal had concurrent jurisdiction. Absent such
41958 July mandated by case. Motion to quash was denied so Mead filed for a petition for clear import that grants the fiscal such authority, such a
20, 1982 statute certiorari to the SC. question may be answered by looking into the statute.
Pablo Catura and Luz Salvador (petitioners) are the President
and Treasurer, respectively, of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco
Administration Employees Association, a duly registered labor
organization. On December 27, 1966, a complaint against them
under Section 17 of the Industrial Peace Act was filed by the
CIR and the principal complainants, being Celestino Tabaniag
and other employees constituting more than 10 percent of the W/N the CIR can require the submission of the books of
membership of the labor organization (respondent). Petitioners accounts, bank accounts, passbooks, union funds, receipts,
were charged of “unauthorized disbursement of union funds.” and vouchers be delivered and deposited with it at the
Complainants demand a full and detailed report of all financial hearing to conduct such investigation? Yes
transactions of the union as well as to make the book of
accounts and other records of the financial activities of the union Power of CIR to investigate may be found in Section 17
An administrative open to inspection by the members. The demands were refused. of the Industrial Peace Act. The power to investigate, to be
agency can require The executive board of the organization also passed a conscientious and rational at the very least, requires an
the submission of resolution calling for a general membership meeting to pass on inquiry into existing facts and conditions. Matter was
books, vouchers, the issue regarding the union funds. Catura cancelled the deemed serious enough by the prosecutor of CIR to call for
and other meeting. Another meeting was called, but there was still no the exercise of its statutory power of investigation. All the
Catura v. documents in the response. Members were the forced to elevate the matter to the challenged order did was to require the petitioners to
CIRelations exercise of its Department of Labor which issued subpoenas for the deliver and deposit the documents. Matter was within the
(1971) investigatory power presentation of the account books, but to no avail. Having cognizance of the power of the CIR.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 exhausted all the remedies provided in the union’s constitution
and by-laws, the complaint sought to declare petitioners guilty of
unfair labor practice under the Industrial Peace Act, to cease
and desist from further committing unfair labor practice, and to
render a dull and detailed report of all financial transactions of
the union as well as to make the book of accounts and other
records of financial activities open to inspection by the
members. On December 28, 1966, private respondents sought
an injunction to prevent Catura, who turned out to be re-elected
as President on November 15, 1966, from taking oath of his
office Then came the order of December 29, 1966 by Associate
Judge Joaquin M. Salvador which, instead of granting the
injunction sought, limited itself to requiring and directing the
petitioners to deliver and deposit documents related to finances
at the hearing of the petition. A motion for reconsideration was
filed by the petitioners alleging that they were not heard before
such order was issued. The order was sustained. Hence, this
petition for review of the resolution of the CIR
W/N Sec 12 of RA 6758 is valid -- NO

PITC argued that Sec. 12 of RA 6758 is void because DBM-

Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10, its implementing
rules, was nullified in the case of De Jesus v. COA, for lack of
publication.

The basis of COA in disallowing the grant of SFI was Section

12 of R.A. No. 6758 and not DBM-CCC No. 10. Moreover,
A staple food incentive (max P7,200) was granted each to the the nullity of DBM-CCC No. 10, will not affect the validity of
officials and employees of DTI bureaus, attached agencies and R.A. No. 6758.
GOCCs. It also provided that in case of disallowance, the
PITC vs employee shall refund the incentive through salary deduction. It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that statutory
COA GRN provisions control the rules and regulations which may be
152688. PITC, a GOCC attached to DTI, issued a resolution approving issued pursuant thereto. Such rules and regulations must be
November the grant of SFI to its officers and employees. PITC Auditor consistent with and must not defeat the purpose of the
19, 2003 issued a Notice of Suspension disallowing the grant and statute. The validity of R.A. No. 6758 should not be made to
erroneous Erroneous required PITC to submit approval by the DBM in accordance depend on the validity of its implementing rules.
construction construction with Sec 12 of RA 6758

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 - Congress passed Republic Act 6125 imposing a W/N Central Bank acted with grave abuse in issuing the
stabilization tax. In 1971, the total banana export amounted to a resolution – YES
value which brought it within the ambit of RA 6125. The problem
arose as to when the stabilization tax was to become due and Should the regulation conflict with the law, the validity of the
collectible from it and under what schedule within RA 6125 regulation cannot be sustained. The Court stated that the
should said tax be collected. resolution while not a product of grave abuse, it is a result of
o Petitioner corporations claim that the stabilization tax should CB’s overzealous desire to carry into effect the provisions of
be 4% RA 6125. It becomes evident that the Board still acted
HIJO o Central Bank issued a Resolution stating that the tax should beyond its authority under the law and the Constitution.
PLANTATI be 6% In case of discrepancy between the basic law and a rule
ON 1 GRN - Because of the resolution, petitioner corporations sought or regulation issued to implement said law, the basic law
L-34526 reconsideration contending that such resolution was manifestly prevails. The rule or regulation cannot go beyond the terms
August 9, contrary to legislative intent. and provisions of the basic law.
1988

Tan Guan Legislative and Tan Guan and Sia Lin are Chinese nationals who organized ISSUE: W/N the right of the Commissioner of Internal
v. Court of interpretative and registered the Philippine Surplus Company, a general Revenue to assess the deficiency tax has prescribed. – NO.
Tax rules partnership.
Appeals, distinguished. Tan Guan’s income tax return was false or fraudulent due to
19 SCRA Consequence of The partners and the partnership filed separate income tax the absence of supporting receipts. Under the Tax Code,
903, G.R. wrong returns. the CIR had 10 years from the discovery of the falsity or
No. L- construction. — fraud within which to make the deficiency assessment.
23676, No vested right Tan Guan paid income tax. But the partnership did not. Hence, the CIR’s right to make the assessment has not
April 27, can be acquired Because a registered partnership is exempt from income tax. prescribed.
1967 on a wrong Profits are considered income of the partners.
construction of the Tan Guan argued that he should be treated the same as Sia
law by Acting upon a report that the Company posted in its book Lin, who was absolved by the CIR. Court ruled that the
administrative fictitious expenses to avoid taxes, BIR investigated the books Government is not bound by the errors committed by
officials and such and papers of the partnership. BIR disallowed the deductions its agents in previous investigations and assessments.
wrong and assessed deficiency income tax against Tan Guan.
interpretation In appeals to the CTA, the determination of the CIR is
does not place the Tan Guan contends that the assessment was made after the 5- presumed correct and it behooves the taxpayer to rebut
government in year period counted from the filing of returns, which was such presumption.
estoppel to provided for in the Tax Code. Thus, the right of the CIR to
correct or overrule make the assessment has prescribed. In this case, the CIR found for a fact that the expenses are
the same. fictitious. But, Tan Guan presented no evidence to disprove
the CIR’s findings. Hence, the findings of the CTA must be
The Government sustained. The expenses cannot be deducted from gross

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 is not bound by income.
the errors
committed by its DISPOSITION: Decision appealed from is affirmed.
agents in previous
tax investigations
and assessments.
A taxpayer cannot
avoid the payment
of a deficiency
income tax
assessment by
pleading that
another taxpayer,
in the same
situation, was
absolved by the
Commissioner of
Internal Revenue.

Then President GMA issued EO 156 through Exec. Secretary Issue: W/N Art. 2, Sec. 3.1 of EO 156 is valid and
Romulo which provided for a comprehensive industrial policy constitutional – YES in part, as to domestic jurisdiction.
and directions for the motor vehicle development program and
its implementing guidelines. Police power is inherent in a government to enact laws,
within constitutional limits, to promote the order, safety,
The issuance spawned three separate actions for declaratory health, morals, and general welfare of society. It is
relief, all seeking to declare unconstitutional Art. 2, Sec. 3.1 of lodged primarily with the legislature. By virtue of a valid
EO 156, which provides for the prohibition on importation of delegation of legislative power, it may also be exercised
certain types of used motor vehicles, save a few exceptions. by the President and administrative boards, as well as
These were initiated by herein respondents who are engaged in the lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including
importing and/or trading on used motor vehicles. the barangay. Such delegation confers upon the
President quasi-legislative power which may be defined
Exec. Sec. The lower courts ruled in favor of the therein petitioners- as the authority delegated by the law-making body to the
vs. Subic importers. administrative body to adopt rules and regulations
Southwing intended to carry out the provisions of the law and
Heavy Ind The Court of Appeals invalidated the assailed provision on implement legislative policy.
164171 : ground of lack of any statutory basis for the president to issue
Feb 20, the same. CA held that the prohibition on the importation of used To be valid, an administrative issuance, such as an
2006 motor vehicles is an exercise of police power vested on the executive order, must comply with the following

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
legislature and absent any enabling law, the exercise of thereof requisites:
by the President is void.
(1) Its promulgation must be authorized by the
The main thrust of the petition is that EO 156 is constitutional legislature;
because it was issued pursuant to EO 226, the Omnibus (2) It must be promulgated in accordance with the
Investment Code of the Philippines and that its application prescribed procedure;
should be extended to the Freeport because the guarantee of (3) It must be within the scope of the authority given by
RA 7227 on the free flow of goods into the said zone is merely the legislature; and
an exemption from customs duties and taxes on items brought (4) It must be reasonable.
into the Freeport and not an open floodgate for all kinds of
goods and materials without restriction. EO 156 satisfies the first requisite since the Constitution
allows the Congress to delegate its powers to the President
by law, and that the Tariff and Customs Code authorizes the
President to establish import quotas or to ban imports of any
commodity as may be necessary.

The second requisite is also satisfied. As in the enactment

of laws, the general rule is that, the promulgation of
administrative issuances requires previous notice and
hearing, the only exception being where the legislature
itself requires it and mandates that the regulation shall
be based on certain facts as determined at an
appropriate investigation. This exception pertains to the
issuance of legislative rules as distinguished from
interpretative rules which give no real consequence
more than what the law itself has already prescribed; and
are designed merely to provide guidelines to the law
which the administrative agency is in charge of
enforcing. A legislative rule, on the other hand, is in the
nature of subordinate legislation, crafted to implement a
primary legislation.

The third requisite is satisfied as well. To be valid, an

administrative issuance must not be ultra vires or
beyond the limits of the authority conferred. It must not
supplant or modify the Constitution, its enabling statute
and other existing laws, for such is the sole function of
the legislature which the other branches of the

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 government cannot usurp.

In the instant case, the subject matter of the laws authorizing

the President to regulate or forbid importation of used motor
vehicles, is the domestic industry. EO 156, however,
exceeded the scope of its application by extending the
prohibition on the importation of used cars to the Freeport,
which RA 7227, considers to some extent, a foreign territory.

As to the fourth requisite, the Court deems it satisfied. It is an

axiom in administrative law that administrative
authorities should not act arbitrarily and capriciously in
the issuance of rules and regulations. To be valid, such
rules and regulations must be reasonable and fairly
adapted to secure the end in view. If shown to bear no
reasonable relation to the purposes for which they were
authorized to be issued, then they must be held to be
invalid. There is no doubt that the issuance of the ban to
protect the domestic industry is a reasonable exercise of
police power.

In sum, the assailed provision is declared VALID insofar as it

applies to the Philippine territory outside the presently
fenced-in former Subic Naval Base area and VOID with
respect to its application to the secured fenced-in former
Subic Naval Base area.
NTC issued a Memorandum Circular promulgating rules and ISSUE:
regulations on the billing of telecommunications service. W/N RTC has Jurisdiction over the case - YES

Isla Communications Co., Inc. and Pilipino Telephone RULING:

Corporation filed against the National Telecommunications The issuance by the NTC of Memorandum Circular was
Commission, an action for declaration of nullity of NTC pursuant to its quasi-legislative or rule-making power. As
The good aim of a Memorandum Circular. Globe and Smart filed a Motion to Admit such, petitioners were justified in invoking the judicial power
resolution cannot Complaint-in-Intervention. of the Regional Trial Court to assail the constitutionality and
Smart vs be a cloak to its validity of the said issuances.
NTC Aug constitutional Petitioners allege that the NTC has no jurisdiction to regulate the
12 2003 infirmities. sale of consumer goods such as the prepaid call cards since What is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 such jurisdiction belongs to the Department of Trade and rule or regulation issued by the administrative agency in
Industry under the Consumer Act of the Philippines; that the the performance of its quasi-legislative function, the
Billing Circular is oppressive, confiscatory and violative of the regular courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same.
constitutional prohibition against deprivation of property without The determination of whether a specific rule or set of
due process of law; that the Circular will result in the impairment rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes
of the viability of the prepaid cellular service by unduly the law or the constitution is within the jurisdiction of the
prolonging the validity and expiration of the prepaid SIM and call regular courts.
cards; and that the requirements of identification of prepaid card
buyers and call balance announcement are unreasonable. Indeed, the Constitution vests the power of judicial review or
the power to declare a law, treaty, international or executive
Petition was dismissed due to failure to exhaust administrative agreement, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance,
remedies. or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courts.
1. Philippine Patent Office issued to the corporation separate ISSUE: Whether or not the Revenue Memorandum Circular
certificates of trademark registration over "Champion," "Hope," issued by BIR is valid.
and "More" cigarettes manufactured by Fortune Tobacco.
2. CIR initially wanted to classify Champion, Hope and More as RULING + RATIO:
foreign brands because they were listed in the World T obacco
Directory as belonging to foreign companies. However, Fortune No. It is invalid for not observing the requirements of due
changed their names removing them from the foreign brand process.
category and submitted proof that they were local brands.
3. RA 7654 was enacted charging locally manufactured cigarettes Prior to the issuance of the questioned circular, the three
currently classified at the tax rate of 55% and other local brands brands of cigarettes were in the category of locally
at 45% or 20%. manufactured cigarettes not bearing foreign brand subject to
4. Before the effectivity of such Act, BIR issued a Revenue 45% ad valorem tax. Hence, without RMC 37-93, the
Memorandum Circular (RMC 37-93) reclassifying the three enactment of RA 7654, would have had no new tax rate
brands as locally manufactured foreign brands thus subjecting consequence on private respondent's products. Evidently, in
them to 55% ad valorem tax. BIR sought to collect tax order to place such brands within the scope of the
deficiency. BIR send a copy of the RMC to Fortune via telefax amendatory law and subject them to an increased tax rate,
but was addressed to no one in particular. RMC 37-93 had to be issued. In so doing, the BIR not
5. Fortune filed a petition with CTA. CTA decided in favor of simply interpreted the law; verily, it legislated under its
Fortune stating that the RMC is invalid and unenforceable quasi-legislative authority. The due observance of the
CIRev v CA because prior to the effectivity of RA 7654, the brands were still requirements of notice, of hearing, and of publication
& Fortune classified as locally manufactured cigarettes and taxed at 40% should not have been then ignored
GRN Due process where or 20%. CTA enjoined CIR from collecting deficiency tax for lack
119761 the IRR goes of legal basis.
August 29, beyond interpreting
6. CIR filed petition for review with CA arguing that the RMC is an When an administrative rule is merely interpretative in
1996 a law. interpretation of the Tax Code and being an interpretative ruling, nature, its applicability needs nothing further than its

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 it became effective without need for notice, hearing or bare issuance for it gives no real consequence more
publication. than what the law itself has already prescribed.

When, upon the other hand, the administrative rule goes

beyond merely providing for the means that can facilitate
or render least cumbersome the implementation of the
law but substantially adds to or increases the burden of
those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at
least to those directly affected a chance to be heard, and
thereafter to be duly informed, before that new issuance
is given the force and effect of law.

YES
Sutton made a voluntary offer to sell their landholdings devoted To be valid, administrative regulations must be issued by
exclusively to cow and calf breeding to petitioner DAR to avail of authority of a law and must not contravene the
certain incentives under the law. The CARL took effect and provisions of the Constitution. The rule-making power of
included in its coverage are farms used for raising livestock, an administrative agency may not be used to abridge the
poultry and swine. In an en banc decision in the case of Luz authority given to it be the Congress or by the
farms v. Secretary of DAR, the Court ruled that lands devoted to Constitution. Nor can it be used to enlarge the power of
livestock and poultry-raising are not included in the definition of the administrative agency beyond the scope intended.
agricultural land. Hence, the inclusion of such in the CARL was Constitutional and statutory provisions control with
declared unconstitutional. In view of this ruling, Respondents respect to what rules and regulations may be
filed with the DAR a formal request to withdraw their VOS as promulgated by administrative agencies and the scope
Rule-Making their landholding was devoted exclusively to cattle-raising and of their regulations.
Powers; thus exempted from the coverage of the CARL. However, DAR
Regulations must issued an administrative order providing that only portions of The deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission
be issued within private agricultural lands used for the raising of livestock, poultry show that a clear intent to exclude all the lands exclusively
DAR vs authority of law, and swine shall be excluded for the coverage of the CARL. Said devoted to livestock, swine and poultry-raising. DAR has no
Sutton GRN must not AO fixed retention limits. The DAR and the Office of the power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted
162070 Oct contravene President ruled that the AO does not run counter with the Luz by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It
19, 2005 Constitution Farms case while the CA ruled in favor of the respondents. has exceed its power in issuing the assailed AO.
Victorias Powers of Social Security Commission promulgated Circular No. 22, which W/N Circular No. 22 is an interpretative rule - YES
Milling Administrative states that “all Employers xxx will take into consideration and
Company, Agencies; Rule- include in the Employee’s remuneration all bonuses and Details and manner of carrying out the law are often times left
Inc. vs Making Powers; overtime pay, as well as the cash value of other media of to the administrative agency entrusted with its enforcement.
Social Difference between remuneration. All these [would] comprise the Employee’s

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
Security Administrative Rule remuneration or earnings, upon which the 3 ½ % or 2 ½% In promulgating legislative rules and regulations, an
Commissio and Administrative contributions will be based up to a maximum of P500 for any administrative agency is, in a sense, “making” a new law
n, G.R. L- Interpretation one month.” with the force and effect of a valid law. When an agency
16704, renders an opinion or gives a statement of policy, it
March 17, Victorias assailed said circular, stating that it was contradictory merely interprets a pre-existing law. Such an
1962 to Circular No. 7 which stated that overtime pay and bonus interpretative rule is at best merely advisory, for it is the
would be excluded in computing monthly premium contributions, courts which finally determine what the law means.
and that the circular was invalid due to absence of approval by
the President and publication in the Gazette. Rules and regulations, when promulgated in pursuance
of the procedure or authority conferred upon the agency
Social Security Commission replied that Circular No. 22 was by law, partake of a nature of a statute and compliance
merely an interpretation of a statute and a statement of general therewith may be enforced by a penal sanction provided
policy or opinion as to how the law (R.A. 1161) should be in the law (a.k.a. Penal Rules).
construed (i.e. how the term “compensation” was to be
understood). As such, the Commission maintained that it need Circular No. 22 of the Social Security Commission purports to
not be approved by the President nor published in the Gazette. merely advise employers-members of the System of what,
in the light of the amendment of the law, they should
include in determining the monthly compensation of the
members upon which the social security contributions should
be based. It did not add any duty or detail that was not
already in the law. It merely stated and circularized the
opinion of the Commission as to how the law should be
construed. Being an interpretative rule, such is not binding
and merely advisory to the courts.

Anyway, the Court found that the present interpretation of

“compensation”, as embodied in Circular No. 22, was the
correct interpretation.
W/N there was undue delegation - NO.

Legislative passed the law to protect the cattle industry.

Cruz v
Youngberg The true distinction, is between the delegation of power to
G.R. No. make the law, which necessarily involves discretion as to
34674. Undue Delegation Cruz sought to import large cattle for slaughter. Dir. Of bureau of what it shall be, and conferring an authority or discretion as
October 26, of Legislative animal industry disallowed such pursuant to an Act preventing to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of
1931 powers introduction of cattle diseases in the PH from foreign countries. the law. The first cannot be done; to the latter no valid

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 objection can be made.

The provision which provides that “The Governor-

General also may, by executive order, suspend, this
prohibition for a fixed period in case local conditions require
it” is of the second character
Issue: W/N such Department rule can be waived as it does
RA 1410 was passed "to prohibit the so-called 'no dollar' imports not have the force and effect of law- NO
except for commodities in exchange for goods exported by
persons or firms making the importation on a straight barter Held: A "rule (or a 'regulation' — a term used interchangeably
basis when authorized by the Secretary of Commerce and with 'rule') is the product of rule making, and rule making is
Industry. Thereafter, the Department of Commerce and Industry the part of the administrative process that resembles a
made an implementing rules and regulation which states that legislature's enactment of a statute. In this case, the said rule
imports may be brought to PH composed of at least 70% was made in accordance with the express authority of
machineries, equipments and/or essential commodities, and the Section 5 of Republic Act No. 1410 "to draft, promulgate and
rest may be semi-essentials and non-essentials, provided, that publish such rules and regulations as it may deem
Balmaceda in no case shall non-essentials be more than 10% of the total necessary" for the implementation of the Act. Withal, it cannot
v imports. Corominas wanted to import to PH Rhodesian corn but be lightly read that the said Consolidated Rules and
Corominas the Secretary allowed him subject to the condition “that in no Regulations are mere departmental rule, but rather do have
GRN L case shall non-essentials be more than 10% of the total the force and effect of a valid law which cannot be waived or
21971 Sept imports." Upon importing however, the Secretary notified him renounced
5, 1975 that his importats exceeds the 10% limit for non-essentials.
Teoxon, a former guerilla, sustained permanent physical ISSUE: W/N Teoxon’s rights takes precedence of the Board’s
disabilities as a result of hid active participation in the rules.—YES.
resistance. He claimed for disability pension under the Veterans’
Bill of Rights due to permanent disability. He initially received RULING: Regulations adopted under legislative authority by a
P25/mo which was then increased to P50/mo. Teoxon then particular department must be in harmony with the provisions of the
argued that such remuneration was contrary to the Veterans’ Bill law, and for the sole purpose of carrying into effect its general
Teoxon v Admin regulations of Rights, that he is to receive the pension effective. PVAB provisions. By such regulations, of course, the law itself can not be
Board June must be in harmony argued that the disability is not complete, thus, he is not entitled extended. So long, however, as the regulations relate solely to
30, with law to complete disability allowance. carrying into effect the provisions of the law, they are valid.
Osmena assails the constitutionality of paragraph 1C of PD W/N these was undue delegation of legislative power? No.
Osmena v 1956, as amended by EO 137, which empowers the ERB to
Orbos GRN approve increases in the price of fuel or impose additional Funds collected may be referred to as taxes, they are
99886 amounts on petroleum products which would accrue to the Oil exacted from the exercise of the police power of the State
March 31, Undue delegation Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) for the reimbursement of the and not from the power of taxation. Fund would continue to
1993 of legislative power ailing oil companies in the event of sudden price increases. be a subject of scrutiny and review of the COA, there are
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19
Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Osmena avers that the collection on oil product establishments enough measures to comply with the constitutional definition
is an undue and invalid delegation of legislative power to tax. of a special fund.

Since the OPSF is a special fun, it is collected through the W/N the conferring of authority to ERB is undue delegation?
taxing power of the State, so it constitutes undue delegation. No.

The Congress provided sufficient standard by which the

authority must be exercised. In addition to the general
policy of the law to protect local consumer by subsidizing and
stabilizing domestic pump rates, PH 1956 expressly
authorizes ERB to impose additional funds to augment the
resources of the fund.
W/N CAB has the authority to impose a fine -- YES

RA 776 provides that the CAB has the power to review,

PAL is a grantee of a legislative franchise where under the said revise, reverse, modify or affirm on appeal any administrative
airline provides both domestic and international air service. On decision or order of the Civil Aeronautics Administrator on
May 12, 1970, PAL had an excess of 20 passengers from matters pertaining to imposition of civil penalty or fine in
Baguio to Manila who cannot be accommodated in its regular connection with the violation of any provision of the said Act
flight, so PAL required Flight 213 (Tug-Mla) to pass Baguio to or rules and regulations issued thereunder.
pick up 20 passengers. No airline was affected by the flagstop.
In the case at bar, the fine imposed on PAL is that fine or civil
Thereafter, the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) Chairman filed a penalty contemplated in the relevant provision of RA 776 and
PAL v CAB complaint against PAL contending that the latter should have not a fine in the nature of criminal penalty as contemplated in
GRN first obtained permission from CAB. The Board then resolved to the RPC. It is an administrative penalty which administrative
119528 impose a fine against PAL. PAL filed a motion for officers are empowered to impose without criminal
March 26, reconsideration claiming that the power and authority to impose prosecution.
1997 fines is a judicial function and does not belong to the CAB.
- Secretary of Commerce and Industry, Pedro Hernaez,
W/N Corominas’ contention that the rules, as mere
promulgated the Consolidated Rules and Regulation
departmental rules, can be waived – NO
implementing RA 1410. The Rules provided that non-essentials
shall not be more than 10% of the total imports.
- Corominas requested then Secretary of Commerce and The Rules have the force and effect of a valid law
Industry, Manuel Lim, to allow the importation of goods up to which cannot be waived or renounced. A rule is the
Toledo vs US$485,030.33. This was granted. product of rule-making, and rule-making is the part of
CSC Oct 4, o The coordinator of the Producers Incentives Board wrote administrative process that resembles a legislature’s
1991 Corominas that the items sought to be imported have exceeded enactment of a statute. Administrative authorities are

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 the 10% limit on non-essentials. vested with the power to promulgate rules and
- Corominas pleads that the Consolidated Rules are mere regulations to implement a given statute and to
departmental rules which can be conveniently waived. effectuate its policies and when promulgated, such
administrative rules become laws
Sand, et Nursing law; The Abad Santos School of Nursing filed a case for declaratory ISSUE: W/N the lower court erred in declaring Article VIII,
al. v. Abad Administrative relief against the chairman and members of the Board of Rule 69, Section 5 of the Rules and Regulations of the
Santos, law; Board of Examiners for Nurses seeking to declare void Article VIII, Rule Board void. – YES, the lower court erred; the provision is
G.R. No. Examiners for 69, Section 5 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board. valid.
L-30918, Nurses has
July 18, visitorial powers. Section 5 of the said rules and regulations of the Board, reads: Yes, the lower court erred. The Philippine Nursing Act,
1974 (5) Periodic inspection. — Colleges, institutes or schools of Republic Act No. 877 as amended by Republic Act No.
Constitutional law; nursing shall be inspected periodically. Whenever a college 4704 expressly empowers in section 9 thereof the petitioner
Judicial review; institute or school of nursing is not, being conducted in board “subject to the approval of the President of the
Courts may not accordance with the minimum requirements and standards Philippines [to] promulgate such rules and regularly as may
pass upon contemplated in these regulations, no graduate of such be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.”
wisdom of statute. college, institute or school attending courses therein during the
period of the deficiency shall be eligible for admission to the Section 3 of the cited Act specifically empowers petitioner
Nursing Board’s nurses' examination or be entitled to a certificate of registration board to inspect nursing colleges and schools and vests it
visitorial powers as a registered nurse. Findings of such inspection will be sent with authority "to issue, suspend, revoke, or reissue
may be exercised to the authorities of the school and the suggestions therein certificates of registration for practice of nursing.
over schools regarding required improvements should be carried out within
existing at the one year." Abad Santos contends that to grant the Board of Examiners
time of the the same visitorial powers as those granted to the Bureau of
promulgation of its The questioned regulation provides for periodic inspection of Private Education would result in a power struggle between
regulations. nursing schools and barring from admission to the nurses' the two. The Supreme Court however held that this
examination the graduates of schools that are duly found to be manifestly addresses itself to the wisdom of the
Constitutional law; sub-standard during the period of the deficiency provisions of the Act which is beyond its domain to
Police power; inquire into.
Board of The lower court rendered a decision holding that while the
Nursing’s rule Board has the full authority under Section 9, RA 877, as Abad Santos does not claim and indeed nothing in the
providing for amended to promulgate said rules and regulations, the Board record indicates that the two agencies will not act
periodic may only apply the same to new schools or colleges responsibly and coordinate their efforts for the maintenance
inspection of established or opened after the promulgation of said rules. of high standards for nursing schools, and in the remote
nursing schools Thus, such rules are void and of no effect against Abad Santos event of any serious disagreement, it may be cleared
and barring from and its graduates. through the Office of the President under whose control and
admission to the supervision they pertain.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 nurses’
examination The regulation is a proper exercise of police power by
graduates of the State which is called upon to see to it and assure in
schools found to the interest of public health and welfare that colleges
be sub-standard and schools of nursing are properly conducted and
during the period maintained in accordance with the standards fixed; that
the deficiency they do not become sub-standard or fall below the
existed is valid standards; and that only qualified graduates are allowed to
exercise of police take the State examination and thereafter license to practice
power. the noble profession of nursing.

It is presumed The Board of Examiners for Nurses has visitorial

that the Board of powers over existing nursing schools and those
Nursing will schools which are yet to be established.
discharge its task
reasonably and DISPOSITION: ACCORDINGLY, the judgment under review
that new of respondent court is hereby reversed and set aside, and in
substantive lieu thereof judgment is hereby rendered declaring the
requirements validity of Article VIII, Rule 69, section 5 of the Rules and
would be applied Regulations adopted by petitioner board on July 27, 1967
prospectively. and its applicability to all existing colleges, institutes or
schools of nursing.

Issue: W/N doctrine of exhaustion of remedies apply – NO

Association of Philippine Coconut Desiccators filed present Ruling:

certiorari and mandamus suit against PCA to invalidate the The resolution in question was issued by the PCA in its rule-
latter’s board resolution, issued in the exercise of its rule- making or legislative power. However, only judicial review
making power, and certificates of registration it issued which of decisions of administrative agencies in the exercise of
deregulated the coconut desiccant industry, on the ground that their quasi-judicial function is subject to the exhaustion
the resolution is beyond the power of the PCA to adopt. The doctrine.
Asso Phil Association also seeks to compel the administrative agency to
Coconut v comply with the mandatory provisions of statutes regulating the Issue: W/N the PCA may renounce the power to regulate
PCA industry. implicit in the law creating it – NO.
February
10, 1998 The PCA alleges that this petition should be denied on ground of It cannot contravene the law which created it. At all events,
GRN forum shopping and non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, any change in policy must be made by the legislative
110526 considering an existing appeal before the OP. department of the government. The regulatory system

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 has been set up by law. It is beyond the power of an
administrative agency to dismantle it.

ISSUE:
W/N DOH acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and in violation of the provisions of the
Constitution in promulgating the RIRR - YES

RULING:
Under the Milk Code, DOH was authorized only to control
EO 51 (Milk Code) was issued by President Corazon Aquino on information dissemination regarding breastmlik and
October 28, 1986 by virtue of the legislative powers granted to breastmlik substitutes, and did not include authority over
the president under the Freedom Constitution. advertising, promotions and marketing materials of
breastfeeding substitutes (this is given to Inter-Agency
One of the clauses of the Milk Code states that the law seeks to Committee (IAC)). Thus, DOH RIRR provision which
give effect to Article 112 of the International Code of Marketing prohibited breastmlik subsitutes advertising, promotions and
of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World marketing materials Sec 4f and 11)
Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981. The WHA also adopted
Resolutions to further support breastfeeding as well as prohibit ISSUE:
nutrition and health claims for breastmilk substitutes. W/N Section 57 of the RIRR repeals existing laws which are
contrary to the IRR - NO
DOH issued a Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations
(RIRR)- Administrative Order No, 2006-0112 to effect the said RULING:
EO. Section 57 of the RIRR does not provide for the repeal of
laws but only orders, issuances and rules and regulations.
Pharmaceuticals and Health Care Association of the Philippines, Thus, said provision is valid as it is within the DOH's rule-
which represented manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes filed making power.
a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for the An Admin agency like DOH possesses quasi-legislative or
Prior issuances of Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or Writ of rule-making power or power to make rules and regulations
Pharma & Administrative Preliminary Injunction which results in delegated legislation that is within the
Health Care Agencies that are confines of the granting statute and the Constitution, and
Asso v inconsistent with They questioning the constitutionality (GADALEJ) of the RIRR subject to the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of
Health Sec law are declared promulgated by the DOH. Also, One of their claims also was the powers. Such express grant of rule-making power
GR173034 repealed or fact that Section 57 of the RIRR repeals existing laws which are necessarily includes power to amend, revise, alter, or repeal
Oct9-07 modified. contrary to the IRR- court granted the same.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Hence, it is a standard provision in administrative rules that
prior issuances of administrative agencies that are
inconsistent therewith are declared repealed or modified.

ISSUE: Is the AO in excess of the authority granted under

Art. 2613 authorizes the Collector of Internal Revenue to Act. 2613? -- YES.
promulgate rules and regulations for the classification, marking
and packing of tobacco, as may be necessary to secure leaf Such rules and regulations is confined for the classification,
tobacco of good quality and its handling under sanitary marking and packing of tobacco.
conditions.
Also, it will be found in the provisions of Act. 2613 that they
The CIR issued an Administrative Order, which provides, “to be are not limited to Cagayan, Isabela, and Nueva Ecija.
classified as standard, cigar must be manufactured under
sanitary conditions from good, clean and select tobacco, The purpose and intent of the Legislature was that a
Olsen vs properly cured and seasoned of a crop, which has been proper standard of the quality of Tobacco should be
Aldanese IRRs should not go harvested at least 6 months, exclusively the product of the fixed and defined, and that all of those who produce
[G.R. No. L- beyond the provinces of Cagayan, Isabela, and Nueva Ecija. Unless tobacco at the same standard should have equal rights
18740 April authority granted classified and certified as standard, such cigars could not be and opportunity. It was never intended to limit the
28, 1922] by law. exported to the US.” provisions of the law to certain provinces only..
Then Secretary of DOTC Orbos, issued a Memo to LTFRB W/N the authority given by the LTFRB to the provincial bus
Chairman Fernando allowing Provincial bus operators to charge operatios to set a fare range over and above the authorized
passenger rates within a range of 15% above and 15% below exiting fare is valid
the LTFRB official rate for a period of 1 year. Fernando replied,
stating that such a rule might not be legally feasible because the NO. The Legislature delegated to the LTFRB the power of
rates need to be approved first and a public hearing is fixing the rates of public services. With this authority, an
necessary to allow a fixing of rates. In order to satisfy the administrative body may implement broad policies laid
Constitutional prohibition on monopolies on any (bus) route, a down in a statute by “filling in” the details. However,
grant of certificate to operate or certificate of public convenience nowhere under the provisions of law are the regulatory
was required. The requirements to be given such a grant bodies authorized to delegate that power to a common
included the presence of public need. The new DOTC carrier, a transport operator or other public service.
Kilusang Secretary, Pete Prado then issued a Department Order defining
Mayo Uno v the policy framework on the regulation of transport services. In In this case the authority given by the LTFRB to the provincial
Garcia GRN this policy framework, it mentioned that in order to determine bus operator is tantamount to an undue delegation of
15381 Fixing of rates; public need as required by law, the presumption of need for a legislative authority under the doctrine that what has been
.December delegation of rate- service shall be deemed in favor of the applicant, the burden of delegated cannot be delegated. This doctrine is based on the
23,1994 fixing proving that there is no need for a proposed service shall be principle that such a delegated power constitutes not only a

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 with the oppositor. The Department Order also included a right buy a duty to be performed by the delegate through the
stipulation allowing operators to fix their own fares within instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the mind
arrange 15% above and below the indicative or reference rate. of another. Further delegation would constitute failure to do
such duty.

W/N Mandamus will lie to compel the two public officers to

issue the certificate of origin - NO

Philippine Code of Civil Procedure (Sec. 222) gives two

classes of cases when mandamus may issue: (1) where an
official unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from
his office, and (2) where he unlawfully excludes the
plaintiff from the use and enjoyment of a right to which
he is entitled and from which he is unlawfully precluded
by such official. Both cases are premised on the fact that
the (1) duty he is to perform, and/or (2) the right that
plaintiff should be enjoying, is found in a statute granting
Olsen, Co. was not granted by Insular Collector of Customs a such duty or right.
certificate of origin (premised on alleged inability of cigars to
meet the standards). Such certificate was necessary, pursuant Here, no statute exists which requires the two officials to
to the Tariff Act, to prove that the goods to be imported in the issue a certificate of origin. This certificate is only one type of
U.S. came from the Philippines and would thus be non-dutiable. evidence which may be presented by the exporter in order to
prove that the products to be imported into the U.S. is from
Administrative Appealing to the Collector of Internal Revenue for a similar the Philippines. Issuance of the certificate of origin is only a
Remedies; certificate, the Collector of Internal Revenue refused to issue custom which developed in order to expedite proving that the
Mandamus; Will not such certificate due to the non-issuance of the certificate of products came from the Philippines. No statute required for
lie if no statute origin by the Insular Collector of Customs. such certificate to be issued. Therefore, no statutory duty is
gives duty to be given to the officials to issue such certificate.
performed Olsen, Co. went to court and filed for mandamus, to order the
two aforementioned public officers to issue a certificate of origin As regards precluded right/s, the right which is accorded to
Rule-Making for the cigars (“cortado”, a type of cigar) that Olsen, Co. wanted the exporter is only the right to prove that his product came
Olsen, Co. Powers of to export to the U.S. duty-free. from the Philippines. No legal nor statutory right to the
vs Herstein Administrative issuance of a certificate of origin is given.
& Rafferty Agencies; Internal Olsen, Co. additionally argues that even if no statute grants the
G.R. 11138 Rules; Not binding right to the issuance of certificate of origin, such right may be Because no right or duty is given by statute, then no legal
December to third parties; Not found to be granted through Executive Order No. 41, as issued right is enforceable here by mandamus.
15,1915. enforceable in court by the Governor-General

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 As regards Executive Order No. 41, such is an internal rule,
which is only binding as between a superior officer
(Governor-General) and an inferior officer (customs
officials). As such, it is only for internal administrative
matters and is not binding as to third parties such as
Olsen, Co. Being only internal, it cannot be enforceable in
courts of justice through mandamus.
W/N the Rule violated prohibition against delegation of
legislative powers - NO.

Circular was within DOE’s rule-making power. the mere fact

that the Circular provides penalties on a per cylinder basis
does not in itself run counter to the law since all that B.P. Blg.
33 prescribes are the minimum and the maximum limits of
penalties.

Perez vs For an administrative regulation, such as the Circular in this

LPG BP 33 was enacted to penalize illegal trading, hoarding, case, to have the force of penal law,
Refillers Rule-making Power overpricing, adulteration and underfilling of petroleum products. 1. The violation of the administrative regulation must be
GRN15914 of Administrative DOE promulgated Circular providing for penalties on a per made a crime by the delegating statute itself; and
9 Aug 28, Agencies; Valid cylinder basis for each violation. LPG refillers argue that this 2. The penalty for such violation must be provided by the
2007 Penal Regulations penalty might exceed maximum penalty under the law itself. statute itself.
Issue: W/N such interpretations is valid? NO

W/N such interpretation is binding to the Courts? YES

Held: R.A. 2625 specifically provides that government

employees are entitled to leaves of absence with full pay
exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays. The law
Commission interpreted provisions of Republic Act No. 2625 speaks of the granting of a right and the law does not provide
amending the Revised Administrative Code and adopted a for a distinction between those who have accumulated leave
PERALTA v policy that when an employee who was on leave of absence credits and those who have exhausted their leave credits in
CSC GRN order to enjoy such right. Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays
without pay on a day before or on a day time immediately
95832 are nonworking days. They cannot be or are not considered
preceding a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday, he is also considered
August 10, absent on non-working days; they cannot and should not be
1992 (130 Administrative on leave of absence without pay on such Saturday, Sunday or deprived of their salary corresponding to said non-working
05) Construction Holiday days just because they were absent without pay on the day

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 immediately prior to, or after said non-working days
Administrative construction, is not necessarily
binding upon the courts. Action of an administrative
agency may be disturbed or set aside by the judicial
department if there is an error of law, or abuse of power
or lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly
conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of a
legislative enactment. When an administrative or executive
agency renders an opinion or issues a statement of policy, it
merely interprets a pre-existing law; and the administrative
interpretation of the law is at best advisory, for it is the courts
that finally determine what the law means.
However, the actual existence of a statute, prior to
such determination is an operative fact and may have
consequences which cannot always be ignored. To allow all
the affected government employees, similarly situated as
petitioner herein, to claim their deducted salaries resulting
from the past enforcement of the herein invalidated CSC
policy, would cause quite a heavy financial burden on the
national and local governments considering the length of time
that such policy has been effective. Hence, refund not given.

ISSUE: W/N the Secretary of Finance acted with valid

authority.—YES.
Amendment or
repeal of RULING:
administrative rules
and regulations— The construction of a statute by the Secretary of Finance not
Secretary of binding on his successors. The Secretary is vested with
Finance revoked a Hilado claimed a deductible item from his gross income authority to revoke, repeal, or abrogate the acts or previous
general circular pursuant to General Circular No. V-123 by the CIR. This was rulings of his predecessors in office because the construction
Hilado vs pursuant to which a issue pursuant to the rules laid down by the Secretary of of a statute by those administering it is no binding on their
CIRev GRN taxpayer claimed Finance. Subsequently, the new Secretary of Finance issued successors if thereafter the latter becomes satisfied that a
L-9408 deductions from his General Circular No. V-139 which not only revoked and declared different construction should be given. In addition, no vested
October 31, gross income. the previous circular but laid down new rules which resulted in right was acquired by Hilado from an erroneous construction
1956 (135) the disallowance of the Hilado’s deduction. of a law.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Mendoza was a senior revenue inspector serving under a
permanent appointment in the Office of the Treasurer of Tarlac.

The incumbent Mayor of Tarlac ordered Mendoza to explain why

no administrative and criminal charges should be filed against
him for falsifying realty tax receipts and unauthorized collections
of real estate taxes. The same was unheeded, Mayor dismissed
Mendoza from service, a copy of the decision was sent to him. W/N procedural rules can be relaxed to give way to
substantive justice? (in this case, no)
Mendoza was not able to draw salary and after making several
inquiries, it was only then that he was handed the decision Before procedural rules can be relaxed, it is implicit that
ordering his dismissal. He asked for reconsideration alleging liberality must be applied in a proper claims. Aside from
that he was never furnished a copy of the letter complaint and claiming charges were politically motivated, Mendoza never
Relaxation of he was not afforded the right to present evidence at a formal explained the discrepancies in the official receipts he had
procedural rules hearing. Mendoza appealed with the Merit Systems Protection issued and the apparent tampering thereof.
MENDOZA can only be sought Board which ordered his reinstatement.
v CSC GRN if petitioner can In order to seek relaxation of procedural rules in order to
105685 July show that he has CSC reversed the decision holding that the appeal was filed out present evidence in his behalf, he has to show prima facie
5, 1994 meritorious defense of time and that Mendoza was afforded due process. that he has a meritorious defense.
Benguet Corporation is a domestic corporation engaged in the Issue: W/N the new BIR VAT Ruling prejudiced Benguet --
exploration, development and operation of mineral resources, Yes
and the sale or marketing thereof to various entities. It is a VAT
registered enterprise. At the time the transactions were consummated, the
prevailing BIR regulations relied upon by Benguet provided
The transactions in question occurred during the period between that gold sales to CB were zero-rated. Benguet should not be
1988 and 1991. Under NIRC then in effect, any person who, in faulted for relying on the BIR’s interpretation of said laws and
the course of trade or business, sells, barters or exchanges regulations.
goods, renders services, or engages in similar transactions and
any person who imports goods is liable for output VAT at rates Benguet however suffered economic prejudice when it
of either 10% or 0% (zero-rated) depending on the classification consummated sales of gold to CB but were taken out of the
of the transaction under Sec. 100 of the NIRC. zero-rated category. Administrative Rulings should
generally be given prospective application. Parties who
CIRev vs Benguet applied for and was granted by the BIR zero-rated relied in good faith on an earlier administrative ruling
Benguet status on its sale of gold to Central Bank. The VAT Ruling No. should not be prejudiced by the promulgation of a new
Corp GRN 3788-88 was then issued which declared that the sale of gold to administrative ruling completely overhauling the
134587-88 : Central Bank is considered as export sale subject to zero-rate previous ones.
July 8, 2005 pursuant to Section 100 of the Tax Code, as amended by EO

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 273.
Benguet sold gold to the Central Bank during Aug 1989 to July
1991 and entered into transactions that resulted in input VAT
incurred in relation to the subject sales of gold. It then filed
applications for tax refunds/credits corresponding to input VAT
but was denied due to bIR Vat Ruling 008-92. Said ruling
provided that sales to CB shall not be considered export sales,
thus not subject to 10% VAT. Such ruling withdrew and
superseded all inconsistent BIR issuances. Hence, the petition.
- Segovia was appointed Justice of the Peace. At the time of
his appointment, the Administrative Code stated that “all justices W/N the provision in Act 3107 affecting tenure should be
of the peace and auxiliary justices shall hold office during good given retroactive or prospective effect – PROSPECTIVE
behavior and those now in office shall so continue.”
- Act 3107 was enacted which provides that justices of the Segovia should be reinstated. The language of Act 3107
peace shall be appointed to serve until they have reached the gives no indication of retroactive effect. The law signifies
SEGOVIA age of 65 years (this was merely tacked on the old provision) no purpose of operating upon existing rights. Said proviso
vs. NOEL o Segovia was ordered to vacate the office and was replaced was merely tacked on, leaving intact the section which
GRN 23226 by Noel who was the auxiliary justice then. permits justices of the peace to hold office during good
March 4, o Segovia filed a complaint to oust Noel. behavior.
1925

Nasipit Consistency with The National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC) is ISSUE: W/N a guideline issued by the RTWPB without the
Lumber law and the a government agency charged with the power to prescribe approval of or, worse, contrary to the guidelines
Company, Constitution.; In rules and guidelines for the determination of appropriate wages promulgated by the NWPC is valid? NO. It is not valid.
Inc. v. case there is a in the country. The Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity
National discrepancy Boards (RTWB) is its subordinate agency in the LGU’s. The Approval of the NWPC must be acquired before the
Wages between the basic RTWPB can promulgate its own guidelines.
and law and the The NWPC issued Wage Order RX-01, the gist of which was to
Productivit implementing rule implement a wage increase applicable to workers and The aforementioned provision grants the NWPC, not the
y or regulation, it is employees in the private sector in Northern Mindanao (Region RTWPB, the power to “prescribe the rules and guidelines”
Commissi the former that X). for the determination of minimum wage and productivity
on, et al., prevails. measures.
G.R. No. Petitioners are engaged in the logging business and integrated
113097. [SIDE NOTE:] wood processing business in Region X. They claimed to be While the RTWPB has the power to issue wage orders
April 27, The principle of distressed by external market factors and the sluggish under Article 122 (b) of the Labor Code, such orders are
1998 res judicata may economy.The 3 lumber companies filed a joint petition subject to the guidelines prescribed by the NWPC. One of
not be invoked in addressed to the RTWPB for exemption from the wage these guidelines is the “Rules on Minimum Wage Fixing,”

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
labor relations increase. They petitioned for an exemption based on Guideline which was issued on June 4, 1990. Rule IV, Section 2
proceedings No. 3 issued by the RTWPB thereof, allows the RTWPB to issue wage orders exempting
considering that enterprises from the coverage of the prescribed minimum
such proceedings Guideline No. 3 (not cited in the case) provided for a blanket wages.
are "non-litigious exemption to a distressed industry. This Guideline was not
and summary in approved by the NWPC. The Wage Order of the NWPC on the However, the NWPC has the power not only to prescribe
nature without other hand, provided for the exemption of distressed guidelines to govern wage orders, but also to issue
regard to legal companies only, subject to conditions stated in the Order and exemptions therefrom, as the said rule provides that
technicalities Commission approval “whenever a wage order provides for exemption,
obtaining in courts applications thereto shall be filed with the appropriate Board
of law." RTWPB granted a temporary reprieve from compliance with which shall process the same, subject to guidelines issued
the wage increase. The lumber companies, seeking a more by the Commission. In short, the NWPC lays down the
permanent relief, appealed to the NWPC. guidelines which the RTWPB implements.

The NWPC denied the petitions for exemption of Nasipit It is axiomatic that “[a]n administrative agency cannot
Lumber and Philippine Wallboard but approved that of Anakan amend an act of Congress.” Article 122 (e) of the Labor
Lumber. The NWPC stated: “The Guidelines No. 3 dated Code cannot be construed to enable the RTWPB to decide
November 26, 1990, issued by the RTWPB cannot be used as applications for exemption on the basis of its own guidelines
valid basis for granting applicants/appellees application for which were not reviewed and approved by the NWPC, for
exemption since it did not pass the approval of this the simple reason that a statutory grant of “powers should
Commission.” Hence this petition. not be extended by implication beyond what may be
necessary for their just and reasonable execution. Official
Art. 121 of the Labor Code creating the NWPC, provides: powers cannot be merely assumed by administrative
Powers and Functions of the Commission. - The Commission officers, nor can they be created by the courts in the
shall have the following powers and functions: xx exercise of their judicial functions.”
(c) To prescribe rules and guidelines for the determination of
appropriate minimum wage and productivity measures at the There is no basis for petitioners’ claim that their vested
regional, provincial or industry levels; rights were prejudiced by the NWPC’s alleged retroactive
(d) To review regional wage levels set by the Regional application of its own rules which were issued on application
Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards to determine if these of its own rules which were issued on February 25, 1991
are in accordance with prescribed guidelines and national and took effect on March 18, 1991.23 Such claim cannot
development plans; stand because Guideline No. 3, as previously discussed
and as correctly concluded by the NWPC, was not valid
ART.122. Creation of Regional Tripartite Wages and and, thus, cannot be a source of a right; much less, a
Productivity Boards. (which created the RTWPB) x x x vested one.
The Regional Boards shall have the following powers and
functions in their respective territorial jurisdiction: In sum, the Labor Code, as amended by RA 6727 (the

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 (a) To develop plans, programs and projects relative to wages, Wage Rationalization Act), grants the National Wages
income and productivity improvement for their respective and Productivity Commission (NWPC) the power to
regions; prescribe rules and guidelines for the determination of
(b) To determine and fix minimum wage rates applicable in appropriate wages in the country. Hence, “guidelines”
their region, provinces or industries therein and to issue the issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and
corresponding wage orders, subject to guidelines issued by the Productivity Boards (RTWPB) without the approval of
Commission; or, worse, contrary to those promulgated by the NWPC
are ineffectual, void and cannot be the source of rights
and privileges.

Disposition: Petition DISMISSED. The Guideline issued by

the RTWPB is without legal effect.

Under the tax code, all corporations or persons required by law

to pay internal revenue taxes whose gross quarterly sales do not
exceed Php5k are required to keep and use a simplified set of
bookkeeping records duly authorized by the Sec. of Fin.
Pursuant to such authority, the Secretary promulgated revenue
regs V-13, authorizing the use by taxpayers whose quarterly
sales do not exceed Php5k a simplified set of bookkeeping
records.

The secretary amended Regs V-13 by promulgating Rev Regs

V-43, requiring that a simplified set of bookkeeping records Issue: W/N the Secretary acted within his authority in not
should be especially designed for each class or kind of trade giving a retroactive effect to regulation V-43? – YES.
and prepared by a CPA.
Ruling:
The Secretary intended that the new regulation would have no Resolution is not arbitrary. The Secretary’s resolution is
retroactive effect and could not adversely affect those who had entitled to recognition and respect from the Courts. No one is
already acquired an accrued right under the old regulation. better qualified to interpret the intent behind the revenue
regulations than the authority that issued them.
A CPA devised his own simplified sets of bookkeeping
Amendment and regulation under the new regulation and thereafter instituted the However, the regulations issued by the Sec. of Fin. Are
Ollada c. Repeal of proceedings praying that respondent finance officials be subject to amendment or revocation by his successor.
Sec of Administrative enjoined from further accepting and tolerating use of simplified The secretary, under the law, may change or repeal any
Finance Rules and sets of bookkeeping that are not prepared under the new of the regulations issued by him as he may see fit so
(1960) Regulations regulation. long as it is in consonance with the statute.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 ISSUE:
W/N the Modification of the decision was Void or Valid
exercise of the President of his Powers and Prerogatives -
NO

RULING:
It is not within the powers of the president as the head of
administrative agencies.
When the March 1996 decision was not contested with a MR
within the 15-day period provided for by Sec. 7 of
Administrative Order No. 18, such decision lapsed into
finality. (so if they allowed the Nov. 1997 reconsideration,
then such Admin Order is useless)
Quoting Justice Panganiban, the court said: “Just as the
aggrieved party is entitled to the right of appeal, so is the
winning party entitled to the right to have the decision
lapse into finality.”
Moreover, since the March 1996 decision granted to the
In a decision, the SC struck down as void the act of the Office of Province and NQSR Management and Development
the President in reopening a case through the issuance of the Corporation the land for industrial development, such parties
November 7, 1997 “win-win” Resolution which substantially acquired vested rights when the March 1996 decision
modified its March 29, 1996 Decision that had long become became final, so the OP cannot then turn its tail and take
final and executory, being in gross disregard of the rules and such rights from them as such would be unconstitutional.
basic legal precept that accord finality to administrative On this note, to sum up, although the president is
determinations. allowed to waive a procedure he has promulgated
Rule Making himself, he may not do so when by the change of such
Powers; The March 29, 1996 OP Decision was declared by the same “mere procedure” he prejudices the rights of others
Amendment or Office as Final and Executory in an Order after DAR’s MR of the
repeal of said Decision was denied in the same order for having been DISSENT by JUSTICE PUNO:
administrative rules
filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. Suspension of procedural rules lies in the authority that
and regulations; promulgated them—Since such rules are merely for the
In their instant motion, the respondents contend that the “win- effective disposition of justice, they may be waived
Fortich v Office of the win” Resolution is Not void as it seeks to correct an erroneous and/or suspended if injustice will result from them.
Corona President modified ruling, hence the March 29, 1996 Decision could not yet become Such suspension was not whimsical. The president even
GRN its decision which final and executory as to be beyond modification. constituted a fact-finding committee to make sure that the
131457 had already ends of fairness and justice are met.
April 24, become final and The respondents explained that the DAR’s failure to file on time President merely exercised his control power over an alter
1998. executory the MR of the March 29, 1996 OP Decision was “excusable”. ego by correcting his previous decision.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Petitioners in estoppel since they had already accepted the
jurisdiction of the OP to rule on such matter.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the authority of the monetary board to fix the
maximum rates of interest includes the power to fix the
manner the interest rates may be compounded -- YES.
Banco Filipino must therefore comply.

PROVISION:
RA 263, Section 109. Interest rates, commissions and
charges: “The Monetary board may fix the maximum rates of
interest which banks may pay on deposits and on any other
obligations… The board may also fix the maximum rates that
banks may pay to or collect from their customers in the form
Banco Filipino released a circular pursuant to a resolution by the of commissions, discounts, charges, fee or payments of any
monetary board wherein savings deposits therein made were to sort.”
earn interest at the rate of 4% per annum, compounded
quarterly. RULING:
The law does not merely authorize the board to fix the rates,
Subsequently however, in the same year, Banco Filipino but also expressly empowers the board to fix the maximum
changed its policy by compounding and paying the interest on rates that banks may pay to or collect from their customers in
its savings deposits, at the maximum rate fixed by the monetary the form of “payments of any sort."
board from quarterly to the monthly and by paying in advance
All contracts are the maximum rates of interest on the time deposits. Indeed, the authority to establish maximum rates of interest
subject to the carries with it, necessarily the right to specify the length of
police power of the The monetary board directed Banco Filipino to comply, Banco time for which the rates fixed will be computed. It includes the
State. Being an Filipino, not wanting to comply filed a petition for prohibition and prerogative to regulate the manner of computing interest and
inherent attribute of preliminary injunction seeking to annul the CB circulars and MB the manner or time of payment of interest
sovereignty, such resolutions in so far as they restrict the payment of monthly
power is deemed interests on savings deposit and advance interests on time The power comes from implied grant of all powers
incorporated into deposits. necessary to carry out those expressly conferred, and
the laws of the from explicit authority under the law to avoid possible
CB v land, which are part CFI granted the order. evasion of maximum interest rates fixed by it.
Cloribel of all contracts,
April 11, thereby qualifying Central Bank filed before the SC a petition for certiorari Purpose of the law: In order to avoid possible evasion of
1972 GRN the obligation maximum interest rates set by the MB
L 26971 arising therefrom.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19
Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 W/N the Eos empowering NTC to fix rates for public
service communications do not fix a standard

NO, the EOs are constitutional.

In case of a delegation of rate- fixing power, the only

standard the legislature is required to prescribe for the
PHILCOMSAT was granted a franchise to establish and operate guidance of the administrative authority is that the rate be
equipment and facilities for international satellite reasonable and just. However, it has been held that even in
communications, and the authority to operate such ground the absence of an express requirement as to
facilities as needed to deliver telecommunications services. This reasonableness, this standard may be implied.
enables international carriers to serve the public with
indispensable communication services. The issuance of E.O. W/N the rate reduction ordered by the NTC is
No. 196, placed PHILCOMSAT under the control, jurisdiction confiscatory in nature, therefore making it void for failing
and regulation of NTC, including the fixing of rates. NTC to meet the standard of reasonableness
required PHLCOMSAT to apply for the requisite certificate of
public convenience and necessity covering services rendered Yes, the rate prescribed is confiscatory in nature. A cursory
and authority to charge rates. PHILCOMSAT applied for perusal of the assailed order reveals that the rate reduction is
authority to continue operating and maintaining its facilities and solely and primarily based on the initial evaluation made on
to charge currents for rendering services. Pending hearing, it the financial statements of petitioner, contrary to respondent
applied for provisional authority to continue operations if such NTC's allegation that it has several other sources of
facilities. NTC granted the provisional authority for 6 months, information without, however, divulging such sources. At
which was extended twice. NTC Commissioner Alcuaz ordered present, petitioner is engaged in several projects aimed at
PHILCOMSAT to reduce rates by 15%. PHILCOMSAT assails renewing its machinery and equipment in order to keep up
Philcomsat that E.O. 546 unduly delegated adjudicative powers to NTC by with the continuing charges of the times and these
vs Alcuaz Rule-Making empowering the latter to fix rates for public service undertakings were formulated on the premise that rates are
GRN 84818 Powers; Standards communications and not proving the necessary standards maintained at their present or at reasonable levels. Hence,
December required for rate- constitutionally required. an undue reduction of the rates may practically lead to a
18, 1989 fixing cessation of its business.
Rule-making DTI Secretary issued Department Order No. 79, which granted, W/N the interpretation in Department Order No. 79 should
PITC vs Powers; subject to availability of savings of bureaus/officers/GOCC’s, a hold water, even if there was a contrary interpretation of the
COA G.R. Interpretative Staple Food Incentive (SFI) to officials and employees of DTI statute in later case - NO
152688. Rules; Should be in bureaus, attached agencies, and GOCC’s. W/N employees of PITC are entitled to rely on an earlier
November line with the statute erroneous interpretation and should not therefore return the
19, 2003 empowering PITC, a GOCC attached to the DTI issued Resolution No. 98- SFI already disbursed - YES
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19
Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 administrative 12-07, approving disbursement of SFI to its employees
agency (amounting to P1,094,400.00). Going to the legislative deliberations and the history of the
Republic Act, it can be seen that the interpretation of
Rule-making Resident Auditor then issued a Notice of Suspension disallowing allowances was erroneous. Statutory provisions control
Powers; SFI and requiring it to submit to DBM for approval of such grant. the rules and regulations which may be issued pursuant
Interpretative PITC appealed to the Director, Corporate Audit Office II, who thereto. Such rules and regulations must be consistent
Rules; No vested sustained disallowance. PITC appealed to COA, who also with and must not defeat the purpose of the statute.
right to wrong affirmed the disallowance as an illegal disbursement of public Interpretations which are not in line with the statute must be
interpretation of funds. struck down.
statute; Exception
Also, the validity of the Republic Act will not and should
not be contingent on the validity of the rules and
regulations to implement such Republic Act. Therefore,
the invalidity and striking down of an earlier Implementing
Rules and Regulations did not operate to render the statutes
void.

No vested right can be acquired on a wrong construction

of the law by administrative officials and such erroneous
interpretation does not place the government in estoppel
to correct or overrule the same.

However, PITC officials cannot be obliged to refund the SFI

already received by them in good faith. They were of the
honest belief that they were authorized to receive said
benefits (De Jesus v. COA). This is so because the case of
National Tobacco Administration v. COA, which made a
definitive interpretation of the Republic Act concerned was
promulgated only in 1999, while the SFI were received in
1998. PITC, then, is presumed to be without knowledge that,
absent the proper interpretation made in National Tobacco
Administration v. COA the disbursement of funds for the SFI
is without legal basis.
BAGATSIN Petron was originally registered with the SEC as Esso W/N the interpretation of petitioners is meritorious - NO.
G v COP Philippines, Inc. Esso became a whole owned company of the
July 14, Interpretation of government as a subsidiary of the PNOC. Later Pres. Aquino The interpretation of an agency of its own rules should
1995 Rules promulgated a proclamation providing for the need to raise be given more weight than the interpretation by that

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 revenue for the government. Petron was approved to be agency of the law it is merely tasked to administer.
privatized. A petition for prohibition was filed seeking to nullify
the bidding on the claim that there was a failed bidding and cited The COA itself, the agency that adopted the rules on bidding
a COA Circular which provided that “there is a failure of bidding procedure to be followed by government offices and
when: 1) there is only one offeror; or (2) when all the offers are corporations, had upheld the validity and legality of the
non-complying or unacceptable” questioned bidding. The interpretation of an agency of its
own rules should be given more weight than the
In the case at bar, there were 3 offerors but only Petronas was interpretation by that agency of the law it is merely tasked to
actually qualified to submit a bid. Petitioners argue that in effect, administer.
there was only 1 bidder..
Also, The Rules and Regulations issued by the COP to
implement R.A. No. 7181 set aside 10% of the shares subject
of the privatization to be offered first to the small local
investors, and made clear that as far as said 10% block is
concerned, the small investors shall have the first crack to
buy the same. These Rules have been consistently applied in
previous privatizations, and they constitute a
contemporaneous construction and interpretation of a law by
the implementing, administrative agency.
Issue: W/N the interpretation of NTC is applicable in this case

Held: No. The court holds that the interpretation of NTC

regarding the escrow deposit and performance bond shall
The Court has promulgated a decision wherein it required pertain only to a local exchange operator's original roll-out
International Communication Corporation to make 20% escrow obligation under E.O. No. 109, and not to roll-out obligations
deposit and to post 10% performance bond. Said company filed made under subsequent or voluntary applications outside
a partial MR questioning such required deposits and bonds, E.O. No. 109.
attaching as its evidence a letter from the deputy commissioner The NTC, being the government agency entrusted
of NTC which states that escrow deposit and performance bond with the regulation of activities coming under its special and
Eastern were required to public telecommunications entities to ensure technical forte, is in the best position to interpret its own
Telecoms v. that the mandated installation of local exchange lines are rules. The Court has consistently yielded and accorded great
Intl installed within three years pursuant to EO 109 and RA 7925 respect to the interpretation by administrative agencies of
Communica and “since your company has already complied with its their own rules unless there is an error of law, abuse of
tion Corp obligation by the installation of more than 300,000 lines… the power, lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly
GRN escrow deposit and performance bond were not required in your conflicting with the letter and spirit of the law.
135992 Jan Interpretation of subsequent authorizations”. The interpretation of an agency of its own rules
31, 2006 Rules should be given more weight than the interpretation by that

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 agency of the law it is merely tasked to administer. Thus, in
cases where the dispute concerns the interpretation by an
agency of its own rules, one should apply only these
standards: “Whether the delegation of power was valid;
whether the regulation was within that delegation; and if so,
whether it was a reasonable regulation under a due process
test.”
In this case however, while the interpretation of NTC
as to EO109 is valid and binding, the situation goes beyond
that contemplated by the said law.

Chinese General Hospital (CGH) has been accredited health

care provider under the Medicare. CGH filed its claims with the
SSS, which together with GSIS, administered the Health
Insurance Fund (HIF) to Medicare. RA 7875 was enacted
instituting a national health insurance program. CGH’s claim ISSUE: W/N must be paid despite filing its claim beyond the
was overtaken by the passage of said law, which contains a 60-day reglementary period.—YES.
provision merging all functions and assets of Medicare with
those of Philhealth. Another provision states that the HIF, being RULING: This unreasonable strict implementation of the 60-
administered by the SSS and GSIS, shall be transferred to day rule will be counter-productive to the long-term
PHILHEALTH within 60 days from promulgation of the IRR. effectiveness of the NHIP (RA's purpose: state policy is to
PHILHEALTH promulgated the IRR, according to which, all grant discounted medical coverage to all citizens, with priority
claims for payment of services rendered shall be filed within 60 to the needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled,
calendar days from the date of discharge of the patient. women and children, and free medical care to paupers).
Phil Health Otherwise, the claim shall be barred from payment except if Technicalities should not be allowed to defeat CGH's right to
vs Chinese delay is due to natural calamities and other fortuitous events. be reimbursed for services it had already rendered. ALSO,
Gen Only a portion of CGH’s claim was paid. CGH again filed its RA 7875 does not provide for any specific period within which
April15, claims, however, for being filed beyond the 60-day period, to file claims. While it is doctrinal in administrative law that
2005 456 Exception to strict CGH's claims were denied by the Claims Review Unit of the rules and regulations of administrative bodies interpreting
SCRA 459 implementation of PHILHEALTH. It is later on denied with finality by PHILHEALTH. the law have the force of law, these issuances are by no
(117) rules CA, however, ordered PHILHEALTH to pay its claims. means ironclad norms.
Director of Mines Scholey transferred and assigned his rights, titles, and interests W/N the Director of Mines has jurisdiction to resolve the
has no jurisdiction in a mining claim to Yrastorza. Yrastorza filed a Lode Lease question of ownership? No.
to adjudicate claims Application covering the said claim but she subsequently sold,
Philex v. which are not transferred and conveyed the same to Zaldivia, the transfer was Nothing in the Mining Law indicates legislative intent to
Zaldivia overlapping and approved and recorded in Zaldivia’s name. Upon publication of confer real judicial power upon the Director of Mines. Section
(1972) administrative the same, PhilEx interposed an adverse claim to the lease 73 of the Mining law referred to overlapping claims amended

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 matters not application. Zaldivia moved to dismiss the adverse claim saying to expedite resolutions of mining conflicts, that the
incidental thereto that the Director of Mines do not have jurisdiction to resolve the controversies to be submitted and resolved by the Director of
question of ownership raised by PhilEx. Mines are for overlapping claims and administrative matters
incidental thereto. In this case, the adverse claim is not one
Director of Mines dismissed the adverse claim on the ground of grounded on overlapping claims nor is it a mining conflict
lack of jurisdiction to resolve the question of ownership because arising out of mining locations but a contractual relationship
the same was judicial in character. An appeal to the Secretary of between PhilEx and Scholey and his transferees.
DENR was taken but the the Director of Mines decision was
affirmed.
W/N NHA had the power to reinstate the Contract to Sell --
YES

There is no question that under Presidential Decree No. 957,

the NHA was legally empowered to determine and protect the
rights of contracting parties under the law administered by it
and under their respective agreements, as well as to ensure
By virtue of a Contract to Sell, H acquired prospective and that their obligations thereunder are faithfully performed.
beneficial ownership over a subdivision lot from AR Corp. Since petitioner failed to comply with his contractual
(petitioner). H transferred his rights to Y (private respondent) obligations, petitioner was not entitled to exercise its option in
with the consent of AR Corp. For failure of AR Corp. to develop the Contract to Sell to rescind the contract nor treat the
the subdivision project in accordance with its undertaking under installment payments made. NHA was correct in holding that
the Contract to Sell, Y stopped monthly installment payments as the prior installments made by PR could not be forfeited in
permitted by said contract. favor of petitioners.
Extent of judicial or
quasi-judicial Subsequently, AR Corp. rescinded the contract and forfeited all A statute may vest exclusive original jurisdiction in an
Antipolo powers of payments previously made by Y who brought the dispute to the administrative agency over certain disputes and
Realty v. administrative National Housing Authority (NHA) which ordered the controversies falling within the agency’s special
NHA (1987) agencies reinstatement of the contract under certain conditions. expertise.
- The Assembly entered into a Contract to Sell a subdivision W/N it is the HLURB which has jurisdiction over the case –
lot with Sps. Ignacio. The Assembly initially paid the monthly YES
installments religiously but stopped payment when its
administrative pastor discovered flaws and defects on the The provisions of PD957 were intended to encompass all
property. questions regarding subdivisions and condominiums. It
o The Assembly filed a complaint against Sps. Ignacio before would appear that the intent of the legislature was to provide
Christian the RTC, claiming that the latter fraudulently concealed the fact an appropriate government agency to which all the parties
Gen Assy v that part of the property was subject to litigation. The Assembly aggrieved in the implementation of provisions and
Ignacio sought to have the contract rescinded. enforcement of contractual rights with respect to said

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 - Sps. Ignacio filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack category of real estate may take recourse.
of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC, contending that under PD
957 and PD1344, it is the HLURB which has exclusive
jurisdiction over the case since the subject property is a
subdivision lot.

Guerzon Agency charged Petitioner Guerzon (G) executed with BLE Corporation which ISSUE: W/N the BEU has jurisdiction to require Guerzon to
v. Court of with regulating the was later acquired by respondent PSP Corporation, a contract vacate the service station leased upon the expiration of
Appeals, operations and denominated as "Service Station Lease" for the use and dealership lease agreements. – NO.
G.R. No. trade practices of operation of respondent's properties, facilities and equipment.
77707, the petroleum G likewise executed with PSP a "Dealer's Sales Contract" for The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the respondent
August 8, industry ordered a the sale by the latter of the latter's petroleum and other BEU has jurisdiction to eject G from the gasoline service
1988 service station products in the leased service station. Respon- dent Bureau of station leased. In view of the following:
operator- lessee Energy Utilization (BEU) approved the Dealer's Sales Contract
to vacate the and issued a certificate of authority in G's favor which had a 5- (1) No showing petitioner engaged in illegal trading in
service station year period of validity, in line with the terms of the contract. petroleum products. — "The order merely makes a vague
and to turn over Paragraph 9 of the Service Staff on Lease Contract provides reference to a 'violation of BEU laws, rules and regulations'
its possession to that "the cancellation or termination of the Dealer's Sales without stating the specific provision violated. That petitioner
the oil-company Contract executed between the Company [PSP] and the had engaged in illegal trading in petroleum products cannot
lessor upon the lessee [G] on January 7, 1981 shall automatically cancel the even be implied from the wording of the assailed order."
expiration of the lease."
dealership and (2) Respondent, a private party not prejudiced by the
lease As early as January 2, 1986, PSP informed G that it was not criminal act.— "xxx Even if petitioner was indeed engaged
agreements. renewing the contract which was to expire on April 12, 1986, in illegal trading in petroleum products, there was no basis
with notice to BEU. for the order. Illegal trading in petroleum products is a
Quasi-judicial criminal act wherein the injured party is the State —
power; That the In view of the failure of G to surrender the station premises and Respondent Shell [PSP] is not even alleged by the Solicitor
exercise of power all PSP's equipment, BEU ordered G to immediately vacate the General or a private party prejudiced and, therefore, it can
will most service station, and turn it over to PSP and to show cause why claim no relief if a criminal case is instituted."
effectively prevent no administrative and/or criminal proceedings shall be
or stop specific instituted against G in violation of BEU's laws, rules and (3) BEU not empowered to issue order to vacate.—"Under
violations of law is regulations. PSP, accompanied by law enforcement officers, Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 1206, BEU may (1)
no excuse for a was able to secure possession of the gasoline station. G filed impose a fine not exceeding P1,000; and (2) in case of
deviation from this this petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals failure to pay the fine imposed, or to cease and discontinue
rule. Otherwise, upholding the decision of the Regional Trial Court which the violation or non- compliance, order the suspension,
adherence to the dismissed G's complaint "for lack of jurisdiction to annul the closure or stoppage of operations of the establishment of
rule of law would order of a quasi-judicial body of equivalent category as the the guilty party. Its authority is limited to these two (2)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
be rendered Regional Trial Court." options. There is nothing [in the law which empowers it] to
meaningless. issue an order to vacate in case of a violation."
The Solicitor General contends that since G's license to sell
Administrative petroleum products expired on April 12, 1986, when his No express power to issue an order to vacate was
Agencies; Powers dealership and lease contracts expired, as of, the following included in its enabling act (PD1206); hence, BEU is not
of; An day, April 13, 1986, he was engaged in illegal trading in empowered to do the same; the only express powers
administrative petroleum pro-ducts in violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 33, give to the agency is the power to impose a fine and in
agency has only which includes "the sale or distribution of petroleum products case of non-payment, to order suspension/stoppage.
such powers as without license or authority from the government." Thus,
are expressly concludes the Solicitor General, BEU had the power to issue (4) Jurisdiction pertains to the courts.—"As it is, jurisdiction
granted to it by and was justified in issuing the order to vacate pursuant to to order a lessee to vacate the leased premises is vested in
law and those that Presidential Decree No. 1206 which confers, among others, to the civil courts in an appropriate case for unlawful detainer
are necessarily BEU the power to impose and collect fine "for every violation or or accion publiciana. There is nothing in P.D. No. 1206
implied in the non- compliance with any term or condition of any certificate, that would suggest that the same or similar jurisdiction
exercise thereof. license or permit issued by the Bureau or of any of its orders, has been granted to the Bureau of Energy Utilization. It
decisions, rules or regulations." (Sec. 7 thereof.) is a fundamental rule that an administrative agency has
Bureau of Energy only such powers as are expressly granted to it by law
Utilization; The and those that are necessarily implied in the exercise
BEU has no thereof. That issuing the order to vacate was the most
power to decide effective way of stopping any illegal trading in
contractual petroleum products is no excuse for deviation from this
disputes between rule. Otherwise, adherence to the rule of law would be
gasoline dealers rendered meaningless."
and oil companies
in the absence of (5) BEU's jurisdiction limited.— "Moreover the text of the
an express assailed order leaves no room for doubt that it was issued in
provision of law connection with an adjudication of the contractual dispute
granting to it such between respondent Shell and petitioner. But then the
power. Bureau of Energy Utilization, like its predecessor, the
defunct Oil Industry Commission, has no power to
decide [or adjudicate] contractual disputes between
gasoline dealers and oil companies, in the absence of
an express provision of law granting to it such power.
As explicitly stated in the law, in connection with the
exercise of quasi-judicial powers, the Bureau's
jurisdiction is limited to cases involving violation or
non-compliance with any term or condition of any

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 certificate, license or permit issued by it or of any of its
orders, decisions, rules or regulations."

Taclin Banez offered to sell to petitioner Tejada 200 sqms of lot

owned by Homestead Corporation. Taclin suggested that Tejada
pay a reservation fee of Php20k, which would be considered as
down payment should the sale push through. Issue: W/N the HLURB has jurisdiction over the dispute for
refund of the downpayment – YES.
Tejada paid the reservation fee, with the tentative agreement
that said lot would cost Php1.15k per sqm., among other terms. Ruling:
However, the terms were unilaterally altered by Homestead by Upon the promulgation of Executive Order No. 90, if, is
increasing the proposed amortization payment. Tejada refused therein provided that the HLRB has exclusive jurisdiction over
to go through with the proposed purchase and asked that claims involving refund filed against project owners,
Homestead return the Php20k reservation. Homestead, developers, and dealers, among others. The former provision
however, refused to return the amount. that the claim be made by a buyer has been eliminated.
Thus, any previous doubt as to who may file the claim has
Tejada filed a complaint for collection of sum of money with been eliminated. Now, any claim for refund whether by a
damages before the RTC. buyer or other in any other capacity is definitely within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the HLURB.
Homestead filed a motion to dismiss, disputing the jurisdiction of
the RTC, and claiming that the jurisdiction is with the Human The Court agrees with the observation of the CA that when
Settlements Regulatory Commission (now HLURB). an administrative agency or body is conferred quasi-
Homestead’s motion was denied. judicial functions, all controversies relating to the
subject matter pertaining to its specialization are
The CA however ruled that the jurisdiction is with the HLURB. deemed to be included within the jurisdiction of said
administrative agency or body. Split jurisdiction is not
Tejada vs the instant petition wherein petitioner argues that inasmuch as favored.
Homestead there is no perfected contract of sale between the parties, the Since in this case the action for refund of reservation fee
1989 claim for recovery of the reservation fee properly falls within the arose from a proposed purchase of a subdivision lot
HULRB jurisdiction of the regular courts and not that of the HLURB. obviously the HLRB has exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
Virgillo Dimatulac was shot dead outside his home. Allegedly it ISSUE:
was under the leadership of Mayor Yabut, the Yabut brothers W/N the office of the Provincial Prosecutor should have
and Francisco Yambao also including two John Does. deferred arraignment due to the pending appeal with the DOJ
Dimatulac v Asst. Provincial Fiscal Alfonso-Reyes resolved to file an - YES
Villon DOJ’s Power of information against Yabuts and John Doe Danny for homicide
GRN12710 Supervision and which was contested by Son Peter Dimatulac on the ground that RULING:
7 Oct 12, Control over it should be for murder due to use of treachery. Asst. Provincial An appeal to the DOJ is an invocation of the Secretary’s
1998 Prosecutors Fiscal Alfonso-Reyes rejected, thus petitioner appealed to the power of supervision and control over prosecutors.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19
Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 DOJ.
Despite the pending appeal to the DOJ, an information was filed The DOJ has the power to review the decisions of the
for homicide against the Yabuts and the John Doe Danny. prosecutor due to the doctrine of exhaustion of
DOJ resolved to order that the information be changed from administrative remedies which means that mistakes
homicide to murder but later on after it was informed that there done by the lower administrative authorities should be
had been arraignment already, it reconsidered its decision. corrected by the higher authorities before judicial
recourse is allowed.

In this case, as the petitions had a right to appeal to the DOJ,

the prosecutor should have waited or deferred arraignment
pending the decision of the DOJ.
ISSUE:
WoN prior notice and hearing is necessary -- NO. The
classification of positions in career service was a quasi-
legislative, not a quasi-judicial, issuance. This distinction
Atty. Abella Jr. retired from the Export Processing Zone determines whether prior notice and hearing are necessary.
Authority (EPZA), as Department Manager of the Legal Services
Department. He had a civil service eligibility for a Department RULING:
Manager since he completed the training program for Executive In exercising its quasi-judicial function, an administrative
Leadership and Management (ELM) pursuant to CSC body adjudicates the rights of persons before it, in
Resolution No. 850, which was the then required eligibility for accordance with the standards laid down by the law. The
the position. determination of facts and the applicable law, as basis
for official action and the exercise of judicial discretion,
CSC issued Memorandum Circular No. 21 which states the are essential for the performance of this function. These
positions covered by the Career Executive Service, which then requirements include prior notice and hearing.
required new set of eligibility requirements.
On the other hand, quasi-legislative power is exercised
2 years after his retirement, Abella was hired by the Subic Bay by administrative agencies through the promulgation of
Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) as Department Manager III, rules and regulations within the confines of the granting
Labor and Employment Center. statute and the doctrine of non-delegation of certain
Distinguishing powers flowing from the separation of the great
judicial functions When said employment was submitted to CSC, as required by branches of the government. Prior notice to and hearing
Abella Jr vs from legislative law, it was disapproved on the ground that Abella’s eligibility of every affected party, as elements of due process, are
CSC G.R. functions -- past was not appropriate. . He points in particular to the CSCs not required since there is no determination of past
No. 152574. and present facts, alleged failure to notify him of a hearing relating to the issuance events or facts that have to be established or
Nov 17, as compared to of the challenged Circular. ascertained. As a general rule, prior notice and hearing
2004 future conditions. are not essential to the validity of rules or regulations

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 promulgated to govern future conduct.

To add, the challenged Circular was an internal matter

addressed to heads of departments, bureaus and agencies. It
needed no prior publication, since it had been issued as an
incident of the administrative body's power to issue
guidelines for government officials to follow in performing
their duties.

W/N a "decision" of the WAS may be ordered executed by a

court of justice, without an ordinary action for the recovery of
said sum of money, and without a decision of such court
sentencing the employer to pay the aforementioned amount

NO. When a claim for unpaid wages is filed, the WAS shall
call the parties to a conference, at which the claims in
investigator/attorney shall resort to mediation. But, if no
amicable agreement is arrived at, said investigator/attorney
"shall immediately ask the parties whether they are willing to
arbitrate, and if not, the claim "shall immediately be assigned
to a claims attorney" who will conduct an investigation, "to
find out whether said claim is meritorious or not. If meritorious
Potente, a former bus inspector of the Saulog Transit, filed with the attorney shall prepare the corresponding complaint for
the Wage Administration Service (WAS), a claim or complaint court action. In other words, the WAS may cause the
for unpaid overtime compensation, unjust dismissal and employer to satisfy the unpaid wages through mediation,
vacation and sick leave pay allegedly due him. WAS investigator arbitration, or court action, and by no other means. It has no
recommended the rendition of a "decision": Potente entitled to authority to render a "decision" on the claim for wages,
unpaid overtime compensation, plus the salary for 1 month for except insofar as it has to determine whether the claim is
his indirect dismissal. A year later, Potente filed a petition meritorous, as a condition precedent to the institution before
alleging that he had filed said complaint with the WAS; that the "any competent court", of an ordinary "action" for the
latter had rendered the "decision"; and that said "decision" had recovery of the sum of money it considers due to claimant.
become final and executory, no appeal having been taken But, then, no writ of execution shall issue, except when the
Potente vs therefrom, and praying "that a writ of execution be issued". judgment rendered by said court shall have become final and
Saulog "Without, either notice to the employer, or hearing, said Court executory.
GRN 12941 Finality of decision granted the petition. Saulog filed a petition to set aside the
April 17, of an administrative former and to quash the latter, but was denied. When the law creating the administrative agency
1959 agency indicates clearly that an "action" must be brought, "in

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 any competent court", for the recovery of unpaid wages
which the employer fails or refuses to satisfy, said
agency has no authority or power to decide/render a
decision that may be subjected to a writ of execution.
W/N the license to petitioner continued to subsist which
empowered it to import through 1969 and 1970 as it did - NO

A license - which is in the nature of a special privilege

and not a vested, permanent or absolute right - once
Petitioner, who was an importer of fresh fruits, asked the Central granted, is always revocable. Power to revoke is
Bank for authority to import from Japan, among other countries, necessarily implied by the State’s power to grant such
fresh fruits on a “no-dollar basis” for the total amount of license. The power to revoke can only be restrained by an
US$715,000.00. Petitioner’s request was premised on the fact explicit contract upon good consideration to that effect. It can
that it was necessary to operate under “no-dollar basis” to be then be said that one exception to the State’s power to
able to meet the requirements of Christmas demand on the year revoke a license is if it is in the nature of a contract
1968. which is protected by the non-impairment clause of the
License as Constitution. Here, the license did not embody any
Function of Central Bank initially refused the request, saying that the items contractual interest, therefore its revocation cannot be
Administrative to be imported were not allowed to be imported in a “no-dollar precluded by the non-impairment clause.
Agency; Exception basis”. But the Monetary Board of the Central Bank later on
to Revocability of approved the request. The meaning of “fresh fruits” as part of commodities which
License; Non- cannot be imported on a “no-dollar basis” changed over time,
impairment Clause Petitioner was able to have importations from the time the due to different interpretations. Earlier interpretations were
request was approved (1968) to 1970. Central Bank then erroneous, but an erroneous application of the statute and
Rule-making alleged that the permit given was supposed to be only for the enforcement of the law do not block subsequent correct
Powers; Legislative Christmas season of 1968, as this was the premise by which the application thereof or bar a future action in accordance
Rules; Have force original request was made by petitioner. with the law.
and effect of law
Due to continued importation and the refusal of the issuance of Petitioner’s “fresh fruits” importations violate the Central Bank
Powers of the release certificates for the imported goods, the imported Circulars, hence liable to seizure. While the said goods may
Gonzalo Sy Administrative goods were seized by customs officials. not be considered “merchandise of prohibited importation,”
Trading v Agencies; Only they nevertheless fall within the other category of
Central those expressly Petitioner assailed such seizure, saying that they were merchandise imported “contrary to law”, because
Bank G.R. given and authorized to import the goods. Customs authorities and the regulations issued pursuant to “customs law” form part
L-41480 necessarily implied Central Bank countered, saying that the permit was only for thereof. Customs law includes not only the provisions of
Apr 30, in the he exercise Christmas season of 1968 since the petitioner asked for permit said law proper but also any regulations made pursuant
1976 of express powers to meet the 1968 Christmas demand in the first place. thereto like the Central Bank Circulars, which have the

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 force and effect of law. Consequently, violations of the
circulars are punishable by seizure, pursuant to the Tariff and
Customs Code.

An administrative officer has only such powers as are

expressly granted to him and those necessarily implied
in the exercise thereof. Here, the Central Bank’s authority
to regulate “no-dollar” imports is necessarily implied from its
mandate to influence and exert upon the stability of the peso
and maintain the peso’s international value.
W/N the case can be reopened. - NO.

The rule which forbids the reopening of a matter once

judicially determined by competent authority applies as well
There was a dispute over 4 parcels of land. The District Land to the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of public, executive, or
Officer ruled in favor of the defendants. This was reversed by administrative officers and boards acting within their
the Director of Lands. Sec. of Agriculture reversed Director of jurisdiction as to the judgments of courts having general
Macailing v Vested rights Lands and denied subsequent MR, that his decision had already judicial powers.
Andrada acquired after become final and executory after the lapse of 30 days.
GRN- decision has Closed proceedings should remain closed; vested rights
21607. Jan become final and Assistant Executive Secretary, on behalf of the president, should not be unsettled. A contrary view would, as correctly
30, 1970 executory reversed the decision of the Sec. of Agriculture. pointed out by plaintiffs, throw the rule of law to the winds.
Issue: W/N it violates the non-impairment of Contracts
guaranteed by the Constitution- NO

W/N it possess a sufficient standard as to limit the powers

granted to the Agency- YES

The Philippine Overseas Employment Agency awarded the wife Held: Every contract is subject to amendment in the exercise
of a deceased seaman a sum money as against his employer of the State of its police power in order to promote the
Eastern Shipping Lines, pursuant to Memorandum Circular no. 2 general welfare of the public. In this case, the inclusion of a
which prescribes a standard contract to be adopted by shipping clause for the compensation of the employee in case of
Eastern accidents related to work promotes the general interest of the
companies hiring Filipino seamen. The employer however
Shipping people in protecting the laborers.
questioned the constitutionality of the said Circular, claiming
Lines v. The standard on the other hand can be gleaned from
POEA Sufficiency of that it impairs contracts already perfected and the delegation the executive order which creates the Philippine Overseas
(1988) Standard of the power is invalid Employment Administration. It mandates said agency to

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 “protect the rights of overseas Filipino workers to fair and
equitable employment.” Settled is the rule that standards
can be seen not only in the implementing rules and
regulations, but also in statutes breathing life to the
agency tasked to fulfill a specific purpose.

Delegation to
admin agencies—
Statute left it to the ISSUE: W/N there is a valid delegation of power.—NO.
sole discretion of The Philippine Legislature enacted Act No. 2868, penalizing the
the Governor- monopoly and hoarding, and speculation in, play, rice, and corn, RULING: The Legislature did not specify or define what is an
General to say and under extraordinary circumstances regulating the extraordinary increase. All of these re left to the sole
what was and what distribution and sale. The Act also authorizes the Governor- judgment and discretion of the Governor-General. The law is
was not “any General, whenever for any cause, conditions arise resulting in thus incomplete as a legislation. The Governor-General
US v. Ang cause” for extraordinary rise in the price, with the consent of State, to issue cannot, by way of proclamation, determine what act shall
Tang (1923) enforcing it. temporary rules and regulations, and emergency measures. constitute a crime or not. That is essentially a legislative task.
Petitioner is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of W/N there was undue delegation of legislative power? No.
Spain and engaged in business in the Philippine Islands as a
common carrier of passengers and merchandise by water: The statute which authorizes a Board of Public Utility
On June 7, 1915, the Board of Public Utility Commissioners Commissioners to require detailed reports from public
issued and caused to be served an order to show cause why utilities, leaving the nature of the report, the contents
they should not be required to present detailed annual thereof, the general lines which it shall follow, the principle
reports respecting its finances and operations respecting the upon which it shall proceed, indeed, all other matters
vessels owned and operated by it, in the form and containing whatsoever, to the exclusive discretion of the board, is not
the matters indicated by the model attached to the petition. expressing its own will or the will of the State with respect
to the public utilities to which it refers.
True distinction
They are ordered to present annually on or before March first
between delegation
of each year a detailed report of finances and operations of Such a provision does not declare, or set out, or indicate
of power to make
the law would such vessels as are operated by it as a common carrier what information the State requires, what is valuable to it,
involve discretion within the Philippine Islands, in the form and containing the what it needs in order to impose correct and just taxation,
Compania as to what it shall matters indicated in the model of annual report which supervision or control, or the facts which the State must
Gen de be, a valid accompanied the order to show cause herein. have in order to deal justly and equitably with such public
Tabacos v. delegation would utilities and to require them to deal justly and equitably
Pub Utility be discretion as to Petitioner denied the authority of the board to require the with the State. The Legislature seems simply to have
Comm. how the law shall report asked for on the ground that the provision of Act No. authorized the Board of Public Utility Commissioners to
(1916) be implemented 2307 relied on by said board as authority for such require what information the board wants. It would seem

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 requirement was, if construed as conferring such power, that the Legislature, by the provision in question,
invalid as constituting an unlawful attempt on the part of the delegated to the Board of Public Utility Commissioners all
Legislature to delegate legislative power to the board. It is of its powers over a given subject-matter in a manner
cumbersome and unnecessarily prolix and that the almost absolute, and without laying down a rule or even
preparation of the same would entail an immense amount of making a suggestion by which that power is to be directed,
clerical work.” guided or applied.

The true distinction is between the delegation of

power to make the law, which necessarily involves a
discretion as to what shall be, and conferring
authority or discretion as to its execution, to be
exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first
cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be
made.

W/N the provision constitutes an unconstitutional delegation

of legislative power -- YES

For the purpose of the Probation Act, provincial boards may

be regarded as administrative bodies endowed with power to
determine when the Act should take effect in their respective
provinces.
C applied for probation under the provisions of Act No. 5521,
otherwise known as The Probation Act. Original action for The Probation Act, however, does not fix and impose upon
certiorari and prohibition was filed to prohibit the Court of First provincial boards any standard or guide in the exercise of
Instance of Manila from taking any further action in entertaining their discretionary power. It leaves the entire matter for the
the said application for probation on the ground that Act No. various provincial boards to determine. In other words, the
4221 is unconstitutional for being an undue delegation of applicability of the Probation Act are entirely placed in the
legislative power. hands of the provincial boards.

The challenged provision of the said Act was Section 11 thereof In the case at bar, the legislature has not made the operation
which reads: "This Act shall apply only in those provinces in of the Probation Act contingent upon specified facts or
which the respective provincial boards have provided for the conditions to be ascertained by the provincial board. It leaves
salary of a probation officer at the rates not lower than those the entire operation or non-operation of the law upon the
Delegation to now provided for provincial fiscals. Said probation officers shall provincial boards. The discretion vested is arbitrary because
People v. administrative be appointed by the Secretary of Justice and shall be subject to it is absolute and unlimited. The fact that at some future time,
Vera (1937) agencies the direction of the Probation Office." the provincial boards may appropriate funds for the salaries

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 of probation officers and thus, put the law into operation in
the various provinces will not save the statute. The time of its
taking effect, would yet be based solely upon the will of the
provincial boards and not upon the happening of a certain
specified contingency, or upon the ascertainment of certain
facts or conditions by a person or a body other than the
legislature itself.
- President Diosdado Macapagal issued Executive Orders
creating 33 municipalities.
- Pelaez, as the Vice President and a taxpayer, sought to
restrain the Auditor General from passing audit any expenditure
of public funds in implementation of the EOs or any W/N the EOs constitute undue delegation – YES
disbursement by the 33 municipalities.
o Pelaez contends that the 33 EOs were null and void. Section The 2 requirements for a valid delegation are: 1) that the law
68 through which President Macapagal was acting to issue the be complete in itself, and 2) that it fix a standard. Section 68
EOs has been impliedly repealed by RA 2370 and the EOs of the Revised Administrative Code do not meet these
constitute undue delegation of legislative power. requirements. The Code did not enunciate any policy to
o RA 2370 states that barrios may not be created, nor be carried out or implemented by the President. It also
boundaries be altered, except by: act of Congress, Act of does not sufficiently provide a standard. If a law does not
provincial board, and Recommendation of the council of set forth a policy, the delegate may create its own policies
Pelaez v. municipalities. which are legislative in character. If there is no standard,
Auditor Pelaez argues that if the President cannot create a barrio under there would be no means to determine whether the delegate
General the law, he cannot create a municipality which is composed of acted beyond his authority.
(1965) several barrios

Alegre v. Statute provides Section 1772 of the Administrative Code provides: "The Fiber ISSUE: W/N the authority vested in the Fiber
Insular for the inspection, Standardization Board shall determine the official standards for Standardization Board is a delegation of legislative power?
Collector grading and the various commercial grades of Philippine fibers that may – NO.
of baling of fibers hereafter be produced in the Philippine Islands for shipment
Customs, and the creation abroad. Each grade shall have the approval of the Secretary of (1) No delegation of legislative power involved. — "The law
G.R. No. of a board to carry Agriculture and Natural Resources; and for the dissemination provides in detail for the inspection, grading and baling of
L-30783, the law into effect. of information, copies of the same shall be supplied gratis to hemp and by whom and how it should be done, and creates
August 27, the foreign markets, provincial governors, municipal presidents, the Fiber Board with power and authority to devise ways
1929 Delegation to and to such other persons and agencies as shall make request and means for its execution. In legal effect, the Legislature
Administrative therefor, x x x" has said that before any hemp is exported from the
Agencies Philippine Islands, it must be inspected, graded and baled,
Section 1788, as amended, provides that no fiber shall be and has created a board for that purpose and vested it with

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 exported in quantity greater than the amount sufficient to make the power and authority to do the actual work. That is not a
one bale, without, being graded, baled, inspected, and certified delegation of legislative power."
as in this law provided.
(2) Delegation of the power involved necessary.—"It is
nothing more than a delegation of administrative power in
the Fiber Board, to carry out the purpose and intent of the
law. In the very nature of things, the Legislature could not
inspect, grade and bale the hemp, and from necessity, the
power to do that would have to be vested in a board or
commission."

The purpose and intent of Act No. 2380 is to provide for the
inspection, grading and baling of "abacá," "maguey," "sisal,"
and other fibers, and for an uniform scale and grading, and
the issuance of official certificates as to the kind and quality
of hemp, from an examination of which an intending
purchaser would know the grade and quality of the hemp
offered for sale.

Moreover, the contention that there may be partiality or

even fraud in the administration of the Fiber Law is not an
argument against its constitutionality.

The Court is clearly of the opinion that the act in question is

not a delegation of legislative power to the Fiber Board, and
that the powers given by the Legislature to the board are for
administrative purposes, to enforce and carry out the intent
of the law.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed and the petition

is dismissed, without costs to either party. So ordered.

Delegation to CFI Judge issued a writ of preliminary injunction against Admin Issue: W/N The Order is contrary tot the principle of non-
administrative Order No. 2 of Land Transportation Commissioner for delegation? – NO.
agencies; enforcement of RA 5715 or the Reflector Law, due to a pending
Edu v. Administrative certiorari and prohibition suit assailing the constitutionality of Ruling:
Ericta order implements said law. The challenged statue provides for a reasonable and valid
(1970) Reflector Law guide which sets the standard for the regulations, which is

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 The regulations laid out the details concerning the dimensions public safety. The law and regulations are also enacted under
and colors allowed to be used for the reflectors covered by the the police power function of the government.
Reflector Law.
To determine whether or not there is an undue
There is also an express provision in the statute that for a delegation, of legislative power, the inquiry must be
violation of any of its provisions or regulations promulgated, a directed to the scope and definiteness of the measure
fine of not less than Php10 nor more than Php50 could be enacted. For a complex economy, delegation may indeed
imposed. be the only way in which the legislative process can go
forward.

Function of standard is fixed in the law. To avoid the

unlawful delegation, there must be a standard in the law
which expressly or impliedly determines the fundamental
policy pursued.
ISSUE:
W/N there is undue delegation of legislative powers in RA
8177 to the two officials? - NO

RULING:
Delegation to RA 8177 is sufficiently definite. The law sufficiently
Administrative describes what job must be done, who is to do it, and
Agencies what is the scope of his authority
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Echegaray for the
Petitioner, a death Crime of Rape and the imposition upon him of the Death Penalty ISSUE:
convict, assails for the said crime. W/N the IRR is flawed? – YES
constitutionality of
the Lethal injection Echegaray filed a Petition for Prohibition, Injunction and/or TRO RULING:
Law on ground that to enjoin Secretary of Justice and Director of Bureau of IRR Sec 19: “said manual shall be confidential and its
it unduly delegates Corrections from carrying out the execution by Lethal Injection of distribution shall be limited to authorized prison personnel.”
Echegaray legislative power to Echegaray under RA No. 8177, and its Implementing Rules as
v. Sec of Sec of Justice of these are Unconstitutional and Void. Echegaray reasons that Requirement of confidentiality of the contents of the manual
Justice Dir of Bureau of these Unduly Delegate Legislative Power to the Secretary of even with respect to the convict is unduly suppressive. The
(1998) Corrections Justice and the Director of Bureau of Corrections. contents of the manual are matters of public concern.
Lemi vs Due Process in Lemi was issued a license by the Radio Control Officer of ISSUE:
Valencia administrative Department of Public Works and Communications to operate W/N the seizure was effected lawfully -- NO.
GRN20768 proceedings; radio station DZQR.
Feb 28, hearing is required PROVISIONS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
1963 if prescribed by law He filed for renewal of his license twice, but was not acted upon, Sec. 3 of the Radio Control Act
so Lemi continued to operate his station without any interference· No application for the renewal of station or operator license
whatsoever from said office, this giving rise, naturally, to the shall be disapproved without giving the licensee a hearing.
presumption that it had no objection to the continued operation
of said station. Sec. 17 of same act
· A radio station license may also be revoked for violations of
However, pursuant to a search warrant, respondents searched the radio laws and regulations, local or international;
radio station DZQR and seized and took possession of the radio provided, however, that no such license shall be revoked
transmitter used thereat in the middle of a broadcasting without giving the licensee a hearing.
program. Respondents’ claim was that Lemi was using a
transmitter different from the one he was authorized to use. RULING:
· Because of the seizure of the radio transmitter Lemi’s station
Lemi claims that the seized radio transmitter was the COLLINS can not continue broadcasting.
transmitter, but it, being a mere second hand surplus equipment, o Thus, in practical effect, the seizure amounted
had to be repainted. to a closure of the station and/or disapproval
of petitioner's last application for the renewal
of his license.

· The requirement of a hearing (shown by above provisions)

applies not only if a radio license is to be revoked, but also
before the Radio Control Office may lawfully do any thing
that, for all practical purposes, would amount to such
revocation because it makes it impossible for the radio
station concerned to continue broadcasting. This, precisely,
is the situation obtaining in the present case.

· That the seizure was made under authority of a search

warrant cannot obliterate the fact that such seizure was
made in violation of the law requiring a previous hearing,
which violated due process rights.

MMDA vs Atty. Garin was issued a traffic violation receipt and his driver’s W/N Sec 5(f) of RA 7924 which authorizes MMDA to fix fines
Garin license was confiscated. Garin addressed a letter to MMDA and penalties is valid -- NO
GRN Delegation to Chairman Oreta requesting the return of his license and stated
130230 administrative his preference for his case to be filed in court. He received no RULING: NO. MMDA has purely administrative functions. It
April 15, agencies reply, so he filed a complaint with the RTC. He contended that, may enforce, but not enact ordinances. Sec 5(f) grants

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
2005 in the absence of implementing rules and regulations, Sec 5(f) of MMDA the duty to enforce existing traffic rules and
RA 7924 grants MMDA unbridled discretion to deprive erring regulations. It states that MMDA shall “install and administer
motorists of their licenses, pre-empting a judicial determination a single ticketing system, fix, impose and collect fines and
of the validity of deprivation, thus violating their right to due penalties for all kinds of violations of traffic rules and
process. He also claims that this is an undue delegation of regulations whether moving or nonmoving in nature, and
legislative authority as it allows MMDA to fix fines and penalties. confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers’ licenses in the
enforcement of such traffic laws. There is nothing in the law
that grants MMDA police power, let alone legislative power.

MMDA’s powers are limited by its enabling law. All of its

efforts must be authorized by a valid law, ordinance, or
regulation arising from a legitimate source. When powers
to make, ordain, and establish laws which are primarily
lodged in the National Legislature have been delegated,
the agents can exercise only such legislative powers as
are conferred on them by the national lawmaking body.
W/N the Provincial Board was granted unbridled discretion
amounting to an undue delegation of legislative power - NO

The true distinction is between delegation of power to

The Provincial Board was given the power to determine which make the law, which necessarily involves a discretion as
lands were to be used in order to “further civilization”; in the to what the law shall be, and conferring authority or
process requiring the “backward” inhabitants - the so-called discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and
“Manguianes” which were perceived as savage, mountaineer, in pursuance of the law. The first cannot be done; to the
Delegation to pagan, and negro - to relocate in order to be “educated” in the latter, no valid objection can be made. What was
Administrative civilized ways of life. delegated here was the execution of the law. The Provincial
Agencies; Board was only to choose which uncivilized people were to
Delegation of Rubi, et al., were Manguianes who were held captive for be transferred to an unoccupied piece of land in the pursuit of
Legislative Power resisting such efforts of the Government after the Provincial further civilization. The Provincial Board was not given
Rubi, et al., Board of Mindoro selected their place of habitation. unbridled discretion; the sufficient standard given was “in the
vs Delegation to interest of law and order”, which was found in Section 2145
Provincial Administrative Rubi, et al., argued that Sec. 2145 of the Administrative Code, of the Administrative Code.
Board of Agencies; Sufficient which authorized the Provincial Board to require uncivilized
Mindoro Standard inhabitants to transfer homes to pre-selected unoccupied lands Anyway, legislative functions may be delegated to local
G.R. 14078 necessary to in the pursuit of being civilized was an undue delegation of authorities; this is one of the accepted exceptions to the
March 7, prevent unbridled legislative power because it gave the provincial board unbridled policy on non-delegation of legislative powers and
1919 discretion discretion. discretion.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 PACCU was questioning the constitutionality of Commonwealth
Act 180 which amended Act No. 2706 ("An Act making the W/N “Adequate and Efficient Instruction” can be considered
inspection and recognition of private schools and colleges as sufficient. - YES.
obligatory for the Secretary of Public Instruction”) PACCU claims
that there was an unlawful delegation of unlimited power and Despite such alleged vagueness (as contended by PACCU)
discretion to prescribe rules and standards to the Secretary of of the provisions, the Secretary of Education has fixed
Education, attacking specifically Section 1 and 6 of Act No. standards to ensure adequate and efficient instruction as
2706. reflected by the memoranda fixing or revising curricula, the
school calendars, entrance and final examinations, admission
Provision provides: It shall be the duty of the Secretary of Public and accreditation of students etc. (Section 6).
Instruction to maintain a general standard of efficiency in all
private schools and colleges of the Philippines so that the same “Adequate and efficient instruction" should be considered
shall furnish adequate instruction to the public, in accordance sufficient, in the same way as "public welfare" "necessary in
Phil Asso with the class and grade of instruction given in them, and for this the interest of law and order" "public interest" and "justice and
Col & purpose said Secretary or his duly authorized representative equity and substantial merits of the case" have been held
University v. shall have authority to advise, inspect, and regulate said schools sufficient as legislative standards justifying delegation of
Sec of Edu Sufficient and colleges in order to determine the efficiency of instruction authority to regulate.
(1955) Standards Meaning given in the same
Philippine legislature, by the enactment of Section 2145 of the
Administrative Code, conferred authority upon the Provincial Issue: W/N there was an undue delegation of power
Governor, with the approval of the Provincial Board and
Department Head, to select sites which have the conditions of a Held: No undue delegation of legislative power. Settled is the
“backward state” to improve “when such a course is necessary rule that discretion may be committed by legislature to
in the interest of law and order”. By virtue of this power, it was executive officials on questions of fact as the latter is best
alleged that Rubi and other Manguianes were held in a equipped with knowledge that is necessary for determining
reservation against their will in order to “improve” their such fact. In this case, what is merely delegated is the
conditions. One of the contentions is that such provision in the authority to select “backward states” to improve “when such a
Rubi v. Administrative Code is an unlawful delegation of legislative course is necessary in the interest of law and order”. The
Prov. Bd of Separation of power as it empowers the executive officials to choose which phrase “necessary in the interest of law and order” is a
Mindoro powers; Sufficiency sites are considered “backward state” and it did not contain a sufficient standard to define and limit the power
(1929) of Standard sufficient standard to limit such power conferred upon the executive officials.
People v. Act No. 2581 or the Blue Sky Law requires every person, ISSUE: W/N Act 2581 furnishes a sufficient standard.—YES.
Rosenthal partnership, or corporation to obtain a certificate or permit from
and “Necessary or the Insular Treasurer before offering for sale to the public RULING: The authority of the Insular Treasurer to cancel a
Osmena advisable in the speculative securities. The Insular Treasurer is empowered to certificate or permit is expressly conditioned upon a finding
68 Phil. 328 public interest” as a cancel or revoke a certificate or permit previously issued by him. that such cancellation ‘is in the public interest.’ The purpose
(1939) standard. of the Act is to protect the public against schemes which

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Appellants were charged for violating the said law and have no more basis than so many feet of blue sky and
Rosenthal questions that the Act fixes no standard or rule against the ‘sale of stock in fly-by-night concerns, visionary
guiding the Insular Treasurer. oil wells, distant gold mines, and other like fraudulent
exploitations’—public interest in this case is sufficient
standard.

Cenon Cervantes, Manager of the National Abaca and Other

Fibers Corporation (NAFCO) receiving P15,000 salary a year,
assailed the decision of the Auditor General denying his claim
for quarters allowance. By a resolution of the Board of Directors
of NAFCO, Cervantes was granted quarters allowance of not
exceeding P400 a month effective the first of August, 1949. The
resolution was disapproved by the Control Committee of the
Government Enterprises on strength of the recommendation of
the NAFCO auditor, concurred in by the Auditor General,
because of the following reasons: (1) that quarters allowance
W/N EO 93 constitutes an illegal delegation of legislative
constituted additional compensation prohibited by the charter of
power? No.
the NAFCO, which fixes the salary of the general manager
thereof at the sum not to exceed P15,000 a year, and (2) that
So long as the legislature lays down a policy and a
the precarious financial condition of the corporation did not standard is established, there is no undue delegation. RA
warrant the granting of such allowance. The President 51, in authorizing the President to make reforms and
promulgated Executive Order No. 93 creating the Government changes in GOCCs lays down a standard and policy that the
Enterprises Council creating the Control Committee of the purpose shall be to meet the exigencies attendant upon the
Government Enterprises pursuant to Republic Act No. 51 establishment of a free and independent government of the
approved by Congress authorizing the President of the PH and promote simplicity, economy, and efficiency in
Philippines, among other things, to effect such reforms and their operations. Standard was set and policy was fixed,
Cervantes changes in government owned and controlled corporations for president had to carry the mandate and he did the same by
v. Auditor the purpose of promoting simplicity, economy and efficiency in promulgating the executive order in question, which, tested
General Sufficiency of their operation by the rules, does not constitute an undue delegation of
(1952) standards legislative power.
When J was about to board a plane, 4 pcs of gold bullion were W/N the circular constitutes an undue delegation of
found in his body. There was also found $100,000 traveller’s legislative power -- NO
check. CFI Rizal convicted J of violation of RA 265, sentencing
People v. him to imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of P2000 and There is a distinction between the power to make law and
Jollife Sufficiency of costs as well as forfeiture in favor of the govt 4 pcs of gold authority as to its execution. Delegated powers fall under the
(1959) Standards bullion and the traveller’s check. 2nd category.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19
Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 The standards “to maintain monetary stability, promote a
Sec 74 of RA 365 conferred upon the Monetary Board and the rising level of production, employment and real income”
President the power to subject to licensing all transactions in are sufficiently concrete and definite to vest in the
gold and foreign exchange “in order to protect the international delegated authority the character of administrative
reserve of the CB during an exchange crisis and to give the details in the enforcement of the law and to place the
Monetary Board and the Govt time in which to take constructive grant to said authority beyond the category of a
measures to combat such crisis. The Board is likewise delegation of legislative powers.
authorized to take such remedial measures as are appropriate
to protect the international stability of the peso…” These powers
must be construed and exercised in relation to the objectives of
the law creating the CB, which are among others, “to maintain
stability and income in the Phils.”

J challenged Circular no 21 on the ground that it is an undue

delegation of legislative power.
Petitioner colleges and universities question the constitutionality
of Act No 2706 as amended for:
o depriving owners of schools and colleges, teachers and
parents of liberty and property without due process of law
o depriving parents of their natural rights and duty to rear their
children for civic efficiency
o unlawful delegation of legislative power on the Secretary of
Education

The Act provides for the duty of the Secretary of Public

Instruction to “maintain a general standard of efficiency in all ISSUE: · W/N Act 2706 confers unlimited power and
private schools and colleges of the Philippines so that the same discretion to prescribe rules and standards to the Secretary
shall furnish adequate instruction to the public in accordance of Education (is it an invalid delegation of legislative power)
with the class and grade of instruction given in them…”
Under its provisions, DepEd has supervised and regulated all HELD
private schools in the country without audible protest of the · NO. The power to fix minimum standards for adequate
general public for 37 years. and efficient instruction may be delegated.
· Adequate and efficient instruction should be
Petitioners reason out that Section 6 of the law leaves considered sufficient in the same way as public welfare,
PACU v. everything to the uncontrolled discretion of the Secretary of public interest, and justice and equity have been held
Sec of Educ Education or his department, and that the fixing of the standard sufficient as legislative standards.
(1955) is left to the Secretary.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Sufficiency of Secretary of Education issued Department Order No. 8, s. ISSUE: W/N the law imposes a definite standard so as to
Standards 1955 which promulgated rules and regulations for the conduct constitute a valid delegation of legislative power. – YES.
of the compulsory flag ceremony in all schools, as provided in
"Simplicity and Republic Act No. 1265. The requirements set in Sections 1 and 2 of the Act
dignity" as a constitute an adequate standard, to wit, simplicity and
standard. Petitioners appellants (members of the "Jehovah's Witnesses") dignity of the flag ceremony and the singing of the
assail the validity of the above Department Order, for it National Anthem.
allegedly denies them freedom of worship and of speech
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights; that it denies them due That the Legislature did not specify the details of the flag
process of law and the equal protection of the laws; and that it ceremony is no objection to the validity of the statute, for all
unduly restricts their rights in the upbringing of their children. that is required of it is the laying down of standards and
policy that will limit the discretion of the regulatory agency.
Petitioners contend that Republic Act No. 1265 is
unconstitutional and void for being an undue delegation of Statute need not specify in detail, manner of exercise of
legislative power, "for its failure to lay down any specific and delegated (De Leon book). To require the statute to
definite standard." establish in detail the manner of exercise of the delegated
power would be to destroy the administrative flexibility that
Balbuna, et Sections 1 of Act 1265 reads: "Section 1. All educational the delegation is intended to achieve.
al. v. institutions shall henceforth, observed daily flag ceremony,
Secretary of which shall be simple and dignified and shall include the Disposition: Appealed decision is affirmed.
Education, playing or singing of the Philippine National Anthem."
et al., G.R.
No. L- Meanwhile, Section 2 of Act 1265 states that the "Secretary of
14283, Education is hereby authorized and directed to issue or cause
November to be issued rules and regulations for the proper conduct of the
29, 1960 flag ceremony herein provide."

International Hardwood and its employees faced an industrial Issue: W/N the Court of Industrial Relations has the power to
dispute against each other. The dispute consisted of setting determine minimum wages for an individual employer in
minimum daily wages, devising proper schedule of rates, and connection with an industrial dispute which said court might
Internationa rate differentials between those in the mountain camps (higher take cognizance of under the provisions of section 4 of
l Hardwood wage) and those in the town. The Secretary of Labor certified to Commonwealth Act No. 103, - YES
& Veneer v. the CIR the resolution of the matter.
Pangil Fed Ruling:
of Labor International, after receiving an unfavorable ruling, sought to
(1946) assail the jurisdiction of the CIR as regards questions relating to Sec. 4 provides that the Court of Industrial Relations is
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19
Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 determination of minimum wages for an individual employer in empowered to "take cognizance for purposes of prevention,
connection with a particular industrial dispute, as provided for by arbitration, decision, and settlement, of any industrial or
Sec. 4 of CA 103, on ground that such delegation of authority to agricultural dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or
CIR is undue. lockout, arising from differences as regard wages, shares or
compensation, dismissals, lay-offs, or suspensions of
employees or laborers, tenants or farm-laborers, hours of
labor, or conditions of tenancy or employment, between
employers and employees or laborers and between landlords
and tenants or farm-laborers.

The National Assembly has by this section furnished a

sufficient standard by which the court will be guided in
exercising its discretion in the determination of any question
or controversy before it, and we have already ruled that the
discretionary power thus conferred is judicial in character and
does not infringe upon the principle of separation of powers,
the prohibition against the delegation of legislative function,
and the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

ISSUE:
W/N RA 8080 Sec 15 is unconstitutional? – NO

RULING:
Completeness test: law must be complete in all its terms and
Sec. 15. Implementation of Full Deregulation. -- Pursuant to conditions that all the delegate has to do is to execute it.
Sufficiency of Section 5(e) of Republic Act No. 7638, the DOE shall, upon Sufficient standard test: There must be adequate guidelines
Standards approval of the President, implement the full deregulation of the or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the
downstream oil industry not later than March 1997. As far as delegate’s authority.
“As far as practicable, the DOE shall time the full deregulation when the
practicable”, prices of crude oil and petroleum products in the world market Completeness test: There was a final date for the
“Decline of crude are declining and when the exchange rate of the peso in relation deregulation (end of March 1997). The president has no
oil prices in the to the US dollar is stable…. discretion postpone it but only to advance it.
Tatad vs world market”, and Sufficient standard test: “as far as practicable” “declining”
Sec of “stability of the EO 293 was issued by the President which advanced the date of “stable”. The dictionary meanings of theses words are well-
Energy peso exchange rate full deregulation and considered the depletion of the Oil Price settled and cannot confuse men of reasonable intelligence.
1997 281 to the US dollar” as Stabilization Fund as a factor to be given weight before ordering
SCRA 330 standard full deregulation. ISSUE:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 W/N EO 392 is unconstitutional? - YES

RULING:
Section 15 did not mention the depletion of the OPSF funds
as a factor. Therefore, the Executive Department failed to
faithfully follow the standards set by RA 8180
ISSUE:
W/N the Secretary of Public Works has the jurisdiction to
consider the Administrative Case, while the land registration
case was going on -- YES.

LAW:
When it is found by the Secretary of Public Works and
Clemente filled a portion of the bed of the Taliptip River with Communications, after due notice and hearing, that any dam,
stones, and on that constructed his sari sari store. The Taliptip dike or any other works now existing or may hereinafter be
river is navigable, a public waterway. constructed encroaches into any public navigable river,
stream, coastal waters and any other public navigable
Clemente then filed a land registration case with CFI Bulacan II waters, or waterways… he shall have the authority to order
to title his landfill. the removal of any such works...

While the case was going on, the Sec. Public Works, in an RULING:
Administrative Case covering the same landfill portion of the
The pendency of river, issued a decision ordering Clemente to demolish his store The pendency of the land registration proceedings is no
land registration and restore the river to its original condition. In response, ground for the suspension of the exercise of the powers
Syquio v proceedings does Clemente filed another case, this one against the Sec. Public of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.
Sta Maria not divest the Works, to prevent this decision from being carried out. To accede to respondents' view would immobilize the
Feb 28, secretary of PWC Secretary of Public Works and Communications or divest
1974GRN L of his powers to him of the powers granted by Republic Act No. 2056.
35479 given by law.
Sps Lovina blocked the Sapang Bulati, a navigable river in W/N the Secretary (Moreno) had authority to decide the
Macabebe. Residents asked that the obstructions be ordered status of the closure as nuisances and order its removal --
Lovina v. removed, under the provisions of RA 2056. After notice and YES
Moreno hearing to the parties, the Secretary of Public Works and
GRN L- Communications found the constructions to be a public nuisance RA 2056 empowers the Secretary to remove unauthorized
17821 in navigable rivers and ordered sps Lovina to remove five obstructions upon public streams, constructions that no
November Restriction on grant closures of Sapang bulati. Sps Lovina filed a petition in CFI private person is entitled to make in the first place because
29, 1963 of judicial power Manila to restrain the Secretary from enforcing his decision. the bed of navigable streams is public property. It is true that

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 the exercise of this power necessarily involves the
determination of some questions of fact, but these functions
are merely incidental to the exercise of the power granted by
law to clear navigable streams or unauthorized obstructions.

The mere fact that an officer is required by law to inquire

the existence of certain facts and to apply the law in
order to determine what his official conduct shall be and
the fact that these acts may affect private rights do not
constitute an exercise of judicial powers.
ISSUE: W/N Reorganization Plan No. 20-A is valid, insofar as
it grants exclusive and original jurisdiction for labor cases
(other than Workman’s Compensation Law cases) to
Regional Offices of Department of Labor - NO

The Government Survey and Reorganization Commission

was created to carry out the reorganization of the Executive
ranch. This does not include the creation of courts, since
Various laborers filed for compensation, separation pay, back the Constitution provides that “Judicial power shall be
wages, etc. against their employers. These labor cases were vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts
filed with the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor, as may be established by law.”
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, which was prepared
and submitted by the Government Survey and Reorganization The legislature may confer on administrative bodies quasi-
Commission, pursuant to its power of reorganization of the judicial powers involving the exercise of judgment and
Executive Branch. Such power was given by R.A. 997, as discretion, as incident to the performance of
amended by R.A. 1241, and implemented by E.O. 218, s. 1956. administrative functions. But, the legislature must do so in
express terms that would leave no doubt.
More specifically, the power granted to the Regional Offices was
Quasi-Judicial for them to have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases As held in Corominas, et al., v. Labor Standards
Powers; Not a affecting money claims arising from violations of labor standards Commission, it was not the intention of Congress in the two
grant of actual or working conditions, or those cases which do not fall within the aforementioned Republic Acts to authorize the transfer of
Judicial Powers Workman’s Compensation Law. powers and jurisdiction granted to the courts to the officials to
Miller v Quasi-Judicial be appointed or offices to be created by the Reorganization
Mardo G.R. Powers; Must be Petitioners in these consolidated cases are questioning the Plan. The Legislature could not have intended to grant
L-15138 incidental to jurisdiction of the Hearing Officers of the Regional Offices to such powers to the Reorganization Commission, an
July 31, administrative hear the labor cases. executive body, as the Legislature may not and cannot
1961 function delegate its power to legislate or create courts of justice

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 to any other agency of the Government.

A parcel of land was placed under the Complusory Acquisition

Scheme of the CARP. Notice of Coverage was sent to the
landowners. Respondents claimed that they were tenants in the
landholding, that they should be identified as landholding and to
disqualify petitioners.

Meanwhile, the registered owners of the land entered into a joint

project with AM Realty Development Corp.

The DAR approved the landowners’ application for the W/N DARAB has jurisdiction to resolve the issue involving
conversion with the condition that the beneficiaries shall be paid the identification and selection of qualified farmer
a disturbance compensation and the remainder of the land shall beneficiaries of a land covered by the CARP - NO.
be distributed.

Respondents and Landowners filed for the annulment of the The DARAB is not clothed with the power or authority to
CLOAs (land titles) awarded in favor of petitioners. resolve the issue involving the identification and selection of
qualified farmer-beneficiaries since the same is an Agrarian
Office of the Provincial Adjuducation (PARAD) dismissed the Law Implementation case, thus, an administrative function
case ruling that it had no authority to rule on the selection of falling within the jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary.
farmer-beneficiaries, as the same was a purely administrative
matter under the jurisdiction of the DAR. Under Section 15 of R.A. No. 6 that deviations from an
Sta Rosa v agency's statutorily established sphere of action cannot be
Amante DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) set aside decision of the upheld because it is based upon agreement, contract, or
march16, Jurisdiction of PARAD. consent of the parties; nor can they be made effective by
2005 Admin Agency waiver or estoppel.
In order to settle the labor dispute between La Union Labor Issue: W/N WAS acquired jurisdiction Held: No. The
Union and Philippine Tobacco Fluecuring and Redrying, it agreement of the parties before the Court of Industrial
entered into an agreement as to several matters regarding Relations, particularly the proviso, was insufficient to confer
La Union working conditions. There is a proviso in the agreement however power and jurisdiction to WAS to decide the case. Absent a
Labor Union that all other points not covered therein such as questions written authority from the parties to submit the case for
v. Phil Administrative relating to salary differentials, shall be presented to the wage arbitration, the ordinary function of WAS is to only hear
Tobacco Proceedings; administration service (WAS) for adjudications. Thereafter, the complaints for wages and if it finds the claim meritorious, the
FlueCuring Jurisdiction of Labor Union, in behalf of its members, filed a claim for salary most that it could do is to file a corresponding complaint in
(1960) Courts differentials with the WAS. Under the Rules of Procedure court. Here, there was no written authority but merely an

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 adopted by the Secretary of Labor, WAS is empowered to agreement in the CIR. Hence, the decision of WAS, absent
render a decision binding to the parties in case the parties enter jurisdiction, is without legal force and effect
into a written agreement to submit their dispute to WAS for
arbitration. By virtue of which, it rendered a decision in favor of
the Union
Jurisdiction —
Director of Patents
os asked by the ISSUE: W/N the Director of Patents have the power and
intervenor to rule authority.—NO.
on the terms and
stipulations of an RULING: The case involves contractual obligations and
executory contract An application for patent was files with the Patent Office. under the Patent Law, the Director of Patents has no power
Feliciano vs whereby intervenor Pending examination of the application M filed a motion to and authority to decide on the motion because it is essentially
Dir of is to act as selling intervene claiming he has a better right based on a previous a judicial function. Aside from want of authority and power,
Patents 93 agent for the contract. The motion was denied on the ground that the Director the Director of Patents lacks the means to make such
Phil 115 investors of the of Patents has no jurisdiction or power to decide the issue at determination and finding which would be necessary before
(1953) patent. hand. he could act on the motion.
W/N Commissioner still has jurisdiction despite of the
expiration of the law? No.

Roxas was issued an import control license to import cotton It is a settled rule that a court, be it judicial or
counterpanes. With this, she imported from Japan 14 bales of administrative, that has acquired jurisdiction over a
cotton counterpanes. However, the license was issued in case, retains it after the expiration of the law governing
violation of the Import Control Law whereby the importation of the case. Herein, once the Commissioner has acquired
Jurisdiction once cotton counterpanes was banned, so the contraband were jurisdiction over the case,the mere expiration of the law does
acquired subsists seized by the Collector of Customs. She tried to recover the not divest him of his jurisdiction thereon duly acquired while
Roxas v. until the case is cotton counterpanes but the Collector of Customs decided to the law was still in force. He retained jurisdiction and should
Sayoc completely forfeit said merchandise for being imported in violation of the continue to take cognizance of the case until final
(1956) decided. law. determination thereof
An application for patent was filed with the Patent office. W/N the Dir of Patents has the power to compel the
Pending examination of the application, M filed a motion to applicant-investors to do what M is asking them to perform --
intervene claiming that the applicant inventors had sold and NO
bartered and assigned to him their right to contract or deal with
Feliciano v. the sale of their invention to or through the Corporation that they The alleged assignment is not of the invention but is an
Dir of were then organizing under his direction. M also prayed that agreement where M is to act as selling agent for the
Patents applicant-inventors T and F acknowledge said contract before a inventors of the patent and of the invention covered thereby,
(1953) Jurisdiction notary public and have both contracts recorded in the Patent and receive compensation therefor. M does not ask for the
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19
Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Office and in the Registry of Deeds. Moreover, M prayed that registration of the alleged agreement between him and the
the patent be issued in his name and in the name of the inventors because it cannot be recorded. M prays that the Dir
inventors. of Patents compel inventors to sign the contract executed
and that T and F acknowledge it and another document
The motion was denied on the ground that under the Patent which refers to the minutes of the meeting of the organizers
Law, the Dir of Patents has no jurisdiction or power to decide the of the Manufacturing Corp before the notary public and then
question submitted to him. have both documents recorded in the Patent Office and
Register of Deeds.

Under the provisions of the Patent Law, the Dir of Patents

has no authority to compel applicant investors to do
what M is asking them to perform, which is a judicial
function. Being a judicial function, it requires the
determination or finding by a court of competent jurisdiction
as to whether there was a meeting of the minds between
parties.
Moreover, Dir of Patents lacks the means to make such
determination and finding which would be necessary before
he could act on M’s motion.
Savellano informed the BIR that PNB had failed to withhold the W/N the compromise agreement was valid - NO
15% final tax on interest earnings and/or yields from the money
placements of PNOC with the said bank in violation of PD 1931. PNOC could not apply for a compromise under EO 44
o BIR requested PNOC to settle its liability for taxes. PNOC because its tax liability was not a delinquent account or a
wrote the BIR and made an offer to compromise its tax liability. disputed assessment then. EO 44 covers self-assessed tax,
PNOC proposed to set-off its tax liability against a claim for tax however, PNOC’s liability was found through an investigation
refund/credit of the NAPOCOR. conducted by the BIR pursuant to the information given by
o BIR sent a demand letter to PNB as withholding agent for the Savellano.
payment of the final tax on the interest earnings from PNOCs
money placements with the bank. PNOC wrote again to BIR EO 44 does not contemplate compromise payment by set-off
reiterating its proposal of the set-off. BIR replied that the set-off
of a tax liability against a claim for tax refund/credit. It may
proposal is premature because NAPOCOR’s claim is still under only be availed of by paying an amount equal to 30% of the
process. basic tax assessed, and shall be paid immediately in cash or
PNOC vs o PNOC made another offer to settle its liability. PNOC manager’s check.
PNB DOJ proposed a compromise by paying 30% of the basic tax in o EO 44 is not for the benefit of the taxpayer alone. It also
G.R. No. Compromise and accordance with EO 44. BIR accepted the compromise benefits the Government by making collection of delinquent
109976. Arbitration, Rules accounts and disputed assessments simpler, easier, and
April 26, on Adjudication Savellano, through counsel, wrote to BIR to demand payment of faster.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 the balance of his informer’s reward. o PNOC’s offer to set-off was made to avoid actual cash-out
o BIR replied stating that he was already fully paid equivalent to which defeats the purpose of EO 44. It delays and does not
15% of the amount of tax actually collected pursuant to the guarantee payment.
compromise.

Savellano questioned the legality of the compromise between

the BIR and PNOC, and claimed that the tax liability should have
been collected in full.

National Juridical Marcos issued PD 388, creating the Philippine Sugar ISSUE: W/N CA erred in upholding the legality of the
Sugar personality (?) Commission (PHILSUCOM) as the sole buying and selling compensation by PNB of the accounts of NASUTRA. – NO,
Trading agent of sugar on the quedan permit level. CA did not err. The compensation by PNB of the accounts
and/or EO242? of NASUTRA was legal.
Sugar PD 579 was also issued, authorizing the Philippine Exchange
Regulatory Company, Inc. (PHILEXCHANGE), a wholly owned subsidiary The important part here is the validity of the compensation
Administra of Philippine National Bank (PNB), to serve as the marketing of the P200 Million PHILEXCHANGE account. Petitioners
tion v. agent of PHILSUCOM. PHILEXCHANGE’s purchases of sugar say that compensation is not possible, since the subject
Philippine shall be financed by PNB and the proceeds of sugar trading remittances were received by PNB and not
National operations of PHILEXCHANGE shall be used to pay its PHILEXCHANGE, a corporation clothed with a separate
Bank, liabilities with PNB. and distinct corporate personality from PNB.
G.R. No.
151218, With the fall of world sugar prices, PHILEXCHANGE could not However, it was clear that PHILEXCHANGE and PNB
January pay and owed PNB P200M. were treated as one entity. Purchases of sugar of
28, 2003 PHILEXCHANGE as the exclusive sugar trading arm of
In 1977, the National Sugar Trading Corporation (NASUTRA) PHILSUCOM were financed by PNB pursuant to PD 579.
replaced PHILEXCHANGE as the marketing agent of More importantly, PNB, a wholly owned bank of the
PHILSUCOM. However, NASUTRA and PHILSUCOM still government at that time, in turn wholly owned and
failed to pay the sugar stocks covered by quedans to controlled PHILEXCHANGE.
PHILEXCHANGE eventually amounted to P498,828,845.03
A corporation that is wholly owned and controlled by
To finance its sugar trading operations, NASUTRA applied for the government does not have a separate juridical
and was granted a P408 Million Revolving Credit Line by PNB personality.
in 1981. Still, NASUTRA wound up with another 65M in interest
payments. Also, Section 2 (a), PD 659 declared as illegal the sale,
transfer and assignment of sugar by any planter, producer,
Then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order miller, central, or refinery to any person or entity OTHER
(EO) No. 18 creating the Sugar Regulatory Administration THAN the Philippine Exchange, Inc. and/or the PNB.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 (SRA) and abolishing PHILSUCOM. Thus, NASUTRA was
dissolved and its assets were transferred to the SRA. Still, To reiterate, PHILEXCHANGE failed to pay its loans with
NASUTRA (and consequently the SRA) defaulted in its loans, PNB because of the fall of the sugar prices in the world
ended up owing a total of P380 Million. market. When NASUTRA substituted PHILEXCHANGE as
marketing agent of PHILSUCOM, 1,485,532.47 metric tons
PNB then received remittances from the foreign banks of export sugar were turned over by PHILEXCHANGE to
amounting to P690 Million. PNB applied these remittances to NASUTRA. To reiterate, the foreign remittances constituted
the 380 Million NASUTRA account and 65M in interest proceeds of the sale of the sugar covered by quedans
payments, AS WELL as the 200M PHILEXCHANGE account transferred by PHILEXCHANGE to NASUTRA.
still on PHILSUCOM’s books.
DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED. CA decision affirmed.
Accordingly, NASUTRA requested PNB to furnish it with the
necessary documents and/or explanation concerning the
disposition/application, accounting and restitution of the
remittances in question. Dissatisfied, and believing that PNB
failed to provide them with said documents, the petitioners then
filed a petition for arbitration with the DOJ. The SOJ ruled for
them, saying that PNB should refund the 200M back to
petitioners. Office of the President and CA reversed, thus this
petition.

HSRC conducted an inquiry in the most informal manner by Issue: W/N AV was denied due process of law – YES
means only of communications requiring submission of certain
documents. Ruling:
Administrative proceeding against AV absolutely inexcusable
AV was granted a building permit by the City Engr. to construct or indefeasible for conducting the inquiry in the most informal
a funeral parlor. J, after having been enjoined by the court to manner – i.e. by means only of communications requiring
construct a funeral parlor, lodged a complaint with the HSRC on submission of certain documents. The order of HSRC is null
the same ground litigated in the action. and void for non compliance with due process requirements,
since some of the elements of due process in administrative
AV received a telegram from HSRC requesting for proof of proceedings are not met.
location clearance granted by the office. AV sent a reply,
inclusive of the requested documents. AV furnished the HSRC Administrative proceedings are not exempt from the
Villa vs thrice by registered mail with copies, on separate occasions. operation of certain fundamental procedural principles
Lazaro such as due process requirements in investigations and
GRN 69871 Due process of law Despite such compliance, HSRC issued a cease and desist trials. Principles include: a) right to notice, actual or
Aug 24, in administrative order and imposed fine against AV. A MR and further appeal constructive, b) reasonable opportunity to appear and
1990 adjudication were denied. defend rights, introduce witness and adduce evidence, c)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 a tribunal with competent jurisdiction constituted as to
Neither J nor the HSRC ever made known the complaint of J to give reasonable assurance of honesty and partiality, and
AV until after the HSRC has rendered several adverse rulings d) a finding by that tribunal supported by substantial
against AV. The orders also made no reference to the evidence.
documents AV submitted by registered mail and omitted as well
to refer to the documents sent by J. Moreover, earlier judgment on the merits by a competent
court cannot be negated by result of administrative
proceedings.
ISSUE:
W/N CIR should have rendered judgment on the basis of the
findings of the Acting Prosecutor? – NO

HELD:
An investigation by the CIR, a member thereof, or any
agent like the Acting Prosecutor is mandatory because
whether or not a regular complaint is to be filed depends
on the result of said inestigation. It is when a complaint
Petitioner was dismissed from his employment due to his union based on the said investigation is filed that the CIR
activities with NUPW. NUPW filed charges against the employer intervenes by requiring respondent to answer the
and its manager with the CIR. Judge B of the CIR designated an complaint and then both parties are heard to receive
National Acting Prosecutor to investigate. The Acting Prosecutor who evidence.
Union of found a prima facie case for unfair labor practice. However, after
Printing hearings at which both parties adduced their evidence, Judge B That being said, the CIR will not be bound by the findings of
Workers v dismissed the complaint for unfair labor practice. the Acting Prosecutor who merely conducted an ex parte
Asia investigation while the proceedings in the CIR partake the
Printing Petitioner contends Judge B should have rendered judgment in nature of a trial which requires hearing and reception of
(1956) his favor on the basis of the findings of the Acting Prosecutor. evidence. (own conclusion based on class discussion)
ISSUE:
Is the claim of denial of due process meritorious? -- YES.
The hearing officer of the Workmen’s Compensation
Commission (WCC) issued an order of dismissal of a claim of RULING:
compensation, due to the repeated non-appearance of the WCC gravely abused its discretion in ignoring and in not
Bautista v. claimants, which the records showed, was due to lack of notice passing upon the said issue of due process.
Workmen’s or receipt thereof after the scheduled date of such hearing.
Comp Due process in The Revised Rules of WCC require the giving of
comm. administrative WCC did not pass upon the issue of the denial of due process reasonable notice of hearing to each part interested by
(1979) proceedings. equally presented by the claimant. service upon him personally or by registered mail of a

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 copy thereof.

The claimant was clearly deprived of his day in court. The

dismissal cannot stand for violating the right to due process
of the claimant.
Acebedo Optical applied with the City Mayor of Iligan for a W/N City Mayor has the authority to impose special
business permit. Local optometrists opposed, thus Mayor issued conditions in the grant of business permits as a valid exercise
said permit subject ot certain conditions: of police power -- NO
1. Since it is a corporation, Acebedo cannot put up an
optical clinic, but only a commercial store The scope of police power granted to local governments has
2. It cannot examine and/or prescribe reading and similar been held to be so comprehensive as to encompass almost
optical glasses for patients because these are functions all matters affecting the health, safety, peace, order, morals,
of optical clinics comfort, and convenience of the community. It is essentially
3. It cannot sell reading and similar eyeglasses without a regulatory in nature and the power to issue licenses or grant
prescription having first been made by an independent business permits, if exercised for a regulatory and not
optometrist revenue-raising purpose, is within the ambit of this power.
Acebedo 4. It cannot advertise optical lenses and eyeglasses The authority of city mayors to issue or grant licenses
optical vs Power to grant 5. It is allowed to grind lenses but only upon the and business permits must always be exercised in
CA GRN licenses or prescription of an independent optometrist accordance with law, with utmost observance of the
100152 Mar business permits, Samahan ng Optometrist sa Pilipinas lodged a complaint rights of all concerned to due process and equal
31, 2000 police power against Acebedo for having violated said conditions. protection of the law.
Petitioner spouses were holders of a certificate of public for a 4- ISSUE: W/N the petitioner spouses’ petition for review should
ton ice plant. Due to non-operation and abandonment of such be dismissed for having been filed beyond the reglementary
ice plant, the Public Service Commission, who issued the period - YES
certificate, cancelled and revoked it pursuant to a report of the
Commission’s engineer who inspected the ice plant of the According to Sec. 36, Commonwealth Act No. 146 and
petitioner spouses. Subsequently, another certificate of public Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, the reglementary
convenience for the operation of an ice plant was granted to a period for the filing of a Petition for Review for an adverse
corporation in the same municipality, following trial and with due decision by the Public Service Commission is thirty days.
notice to the petitioner spouses. Having filed their Petition for Review with the Supreme Court
Procedural Rules thirty-two days after their receipt of the Public Service
Danan for Administrative Petitioner spouses failed to appear during the hearing for the Commission Decision, the petitioner spouses’ Petition should
Aspillera Proceedings; Must issuance of the latter certificate of public convenience to the be dismissed for having been filed beyond the reglementary
Admin G.R. be followed corporation, due to an alleged accident that they met. period. Procedural rules (e.g. reglementary periods) in
L-17305 Due Process in Thereafter, the petitioner spouses filed a motion for administrative proceedings must be followed.
Nov 28, Administrative reconsideration for the cancellation and revocation of their
1962 Proceedings certificate. Such motion having been denied, the certificate The Court, however, expressed concern over the

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 granted to the corporation remained in full force. Commission’s ex-parte revocation of the certificate of the
petitioner spouses without giving them previous notice
Petitioner spouses then filed a joint motion for reconsideration and opportunity to explain their side. This practice would
and for reopening of the case, which was denied. violate the right to due process of the holders of the
certificates.
Petitioner spouses then filed a Petition for Review with the
Supreme Court 32 days after their receipt of the copy of the As a side note, the Commissioners of Public Service would
decision denying their joint motion for reconsideration and for do well to ponder on the implications of Article 32, No. 6 of
reopening of the case. the Civil Code on individual responsibility and liability of
public officers and employees who impair a person’s right
against deprivations of property without due process.

Meralco filed with the PSC applications for reduction of power WoN the appealed decision and order are null and void for
rates. PSC rendered a decision that directed Meralco to reduce lack of jurisdiction of the PSC to entertain MERALCO's
its rates but this was set aside by the SC and was remanded for application for revision (increase) of its rate schedules - NO
rehearing.
· The alleged lack of legislative franchise of the Meralco to
Meralco withdrew its original petition and filed another seeking operate in areas outside the City, but adjoining the same, as
approval for a revised increased schedule of rates. PSC well as the absence of a certificate of public convenience to
rendered a decision disapproving the proposed rate schedule of operate in the City proper, might affect, not the jurisdiction of
Meralco and authorized rates of increase for lower rates to that the Public Service Commission, but Meralco's cause of
proposed, effective on date of issue. action, or its right to seek a revision of rates.

What happened after this is enunciated in the case of Manila

Electric Co. v. Medina. An amendment to an order, issued without notice to, and
The PSC order suspended the effectivity of the decision hearing of, the prejudiced party, is illegal and in violation
authorizing the rate increases was annulled and PSC was of the guarantee of due process, and that the guarantee
directed to rehear the matter. cannot be evaded by invoking the provision that the PSC
is not bound by the rules of judicial proceedings.
Presently City of Manila claims that the decision and order are
Meralco v void for lack of jurisdiction of PSC to entertain MERALCO’s The due process, clause of the Constitution binds not
PSC GRN application, since it includes territories beyond the City for which only the government of the Republic of the Philippines
L-24854 Due process in MERALCO has no legislative franchise; and that it has no but also each and every one of its branches, agencies or
November administrative certificate of public convenience to operate therein instrumentalities.
14, 1966 proceedings

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 The Public Service Commission (PSC) granted to C & C Co. Inc
Meralco v a certificate of public convenience to install and operate a 1D-
Medina ton ice plant after trial and with due notice to Spouses Danan- Issue: W/N the right to due process of Spouses Danan was
GRN L- the former holder of certificate of public convenience to install violated
24406 June and operate a 4 Ton Ice plant. However, Spouses Danan failed
29, 1965 to appear during the hearing due to an alleged incident they met Held: Yes. The PSC did not give adequate opportunity for
due process Administrative on their way to Manila. Hence, PSC revoked ex parte the Spouses Danan to explain their side. Such ex parte
suspend Proceedings; certificate of Spouses Danan and issued a subsequent revocation violates the due process guaranteed by the
effectivity Notice and Hearing certificate to C & C Co Constitution to the citizens
Constitutional
requirement of
notice and hearing PSC rendered a decision setting the rates the MERALCO was
Meralco v — PSC denied authorized to charge its customers. The decision was based on ISSUE: W/N MERALCO was afforded due process of law.—
PSC GRN request for a the report of the General Auditing Office which audited and NO.
13638-40 hearing on rates examined the MERALCO books of account, PSC denied
June 30, set by the MERALCO’s request for a hearing and reception of evidence RULING: Even if the Commission is bound by the rules of
1964 Commission based reasoning that the “desire of the MERALCO to cross-examine judicial proceedings, it must bow its head to the constitutional
suspension on report of the witnesses and present oral testimonies may just lead to more mandate that no personal shall be deprived of right without
due process General Auditing years of protracted and delayed hearings, which will die process of law, which binds not only the government of
remand Office. undoubtedly affect adversely the public interest.” the Republic, but also each of its branches, agencies, etc.
In 1961, Teban Caoili and his 3 brothers arrived from HK on W/N Teban’s right to due process was violated? YES
board a CPA plane. All of them were provided with certificate of
registration and identity issued by the PH Consulate General at The claim of CI that failure to notify Teban of the hearing and
HK. They came to join their father, Antonio (whom they claim to bring him to the jurisdiction of the new Board was due to his
be a PH citizen). They were admitted as Filipino citizens by birth elusiveness is another question of fact. It was admitted that
by the Board of Special Inquiry. The same was affirmed by no notice of exclusion proceeding was given to Teban
another set of board. Thereafter, Teban exercised the rights and because he allegedly went into hiding and his whereabouts
prerogatives appurtenant to PH citizenship (vote, passport, were unknown. While it may be true that the proceedings is
taxes, member of the SSS). In 1962, a new Board of purely administrative in nature, such a circumstance did not
Commissioners reviewed motu proprio the decisions of the excuse the serving of notice. There are cardinal primary
board of special inquiry notwithstanding the fact that the same rights which must be respected even in proceedings of
has been affirmed by the old board. And by a unanimous vote of administrative character, the first of which is the right to a
CID v the new board, they excluded Teban and his brothers as aliens hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or
Fernandez not properly documented and was ordered to return to the port affected to present his own case and submit evidence in
GRN 22696 whence they came or to the country of which they were support thereof.
May 29, nationals. A warrant of exclusion was issued, and upon the
1964 issuance of the same, the Secretary of Justice conducted an The right of Teban Caoili to Philippine citizenship had

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 investigation regarding the status of Teban and his brothers and already been passed upon by a Board of equally and duly
said that Antonio is a Filipino and the brothers are legitimate constituted Commissioners. Petitioner at least, could have
sons of a Filipino father so they are Filipino citizens. notified Teban Caoili or exerted efforts to cause his presence,
by or through the instrumentalities and agencies that the
1 year after the issuance of the warrant of exclusion, Teban was Government has at its command. Except mere bare
arrested by virtue of the Warrant of Exclusion. A relative of statements, there is nothing which would indicate that even
Teban presented with the CFI of QC a petition for habeas the ordinary effort was employed within two years, to locate
corpus alleging that the respondent commissioner has no right, him.
power or authority over Teban being a citizen of the PH. The
Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition, appealed to the CA The actuation of the new Board of Commissioners in
but was opposed by the SolGen saying that the proceedings reviewing a decision already passed upon by its predecessor
before the Board of Commissioners are purely administrative in Board, may breed chaos in the Bureau of Immigration. If
nature and no right to notice and hearing is essential to due sanctioned, without any legal and plausible grounds, it may
process. lead to an insecurity of status already established by a
previous Board.
CA ordered the release of Teban upon bond.
Upon outbreak of the Persian Gulf conflict, oil companies filed
with the ERB their applications on oil price increases. ERB
issued an order granting a provisional increase of P1.42 per
liter.

Petitioner Maceda filed a Petition for Prohibition seeking to

nullify the provisional increase. SC dismissed the petition W/N the relaxed procedure denied petitioner due process --
affirming ERB’s authority to grant provisional increase even NO
without prior hearing. ERB set the applications for hearing with
due notice to all interested parties but petitioner failed to appear The order of testimony and general course of trial is within
on the 2 hearings. The 3 oil companies filed their motions for the discretion of the court and the exercise of this discretion
leave to file or admit amended/supplemental applications to in permitting to be introduced out of the order prescribed by
further increase the prices of petroleum products. ERB then the rules is NOT IMPROPER.
outlined the procedure to be observed in the reception of
evidence. Such relaxed procedure in administrative bodies is true
when they are exercising a quasi-legislative, not quasi-
Requirement of Petitioner maintains that this order of proof deprived him of his judicial function. As such, it is not bound by the strict or
notice and hearing right to finish his cross-examination of Petron;s witnesses and technical rules of evidence governing court proceedings.
Maceda vs in administrative denied him his right to cross-examine each of the witnesses of Thus, ERB is empowered to grant provisional increase in oil
ERB (1991) proceedings Caltex and SHell. This is a denial of due process. price.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Suntay obtained a passport and left for the United States after a
verified complaint for seduction was filed against him.
Is the cancellation of the passport without notice and
The private prosecution then filed a motion, which the court hearing, a denial of Suntay’s right to due process? - NO
granted, resulting in the issuance of an order directing the NBI
and DFA to take proper steps to bring back Suntay. • The cancellation was not whimsical or capricious.
o The DFA ordered the cancellation of Suntay’s passport. • Hearing is not always necessary or required.
Discretion in this case was exercised upon an undisputed
Admin Suntay contends that the cancellation order is illegal. While the fact (such that Suntay was facing a criminal charge). If the
Suntay v. proceedings, notice Secretary has discretion in the cancellation of passports, such cancellation was unclear or doubtful, a hearing would
People and hearing/ See discretion may not be exercised until after hearing. have been necessary.
(1957) page 308 De Leon

De Proceedings in Petitioner-appellee George de Bisschop, an American citizen, ISSUE: W/N Commissioners of Immigration are required by
Bisschop which no hearing was allowed to stay in this country for three years as the law to conduct formal hearings on all applications for
v. Galang, is required; prearranged employee of the Bissmag Production, Inc. extension of stay of aliens. — NO, not required.
G.R. L- Application for
18365, extension of stay He applied for extension of stay with the Bureau of Immigration It is already a settled rule in this jurisdiction that a day
May 31, of an alien was in court is not a matter of right in administrative
1963 denied on the Due to confidential and damaging reports of Immigration proceedings. The fact should not be lost sight of that
basis of Officer Benjamin de Mesa to the effect that Bissmag is more of we are dealing with an administrative proceeding and
confidential report a gambling front than the enterprise for promotion of local and not with a judicial proceeding. As Judge Cooley has
without imported shows that it purports to be, and that de Bisschop is well said, due process of law is not necessarily judicial
conducting formal suspect of having evaded payment of his income tax, the process. While a day in court is a matter of right in
hearing on the Commissioner of Immigration, in a communication of Customs judicial proceedings, in administrative proceedings, it is
application. of Iloilo, advised him that his application for extension of stay otherwise since they rest upon different principles.
as a prearranged employee has been denied by the Board of (Cornejo vs. Gabriel and Provincial Board of Rizal, 41 Phil.
Commissioners, and that he should depart within 5 days. 188, 192-194)

Upon prayer of Bisschop, a writ of preliminary injunction was The administration of immigration laws is the primary and
issued ex-parte by the lower court ordering herein respondent- exclusive responsibility of the Executive branch of the
appellant Galang (Commissioner of Immigration) to desist from government. Extension of stay of aliens is purely
arresting and deporting petitioner-appellee de Bisschop until discretionary on the part of the immigration authorities.
proper and legal proceedings are conducted by the Bureau of
Immigration Commonwealth Act No. 613, otherwise known as the
Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, is silent as to the
procedure to be followed in these cases, we are inclined to
uphold the argument that courts have no jurisdiction to

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 review the purely administrative practice of immigration
authorities of not granting formal hearings in certain cases
as the circumstances may warrant, for reasons of
practicability and expediency.

For reasons of practicability and expediency, courts have no

jurisdiction to review the purely administrative practice of
immigration authority of not granting formal hearings in
petitions for extensions of stay of aliens, under C.A. No.
613, otherwise known as the "Philippine Immigration Act of
1940." (de Leon)

This would not violate the due process clause if we take into
account that, in this particular case, the letter of appellant-
commissioner advising de Bisschop to depart in 5 days is a
mere formality, a preliminary step, and, therefore, far from
final, because, as alleged in paragraph 7 of appellant's
answer to the complaint, the "requirement to leave before
the start of the deportation proceedings is only an advice to
the party that unless he departs voluntarily, the State will be
compelled to take steps for his expulsion".

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is reversed. The

petition for prohibition is dismissed, and the writ of
preliminary injunction issued by the court a quo is hereby
dissolved, with costs against George de Bisschop.

Issue: W/N WCC committed a grave abuse of discretion in

WCC dismissed a claim for compensation on ground that not passing upon the issue of denial of due process – YES
claimant’s non-appearance on the scheduled hearings. The
failure to appear was due to lack of notice or notice was Ruling:
received after the scheduled hearing took place. The hearing Claimant was clearly deprived of his day in court. Despite a
officer also tilted his discretion in favor of the employer. procedural lapse in the hearing before the lower tribunals,
We can decide a compensation claim and terminate the
The WCC did not pass upon the issue raised by the claimant matter her and now.
Bautista v. Applicability of regarding a denial of due process when claimant was not
WCC rules concerning properly given his day in court. Technical rules of procedure must give way to effect
(1979) judicial proceedings substantial justice to claimant. The law being in

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 claimant’s favor, humane reasons aimed at promoting
justice and general welfare of the workingman, justify the
rendition of a decision on the merits.
ISSUE;
W/N Director of Patents must personally hear and decide
inter partes proceedings before the Philippine Patent Office -
NO

RULING:
The nature of the power and authority given to the Director of
Patents suggests that the law should be construed as to give
Petitioners challenge Rule 168 of Revised Rules of pRactice the official the administrative flexibility necessary for prompt
before Philippine Patent Office in Trademark Cases authorizing and expeditious discharge of his duties in the administration
the Director of Patents to designate any ranking official of the of laws.
said office to hear inter partes proceedings. Said Rule provides
that “all judgments determining the merits of the case shall be It could hardly be expected in view of the magnitude of his
personally and directly prepared by the Director and signed by responsibility, to require him to hear personally each and
him.” every case pending in his office. This would leave him little
Delegation of time to attend to his other duties. For him to do so would not
authority to hear Under the Trademark Law (RA 166), the Director of Patents is further the development of orderly and responsible
and receive vested with jurisdiction over hearing of opposition to the administration.
evidence registration of a mark or trade name, interference proceeding
Amer instituted for the purpose of determining the priority of Subdelegation of power has been justified by “sound
Tobacco v Director of Patents adaptation and use, and cancellation of regulation. principles of organization” which demand that those at the top
Dir Patents delegated the be able to concentrate their attention upon larger and more
Oct 14, hearing of Petitioners allege that amendment of the Rule is illegal adn void important questions of police and practice, and their time be
1975 GRN petitioners’ cases because under the law, the Director must personally hear and freed from the consideration of smaller and less important
L 26803 to hearing officers decide inter partes cases. matters of detail.
CTA upheld the assessment of the CIR against appellant for ISSUE: Should appellant be denied a chance to prove his
deficiencies. claim concerning the incorrectness of the BIR Agent’s
findings with the best evidence, as is generally required? --
Appellant requested a reinvestigation, but his books could not NO.
Santos vs be produced by the BIR, thus rendering it impossible for
Noble appellant to prove the errors allegedly committed by the BIR RULING:
evidence agent in arriving at the figures stated in the initial report, which It does not seem fair to affirm the questioned assessment
May 23, Exceptions to the was the basis for the assessment against him. simply on the basis of the rebuttable presumption of
1961 best evidence rule. regularity considering the fact that by granting appellant’s

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 The hearing proceeded without the missing books. request for reinvestigation, the BIR itself had admitted that
his petitions were not groundless.
The BIR argues that the assessment in question should be
affirmed because of the presumption of regularity. Also, appellant is entitled to prove his contention by
secondary evidence. It is true that a taxpayer who
contests the correctness of an assessment has the
burden of proving his contention.The appellant should
be given a last opportunity to prove even with secondary
evidence, his contentions, in view of the surrounding
circumstances.
W/N the services provided by PBC and LM as well as Buan
are already adequate and sufficient to serve public needs --
YES

The findings are supported by more than substantial

evidence and are therefore binding upon this Court. The
Court is not required to examine the proof de novo and
determine for itself whether or not the preponderance of
evidence really justifies the decision below.

The estate of Florencio P. Buan, is an authorized bus operator Furthermore, the Commission sent 2 checkers to inspect the
along various lines in central and northern Luzon, with authority situation to aid in the determination of whether or not
to operate 8 auto-trucks. Buan applied in four cases in the additional service is needed by the public. On the basis of the
Commission for certificates of public convenience to operate information obtained, the Commission was able to conclude
additional trips between Manila and various municipalities and that there was indeed no need for additional services. Absent
barrios in Bataan. The Pampanga Bus Company and La proof that the Commission abused its discretion/powers,
Mallorca opposed alleging that they are authorized to operate Court respects Commission’s judgment.
and are actually operating on the lines applied for and that the
additional services applied for are superfluous, will not promote The law, vesting the Public Service Commission with the
public interest in a proper and suitable manner, and will result in power of supervision and control over public
cut-throat and ruinous competition transportation, has also clothed it with broad discretion
Buan v. La The Public Service Commission denied the applications of Buan in the exercise of that power. As such, the court cannot
Mallorca (in all 4 cases) stating that the services provided by PBC and intervene except if there is a clear case of abuse. Thus,
GRN L- LM were adequate and sufficient for the actual needs of the the findings of the Commissioner are binding upon the
7996-99 Evidence in public and that the grant of the applications would only result in Court.
May 31, administrative unnecessary or wasteful competition.
1956 proceedings

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Premiere Production filed with the Court of Industrial Relations
(CIR) for authority to lay-off 44 of its workers for alleged financial ISSUE: W/N the Decision which was premised on an ocular
losses suffered during the current year. The Union (respondents inspection and interviews but without presentation of
herein) opposed, alleging that the lay-off was an act of evidence in trial is valid - NO
retaliation and intimidation due to the strike which the Union
members previously staged. The CIR merely acted on the strength of the ocular inspection
and the interviews.
At the date when the hearing was set to be conducted, at the
request of counsel of Premiere Productions, Presiding Judge The layoff was allegedly premised on the lack of work and
Roldan of the CIR conducted an ocular inspection of the studios financial losses which Premiere Production was incurring at
and filming premises of Premiere Production. Along with the the time. These allegations cannot be established by mere
ocular inspection, Judge Roldan also interviewed about ten of inspection of the place of business, especially when such
the workers who were present at the time. inspection was requested by the counsel of an interested
party (i.e. Premiere Production).
Judge Roldan consequently issued an order for authority to lay-
Phil Movie off, subject to the condition that in the event that work would The issue of financial losses and lack of work cannot be
Workers become available in the future, then Premiere Production would determined without looking into the actual financial
Asso. V. Evidence in have to re-employ the laid-off workers. situation of the company, which may be done through
Premiere Administrative the full presentation of evidence which may back-up the
Production, Proceedings; With the Union’s reconsideration of such decision being denied, claim of Premiere Production.
G.R. L- Ocular inspection the Union now comes to Court questioning the Order of Judge
5621, (only) cannot be Roldan and CIR which was premised on the ocular inspection As it stands, CIR granted the authority to lay-off workers even
March 25, determinative of and the interviews and without receiving full evidence to before the inquiry into the financial situation of Premiere
1953 merits/disposition determine the cause or motive of the lay-off. Production was finished. Therefore, said grant is premature.
Floro was granted by the PSC a regular certificate of Public 1. WoN the allegation that Halili can fill up the deficiency at any
Convenience for the operation of an auto-truck service for time is worthy of consideration? - NO
transportation of passengers and freight.
PSC found that Floro is financially able to render the
Halili a pre-war TPU operator filed an opposition on the grounds additional service applied for through evidence submitted.
that: That he had 12 units, total assets of around P100K, deposit
-he was already rendering transpo service prior to the war of P5K, and credit line of P35K among other facts. There was
-his service at present is adequate, and if there is any no showing that the PSC decision is contrary to law or
deficiency, he is willing to supply rendered without jurisdiction.
-he has preference over floro
Binding effect of -granting Floro’s application would be ruinous and unfair The SC held that there is ample evidence to support the
Halili v. findings of fact of competition decision of PSC and that it is not at liberty to substitute its
Floro (1951) Admin Agencies -Floro is not capable of operating and maintaining the service own findings of facts for those of the PSC reasonably

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 -emergency certificates issued by the PSC are not yet expired. supported by the evidence even if it had some plausible
ground to make the modification, which in this case it did not
In the presentation of evidence, it was shown that the Manila have.
had increased in population by more than 50% and that
passenger buses were overcrowded. The findings of fact of administrative agencies must be
respected, so long as they are supported by substantial
Halili still argues that he can fill up the deficiency in time. evidence, even if not overwhelming or preponderant as
in civil cases.

Uy was killed by a band of robbers in a farmhouse near the rice

mill where he works. The Workmen’s Compensation
Commission (WCC) refused to award death compensation to
the spouse of Uy on the ground that there was no substantial
proof that there existed an employer-employee relationship
between Uy and the owner of the rice mill. Moreover, it held that
the business is not registered and assuming it is in operation,
rice and corn buying and milling business is a nationalized
industry in which an alien like Uy is prohibited to work in.
However, the records show that the rice mill owner admitted that Issue: W/N factual findings of commission is always final.
she had 4 employees in her business and such mill was in
operational. Moreover, as early as 1968, the original owner of Held: No. As a rule, matters of credibility and weight
the rice mill which is the husband of the current owner, used to assigned to each pieces of evidence by the Commission
employ Uy as “overseers”, “machine operator” and “cashier”. are final when it is supported by substantial, credible and
Furthermore, the sport report of the police identified the competent evidence. This is not the case here. The
Administrative deceased as the overseer of the business owner. It is claimed Commission relied only on the biased testimonies of the mill
Proceedings; however that Uy failed to support her allegations by owner’s witnesses. It did not consider several facts including
Uy v. WCC Evidence; Quantum documentary evidence as needed. Instead, she relied on oral the spot report of the police which is of more probative value
(1980) of Proof testimonies to prove her claim. than the biased testimonies of witnesses of one party
Decision or ISSUE: W/N the CIR can issue an order dismissing a case
orders— Decision without stating the facts and the law in support thereof.—
of the CIR does not YES.
make findings of
Indias v. fact, basing it on The CIR dismissed the complaint of petitioner against RULING: It is purposeless to repeat examiner’s findings to
Phil Iron the findings respondent for unfair labor practice and indirectly denied his which it agrees. In this case, the court approved the report of
Mines 101 contained in the prayer of reinstatement stating only as ground that the “evidence the hearing examiner “after a perusal of the record of the
Phil. repost of its hearing presented by the complainant did not support the charges of case.” This presupposed that it has examined the evidence
297(1957) examiner. unfair labor practice.” and found no justification for modifying his findings and

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 conclusions. There is already substantial compliance with the
law.

Was the failure to rule on the monetary claims of Gracilla a

denial of due process? Yes.

In Ang TIbay v CIR, the Court held that the CIR is more than
Gracilla, objecting to his dismissal as security guard of Fuller an administrative board than a part of the integrated judicial
Paint and seeking reinstatement filed a complaint with the CIR system of the Philippines. Unlike a Court of Justice, which is
praying further that he be paid for his unpaid services for essentially passive and acting only when its jurisdiction is
Sundays and legal holidays during the whole period of his invoked, the CIR is more active and dynamic, it exercises
employment and additional compensation for night services and judicial/quasi-judicial functions in the determination of
he be credited with earned vacation and sick leave pay as well disputes between employees and employers. The CIR is free
as back wages from the date of his illegal dismissal. But he was from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements but it
not successful as the presiding judge of the CIR dismissed the cannot ignore and disregard the fundamental and
complaint for lack of merit. The subsequent MR were also essential requirements of due process in trial and
dismissed and the court said that the records as well as the investigations of an administrative character. CIR should,
written arguments fails to find sufficient justification for altering in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a
or modifying the decision. manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved and the reasons for the
In the dissent by Judge Bugayong, it was stated that the decisions rendered. Failure of CIR to pass upon the
Gracilla v. Issues raised by dismissal of the case was solely on the basis of the finding that monetary claims of Gracilla amounted to the disregard of a
Court of the petitioners in an Gracilla was dismissed for cause but there were issues in the cardinal right embraced in due process--issues raised by a
Industrial administrative complaint that are not resolved (claim for payment for services party should not be ignored or left undecided, especially
Relation proceedings must rendered on Sundays/legal holidays; additional compensation monetary claims which were timely raised and insisted upon
(1968) be resolved for night differentials; salary differential etc) at all stages of the proceeding.
Petitioner filed an application requesting authority to operate a W/N PSC committed error in summarily denying petitioner’s
taxicab automobile service in Manila. His application was heard application without setting forth the facts on which its decision
and showed that he completed the presentation of his evidence. is based -- YES
The Public Service passed upon the claim of 99 applicants,
including petitioner’s, granting certificates of public convenience Although PSC is an administrative body and not included
but failing to refer individually to unsuccessful applicants. It within the scope of the constitutional provision, it does not
Serrano v. merely said that “the applications not included in the list of those justify the summary disposition of petitioner’s application.
Public granted are either dismissed for lack of interest or failure to Quasi-judicial tribunals like PSC should render their
Service Decisions/ Orders prosecute or denied for failure to qualify.” decision in such a manner that the parties to the
Comm of Administrative proceeding can know the various issues involved, and
(1968) Proceedings Petitioner was among those not included. He did not know the reason for the decision rendered.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 whether his application was dismissed or denied. He filed an MR
but was denied. He alleges as error PSC’s failure to make a Each and every application should be considered strictly on
statement of facts as to each case regarding the qualifications its merits and the relevant facts in support of an order, ruling
and financial ability of the applicant and the other factors. or decision be inquired into and clearly set forth. Only after
PSC has rendered its decision setting forth the facts on which
it is based does the power of review on the part of SC comes
into play.
W/N the Secretary ruled on the validity of petitioner’s titles
over the lots when he ordered the removal of the
A number of residents filed complaints with the Secretary of encroachments - NO
Public Works and Communications denouncing the heirs of
Santiago Pastoral for alleged encroachments to the Tulao River · The fact-finding power of the Secretary is incidental to
to the prejudice of public interest. his duty or authority to clear all navigable streams of
o The Secretary assigned the City Engineer of Dagupan City to unauthorized constructions. In ordering the removal of the
conduct hearings. All parties were notified. encroachments, the Secretary did not pass on any issue of
o Based on the hearings, the Secretary rendered 2 decisions ownership, or validity of titles over the lots in question.
(there were 2 cases set for hearing) ordering the removal of the · The Secretary’s specific authority prevails over the
encroachments, and declaring the encroachments as public fishpond permits relied upon by petitioners. Petitioner’s titles
Admin nuisances. on the lot do not mention any right to the stream. It being of a
Santiago proceedings, public nature and not subject to appropriation, it falls within
Pastoral v. decisions/orders; Petitioner heirs sought the annulment of the decision claiming the authority of the Secretary whenever the question is
DPWH see page 340 De that they have title over the alleged encroachments. removal of illegally constructed dikes under RA 2056.
(1988) Leon

Arocha v. Proceedings in Pedro Gatchalian, a minor arrived at Manila together with his ISSUE: W/N notice and hearing was necessary before the
Vivo, G.R. which no hearing dad, aunt and two brothers and sought entry as Filipino citizen. Board of Commissioners rendered its decision. – NO
No. L- is required. (Petitioner Macario Arocha is bringing this instant petition on
24844, behalf of Pedro Gatchalian against Martiniano Vivo, the Acting NO, hearing is not necessary before the Board of
October OTHER TOPIC: Commissioner of Immigration). However, the immigration Commissioners rendered its decision.
26, 1967 Where officer referred the case to the Special Board of Inquiry.
administrative No notice and hearing are necessary where an
agency is a On July 6, 1961, the Special Board of Inquiry after due hearing administrative agency (Board of Immigration
collegiate body. decided to admit Pedro Gatchailian as Filipino Citizen. This Commissioners) merely passed upon the sufficiency of
decision was submitted to the Board of Commissioners the evidence presented before an office (Board of
(composed of 3 members), 2 of which wrote “Noted” and the Special Inquiry) under it, where the petitioner was heard
last one voted to exclude the persons. already and upon such examination reversed motu
proprio the decision of the said office. (De Leon, p. 289)
Pedro Gatchalian was admitted as a citizen but On January 24,

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
1962, the Secretary of Justice, as department head, issued In an obiter dictum in the case of Commission of
Memorandum Order No. 9, directing the Immigration Immigration vs. Fernandez, the Court mentioned that an
Commissioners to review all cases where entry was allowed applicant is entitled to be heard in review by the Board of
because they gave the reasons that they were a Filipino Commissioners. However, in that case, the right to hearing
citizen. Pedro Gatchalian was included in the review. was recognized when the current Board of Commissioners
tried to review a ruling of the preceding Board which had
The Board of Commissioners (note that it was the Board of previously affirmed the findings of the Special Board of
Commissioners which reviewed and not the Special Board of Inquiry. While in this case, there is no valid confirmatory
Inquiry, which is under the Board of Commissioners) reviewed decision of the preceding Board of Immigration
and reversed the decision of the Special Board of Inquiry and Commissioners.
ordered the exclusion of Pedro Gatchalian for being improperly
documented. In reality, the right to representation of counsel before the
Board of Commissioners is only granted by the Immigration
Pedro Gatchalian however stresses that he was not heard by Law in cases of appeal by the alien from an adverse
the Board of Commissioners. decision of the Board of Inquiry. This however, does not
apply to a review motu proprio by the Board of
Commissioners of a decision admitting an alien because
these cases only passes or decides on the sufficiency of
evidence already produced before the Board of Special
Inquiry. The alien, in this case Pedro, having been already
heard by the Board of Special Inquiry, is not entitled further
hearing unless the law so provides. This is particularly true
in administrative proceedings.

ISSUE 2: W/N the decision of the Inquiry Board had

become nonreviewable. – NO, still reviewable.

Appellee also argues that the decision of the Inquiry Board

had become non-reviewable since 1961 because of its
confirmation by the majority of the preceding Board of
Commissioners. It is pointed out that two members of the
latter board (Talabis and De la Rosa) in refer-ence to said
decision had marked "Noted" over their own signatures,
while only the third Commissioner made of record his
adverse opinion. Such argument is untenable.

First, even disregarding the ambiguity of the term "Noted",

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 the former Immigration Commissioners appeared to have
acted individually in this particular instance and not as a
Board. It is shown by the different dates affixed to their
signatures that they did not actually meet to discuss and
vote on the case. This was officially made to record by the
Secretary of Justice in his Memorandum Order No. 9, on
January 24, 1962, wherein he stated: "that for the past
several years, the Board of Commissioners of Immigration
has NOT MET collectively to discuss … the cases.”

Individual action by members of a board plainly renders

nugatory the purpose of its constitution as a Board. The
Legislature organized the Board of Commissioners
precisely in order that they should deliberate
collectively and in order that their views and ideas
should be exchanged and examined before reaching a
conclusion.

Secondly, in consonance with the foregoing principles, the

aforementioned Memorandum Order of the Secretary of
Justice, issued in the exercise of his powers of control and
supervision as Department Head (Adm. Code, see. 79[c]),
expressly declares that— "the public interest so requiring, it
is hereby ordered that all decisions purporting to have been
rendered by the Board of Commissioners on appeal from or
on review motu proprio of decisions of the Board of Special
Inquiry, are set aside.” and this nullification included the
alleged 1961 decision which the appellee now invokes and
upon which he relies.

WHEREFORE, the decision and order of the Court of First

Instance of Manila, here complained of, are reversed,
nullified and set aside. Costs against appellees, Macario
Arocha and Pedro Gatchalian. So ordered.

Weigal v. Enforcement of Collector of Customs imposed a fine of 200USD upon Weigal, Issue: W/N the Collector of Customs has authority to impose
Schuster administrative captain of British steamer loonsang for a violation of Chinese a fine and seize the loonsang when there is no express
(1908) determinations Exclusion Law in permitting the escape of an immigrant from his statutory conferment to do so - NO.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 ship.
Ruling:
Instead of paying, Weigal brought action for injunction, which The Power to impose fine when not expressly conferred
was issued, ordering Collector to desist from further proceeding on administrative body is vested in the courts. The usual
with the levy. machinery for the enforcement of the laws is found in the
regularly constituted courts. The fine to be imposed was
Collector imposed a fine in the belief that he had such authority not one for administrative action because it had to be laid
because the law failed to provide the machinery for the and enforced in accordance with statutory law.
enforcement of its penal provisions.
ISSUE:
W/N CAB possesses the power to impose fine under the law
- YES

RULING:
RA 776 states that “CAB has power to investigate, upon
complaint or upon its own initiative, whether an individual or
air carrier, domestic or foreign, is violating any provision of
this Act, or Rules and Regulations issued thereunder, and
shall take such action, consistent with the provision of this
Act, as may be necessary to prevent further violation…”

Fine imposed is in the nature of Civil or Administrative, not

Criminal Penalty. Fine was imposed by CAB because of
PAL’s violation of CAB Rules on flagstops without previous
authority.
Enforcement of
Administrative Fine imposed is an administrative penalty which
Determinations The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) imposed a fine of P2,500 administrative officers are empowered to impose without
upon the Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) for making a flagstop criminal prosecution.
Civil Aeronautics without first obtaining permission from the Board.
Board imposed a CAB is fully authorized by RA 776 to impose fines in the
fine on Philippine PAL challenged the authority of CAB to impose the fine, arguing nature of Civil Penalty for violations of its Rules and
Airlines for making that there is nothing in the law (RA 776 Act Reorganizing the Regulations. To deprive CAB of that power would be an
a flagstop without CAB), which expressly confers such powers on the CAB, and absurd interpretation of RA 776 because CAB is given
first obtaining that the power to which fines and penalties is a judicial function full power on its own initatitve to determine whether to
CAB v. PAL permission from the exercised through the regular courts of justice and cannot be “impose, remit, mitigate, increase or compromise fines
(1975) board delegated to the CAB by mere implication or interpretation. and civil penalties.” This power is expressly given to the

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Civil Aeronautics Administrator whose orders or
decisions may be reviewed, revised, reversed, modified
or affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE:
W/N The City Fiscal has the authority to initiate the
prosecution of a case under RA 562 -- NO.

PROVISION OF RA 562:
“... Every alien violating this section shall, at the option of the
Commissioner of Immigration, be subject to an administrative
fine, or be prosecuted and if convicted, be punished with a
fine.”

RULING:
Petitioner Y was found by members of the Manila Police The CIR is merely given an option by law to subjected the
Department having possession of a jueteng list. Being an alien, alien to an administrative fine or to endorse his criminal
he was required to produce his alien certificate of registration, prosecution.
Statutes which he failed to do so, which lead the City Fiscal to file 2
customarily provide complaints against Petitioner Y, for violating the RPC and the The logical conclusion is that the prosecuting official may not
for the judicial RA 562. initiate prosecution until and unless the Commissioner of
Yao Gt v. enforcement of Immigration has elected and decided upon said prosecution
Geraldez administrative Petitioner Y argued that the Discal had no authority to file such in lieu of an administrative charge and fine.
(1959) determinations. complaint or information.
W/N the Provincial Fiscal had concurrent authority to file the
information -- NO

Argel contend that there was no phrase that says that the
Commission has exclusive jurisdiction, while Mead
A case was filed against Donald Mead, the president of INSOIL contended that there was no provision that states that the
by the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal for his alleged violation of RA fiscal had concurrent jurisdiction. Where there is absence of
3931 or An Act Creating a National Water and Air Pollution any phrase of exclusivity, while at the same time there is
Control Commission. Mead moved for motion to quash because an absence of a phrase granting concurrent jurisdiction,
he claims that the fiscal had no authority to file an information authority to enforce a task to the exclusion of all others
Mead v against him since he cannot determine whether there was in fact may be inferred from the intent of the statute.
Argel GRN a pollution of the waters by INSOIL. He further contended that it
41958 July Exclusivity of an is the National Water and Air Pollution Control Commission that The statute’s definition of pollution is not to be understood in
20, 1982 agency to do a task has the authority to hear cases involving violations of said law. its ordinary sense, but in a technical sense-- a sense which

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 the court and fiscal may lack specialization in. The Court held
that the exclusive authority to determine whether or not there
is pollution lies with the Commission who is in better position
to determine the same for such requires specialized
knowledge of scientific and technical matters which are not
ordinarily within the competence of fiscals or the courts. It is
therefore premature for the fiscal to file a case against Mead
absent a determination of the commission on whether there
was indeed a pollution as understood in the statute.
Hizon filed a claim for compensation for injury while under the
employ of Apolega, with the Regional Office of Department of ISSUE: W/N the Workmen’s Compensation Commission and
Labor, under grounds which are within the jurisdiction of the /or its duly deputized officials in the Regional Offices of the
Workmen’s Compensation Commission.. Asked to fill out forms Department of Labor may execute decisions - YES
in relation to said claims, Apolega failed to do so and so the
Regional Administrator awarded compensation to Hizon. Originally, the power to enforce a final award made under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act was vested in any court of
Hizon subsequently died as a result of the injuries he sustained. record in the jurisdiction of which the accident occurred.
His wife then filed for death compensation claim, which Subsequently, pursuant to R.A. 997, as amended by R.A.
remained uncontroverted. Consequently, an award was issued 1241, as effected by Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, authority
in favor of Hizon’s wife and children. to enforce awards was transferred from the courts of justice
to the Regional Administrator and the Workmen’s
Apolega filed a motion for extension to file a Motion to Vacate Compensation Commission.
the Award, and a Motion to Dismiss the case but Apolega failed
to file the pleading contemplated (to vacate the award and As the law now stands, the power to enforce awards under
dismiss the case) and so the hearing officer issued an order the Workmen’s Compensation Commission is expressly
declaring the awards as final and executory. Records were vested in the Commission or the duly deputized officials in
brought up to the Workmen’s Compensation Commission , the Regional Offices. Execution is a necessary step in the
which declared it final and executory. Said Commission returned enforcement of the award and, while it is procedural and
the records to the Regional Office for execution, and said therefore essentially falls within the rule-making powers
Regional Office issued a writ of execution. of the Court, it may be legislated upon by Congress
under its authority to repeal, alter, or supplement the
Apolega v. Apolega appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, saying rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure. The
Hizon, G.R. that Section 17, R.A. 4117 is unconstitutional and therefore the legislative intent to vest in the Commission the power to
L-23832, Enforcement of Commission or its duly deputized officials in the Regional Office enforce its award is clear and unequivocal.
September Administrative of the Department of Labor have no authority to issue a writ of
28, 1968 Determinations execution.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Whether or not a "decision" of the WAS may be ordered
executed by a court of justice, without an ordinary action for
the recovery of said sum of money, and without a decision of
such court sentencing the employer to pay the
aforementioned amount. - NO.

When the law creating the administrative agency

indicates clearly that an "action" must be brought, "in
any competent court", for the recovery of unpaid wages
which the employer fails or refuses to satisfy, said
agency has no authority or power to decide/render a
decision that may be subjected to a writ of execution.
Neither the lower court, nor the appellee has cited any legal
provision sanctioning the procedure.
Potente, a former bus inspector of the Saulog Transit filed a
claim for unpaid overtime compensation, unjust dismissal and Under the law creating the WAS and the rules and
vacation and sick leave pay with the Wage Administration regulations of the WAS, It is apparent that authority to bring
Service (WAS). "an action" would not have been explicitly vested in the WAS,
if it had the power to render a "decision" sentencing the
WAS investigator recommended the rendition of a “decision” employer to pay the amount found to be due said employer
that potente was entitled to overtime compensation and 1 month or laborer. The WAS may cause the employer to satisfy the
salary for his indirect dismissal and this was approved by the unpaid wages through mediation, arbitration, or court action,
WAS Acting Chief. and by no other means. It has no authority to render a
"decision" on the claim for wages, except insofar as it has to
Later, Potente filed with the CFI of Rizal a petition alleging that determine whether, in its opinion, the claim is meritorous, as
he had filed the complaint with the WAS and such decision was a condition precedent to the institution before "any competent
Potente v. already final and executory. Without notice or hearing to court", of an ordinary "action" for the recovery of the sum of
Saulog Authority of Admin employer, Court granted the petition. money it considers due to claimant. But, then, no writ of
Transit Agency to render execution shall issue, except when the judgment rendered by
(1951) decision Saulog filed a petition to set aside the decision. said court shall have become final and executory
The Court has promulgated a decision wherein it required Issue: W/N the interpretation of NTC is applicable in this case
International Communication Corporation to make 20% escrow
Eastern deposit and to post 10% performance bond. Said company filed Held: No. The court holds that the interpretation of NTC
Telecoms v. a partial MR questioning such required deposits and bonds, regarding the escrow deposit and performance bond shall
Intl attaching as its evidence a letter from the deputy commissioner pertain only to a local exchange operator's original roll-out
Communica Authority to render of NTC which states that escrow deposit and performance bond obligation under E.O. No. 109, and not to roll-out obligations
tion Corp decision were required to public telecommunications entities to ensure made under subsequent or voluntary applications outside

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 that the mandated installation of local exchange lines are E.O. No. 109.
installed within three years pursuant to EO 109 and RA 7925 The NTC, being the government agency entrusted
and “since your company has already complied with its with the regulation of activities coming under its special and
obligation by the installation of more than 300,000 lines… the technical forte, is in the best position to interpret its own
escrow deposit and performance bond were not required in your rules. The Court has consistently yielded and accorded great
subsequent authorizations”. respect to the interpretation by administrative agencies of
their own rules unless there is an error of law, abuse of
power, lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly
conflicting with the letter and spirit of the law.
The interpretation of an agency of its own rules
should be given more weight than the interpretation by that
agency of the law it is merely tasked to administer. Thus, in
cases where the dispute concerns the interpretation by an
agency of its own rules, one should apply only these
standards: “Whether the delegation of power was valid;
whether the regulation was within that delegation; and if so,
whether it was a reasonable regulation under a due process
test.”
In this case however, while the interpretation of NTC
as to EO109 is valid and binding, the situation goes beyond
that contemplated by the said law.

ISSUE: W/N the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to review

Administrative decisions of the NLRC and the Secretary of Labor.—YES.
findings and
constructions RULING: It is generally understood that as to administrative
generally agencies exercising qual-judicial or legislative power, there is
conclusive— an underlying power in the courts, to scrutinize acts of such
Judicial review by agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no
San Miguel the Supreme Court right of review is given by statute. This is to keep the
Corp v. Sec is questioned on Y was dismissed by SMC for alleged illegal trafficking in administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect
of Labor the ground that it is company medicined. NLRC ordered the reinstatement of Y with substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions. Judicial
64 SCRA not provided by backwages, which was affirmed by the Secretary of Labor. SMC review is proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of
57 (1975) governing statute. instituted a certiorari proceeding in the Supreme Court. discretion, and error of law, or collusion.
Board of In 1985, the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports W/N a party could resort to the courts to obtain a reversal of
Medical (DECS) and the Board of Medical Education (BME) authorized the determination of the Secretary of DECS that a college is
Educ v. the Commission on Medical Education to conduct a study of all unfit to continue its operations? No.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
Alfonso the medical schools in the PH. The report of the Commission
(1989) showed that the Philippine Muslim-Christian College of Medicine No law authorizes an appeal from decisions/orders of the
Foundation Inc (College) fell very much short of the minimum Secretary of DECS to the Supreme Court or any other Court.
standards set for medical schools and recommended the It is not the function of the Court to review decisions and
foreclosure of the school. The College disputed the findings as orders of the Secretary on the issue of w/n an educational
biased and discriminatory, so the Board sent another team of institution meets the norms and standards required for
doctors for reevaluation. But the previous findings and permission to operate and continue operating as such. No
recommendation for the phase-out of the school was affirmed. court has the power/prerogative to substitute its opinion
for that of the Secretary. The only authority reposed in the
The first 2 reports were verified by a 3rd team of inspectors and Courts is w/n the Secretary has acted within the scope of the
a year after, the College failed another test (4th evaluation of its powers granted him by law and the Constitution and as long
fitness to continue as a med school for government recognition). as it appears that he has done so, any decision rendered by
College was adjudged to be inadequate and the inspectors him should not and will not be subject to review and reversal
recommended denial of government recognition. by any court.

Accordingly, the Board recommended to the DECS the closure If it should be made, to appear to the Court that those powers
of the College but the College succeeded in having the Board were in a case exercised so whimsically, capriciously,
form another team to review the previous findings, but to no oppressively, despotically or arbitrarily as to call for
avail. The Secretary of DECS informed the Chairman of the peremptory correction — or stated otherwise, that the
College’s Board of Trustees of the decision to close the College Secretary had acted with grave abuse of discretion, or had
but the Chairman of the Board proposed a gradual phase-out in unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law
order not to dislocate the students so the Board allowed the specifically enjoins as a duty, or excluded another from the
College to continue operations for a while but after the period it use or enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is
would be closed and the decision would be final and entitled — it becomes the Court's duty to rectify such action
unappealable. The College appealed the decision to the Office through the extraordinary remedies of certiorari, prohibition,
of the President imputing grave abuse of discretion but the or mandamus, whichever may properly apply.
Executive Secretary found no reason to disturb the contested
decision.

College went to Court alleging that the Secretary of Education

made an illegal, oppressive, arbitrary, and discrimininatory ruling
and applied for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the
implementation. Writ was issued by the respondent judge.
Hence, the present petition.
Gordon v. Administrative Y is the owner of SS Drugstore. FDA agents and narcotic agents W/N the mayor has the power to prevent the operation of
Veridiano findings and from the Phil Constabulary conducted a “test buy” at the store drugstores previously permitted by FDA -- NO
(1988) constructions and was sold 200 tablets of Valium without prescription. A report

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 generally was submitted to the mayor who revoked summarily Y’s permit Under RA 3270, amended by PD280, FDA is authorized to
conclusive for violation of DDA. order the closure, or suspend or revoke the license of any
drug establishment which after administrative investigation is
FDA directed closure of the drugstore for 3 days and payment of found guilty of selling or dispensing drugs, medicines in
fine for violation of Food Drug and Cosmetics Act. Later, FDA violation of the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act and DDA.
lifted its closure order and allowed drugstore to resume
operations. The mayor requested that it reconsider its orders In fact, the authorization to operate issued by FDA is a
allowing resumption of operation. condition precedent to the grant of a mayor’s permit to the
drugstore seeking to operate within the limits of the city. This
Y filed a complaint against the mayor. Mayor challenged the trial does not mean however, that issuance of mayor’s permit is
court’s decision declaring the revocation of the mayor’s permit mandatory. The mayor must, in the exercise of his own
null and void authority under the Charter, refuse to grant the permit sought
if local reqts are not observed.

The power to approve a license includes the power to revoke

it. Thus, if FDA grants a license, it is only for their violation
that the FDA may revoke said license. Same can be said of
the mayor.
W/N CA committed an error in dismissing the petition for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies - NO

· The thrust of the rule on exhaustion of administrative

remedies is that the courts must allow the administrative
agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their
responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective
competence.
Gonzales received Orders from the Regional Office of the DAR o Reasons of law, comity, and convenience prevent the
directing her to surrender titles to her land and to submit other courts from entertaining cases proper for determination by
requirements to Land Bank. while the bank is ordered to pay her administrative agencies.
compensation for the 2 parcels of land. o Premature resort to the courts necessarily becomes fatal
Gonzales v to the cause of action of the petitioner.
CA GRNo Gonzales filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with TRO · The doctrine of exhaustion is applicable to the case:
106028 with the CA. o The assailed orders were issued by the DAR Regional
May 9, Director
2001 Exhaustion of CA dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust administrative o Questions as to the propriety of the issuance could have
Exhaust administrative remedies, adding that Certiorari cannot be used by Gonzales as still been raised before the proper administrative forum
Admin DAR remedies a substitute for appeal of the assailed issuances · Gonzales should have sought redress in the DARAB

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 · Exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion:
o Questioned order is a patent nullity
o There is deprivation of fundamental right to due process
o The question is a purely legal one
· The Court is convinced that none of the exceptions are
present in the case.
· Proper procedure: move for reconsideration, or go
directly to the DARAB, or to its executive adjudicator in the
region (the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator or
RARAD).
· Prior resort to these administrative bodies will
satisfy the doctrine and may even prove to be
advantageous to the parties as the proceedings will be
conducted by experts and will not be limited by the
technical rules of procedure and evidence.

Nation Finality of The present controversy originated from three unfair labor ISSUE: W/N the respondent Judge committed grave abuse
Multi- administrative practice cases filed with the National Labor Relations of discretion in issuing the restraining order? – YES.
Service action for Commission (NLRC) created under Presidential Decree No.
Labor purposes of 21. (1) Appeal to the President provided in the law. — "The
Union, et review. appropriate step to take if private respondents were
al. v. Hearings were held with Ambassador Hotel, Inc. (shortened to dissatisfied was to appeal to the President. So it was
Agcaoli, Judge entertained "A Hotel, Inc."), and they presented witnesses and provided in such decree. They did not do so. It would have
G.R. No. a suit for documentary evidence. been executed then were it not for the action instituted in
L-39741, prohibition the sala of respondent Judge, who is on record as
May 30, involving a The compulsory arbitrator, Francisco Jose, in his decision, entertaining such suit only because of the vehemence with
1975 decision of the declared respondent A Hotel, Inc. guilty of unfair labor practice. which the private respondents raised the procedural due
Secretary of A Hotel, Inc. appealed to no avail. The matter in controversy process objection."
Labor in a labor was passed upon by the NLRC and lastly, by the Secretary of
case, which Labor. (2) Private respondent had full opportunity to cure any due
decision had process deficiency. — "A more careful scrutiny, however,
already attained Notwithstanding the finality of the Secretary of Labor's decision would have yielded a different conclusion. The factual basis
the status of which was appealable only to the President under the decree, for a binding determination was laid before the compulsory
finality. A Hotel, Inc. instituted with the Court of First Instance of arbitrator. He sustained petitioners, except that he did not
Manila, presided over by respondent Judge, a petition for agree that there was an employer-employee relationship

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
certiorari with prayer for preliminary injunction to nullify the between individual petitioners and private respondents.
decision of the Secretary of Labor. Then, without notice and There was an appeal to the former National Labor Relations
hearing, it issued a preliminary restraining order. Commission. He was reversed, the finding being to the
effect that there was employer- employee relationship. Then
the matter was elevated to the Secretary of Labor, who, as
shown above, ruled squarely and categorically in favor of
petitioners. It is true that in the appeal to the National Labor
Relations Commission, there was an oversight. Private
respondents were not notified. That is not to be visited with
fatal consequences for petitioners. At that stage, no
additional factual evidence could have been introduced. The
compulsory arbitrator was reversed on a question of law by
the Commission. It was the ruling that the compulsory
arbitrator was mistaken in his appraisal of the proof offered.
There was an employer-employee relationship contrary to
what he did find. At any rate, private respondents still had a
remedy.

The Secretary of Labor was there to protect their interest

assuming they had a valid grievance. An appeal was taken
to him as provided in the decree. Considering then the
above circumstances, with private respondents having a full
and unimpeded opportunity to cure any due process
deficiency, its reliance on such objection is vain and futile."

(3) Appeal to President, a remedy both adequate and

appropriate.— "It is also a matter of significance that there
was an appeal to the President. That was a remedy both
adequate and appropriate. It was in line with the executive
determination, after the proclamation of martial law, to leave
the solution of labor disputes as much as possible to
administrative agencies and correspondingly to limit judicial
participation. From the procedural standpoint, it bears
repeating that prohibition is available only if there is no
remedy by appeal. Such is not the case here."

Resort to court without appealing to the President the

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 decision of the Secretary of Labor is a violation of
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The
rule in this jurisdiction is that when an administrative
remedy is provided by law, relief must be sought by
exhausting this remedy before the courts will act.
Failure to exhaust this remedy is fatal.

Writs of certiorari and prohibition granted.

Issue: W/N certiorari is available as remedy against

administrative agencies – YES

Ruling:
certiorari (SCA) is available as remedy against
administrative agencies. If the fundamental canon of
fairness embodied in the due process guarantee was set
at naught and disregarded, petitioner is entitled to the
remedy prayed for.

Issue: W/N CAB exceeded its jurisdiction or acted with grave

abuse of discretion in granting the provisional authority to
PAL filed SCA-certiorari to set aside the order of CAB granting operate – NO
Finality of provisional authority (interlocutory) to an air line operator to
administrative operate aircrafts, alleging denial of due process for failure to Ruling:
PAL v. CAB action for purposes hear evidence of PAL and failure of CAB to disclose the Requirement of due process was observed by CAB since
(1967) of review documents or evidence which support the legality of the grant. there was notice and hearing.
Pursuant to its rule-making and regulatory powers, the National ISSUE:
Telecommunications Commission (NTC) issued a Memorandum W/N the CA erred in holding that the private respondents
Circular on the billing of telecommunications services and on failed to exhaust administrative remedies -
measures in minimizing, if not eliminating, the incidence of
stealing of cellular phone unit. RULING:
Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative and quasi-
IslaCom and Pilipino Telephone Corporation (PilTel) filed an judicial powers. However, if the question involves the
action for declaration of nullity of memorandum circulars, constitutionality or validity of any rule that is issued, then it is
alleging that NTC has no jurisdiction to regulate the sale of the courts that have jurisdiction over it. The doctrine of
Smart vs consumer goods as stated in the subject memorandum primary jurisdiction only applies when the agency exercises
NTC Aug circulars. Such jurisdiction belongs to the DTI under the its quasi-judicial powers. This occurs when a claim is
12 2003 Consumer Acts of the Philippines. After, Globe Telecom and originally cognizable by the courts, but there is a question or
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19
Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Smart Communications filed a joint motion for leave to intervene claim that is under the jurisdiction of the administrative
and to admit complaint-in-intervention. This was granted by the agency.
trial court.
In such a case, the question must first be answered by the
The trial court issued a TRO enjoining NTC from implementing administrative agency before the court may proceed. On the
the MCs. NTC filed a Motion to Dismiss, on the ground that exhaustion of administrative remedies Citing the case of
petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Association of Philippine Coconut Dessicators v. Philippine
defendant's MD is denied for lack of merit. NTC filed a MR but Coconut Authority, the Court ruled that the exhaustion of
was later on denied by the trial court. The CA, upon NTC's filing administrative remedies is only necessary when the agency
of a special action for certiorari and prohibition, reversed the exercises its quasi-judicial powers.
decision of the lower court. Hence this petition.
Primary Jurisdiction
"The courts will not determine a controversy involving a
question which is within the jurisdiction of the administrative
tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the
administrative tribunal, where the question demands the
exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the
special knowledge, experience and services of the
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate
matters of fact, and a uniformity of ruling is essential to
comply with the premises of the regulatory statute
administered."
ISSUE:
Pontejos worked as “Labor and Employment Development W/N The judge erred in denying the motion to dismiss --
Officer (RAB VII)” for the NLRC YES.

Carale, as Chairman of the NLRC, issued an Administrative RULING:

Where the enabling
Order, which assigned Pontejos to the Fourth Division of Cebu Where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for
statute indicates a City. administrative review, the courts, will not entertain a
procedure for
case unless the available administrative remedies have
administrative Pontejos filed a complaint before RTC for Illegal Transfer been resorted to.
review, the courts, Tantamount To Removal Without Cause In Gross Violation Of
will not entertain a In this case, Pontejos did not seek administrative relief which
The Security Of Tenure Afforded Under The Constitution.
case unless the the CSC was empowered to do.
Carale vs
available
Abarintos Carale filed a motion to dismiss, saying that the CSC, and not Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is not
administrative
GRNo the courts, have exclusive jurisdiction over any question jurisdictional. However, it renders the action premature, i.e.,
remedies have
120704. concerning personnel movement. Another argument was that the claimed cause of action is not ripe for judicial
Mar 3, 1997 been resorted to. respondent failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before determination and for that reason a party has no cause of
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19
Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 going to the court. action to ventilate in court.
The mandate of exhaustion of administrative remedies
Respondent Judge denied the motions and ruled for respondent, ensures an orderly procedure which favors a preliminary
saying that the only effect of non-compliance with the rule on sifting process, particularly with respect to matters
exhaustion of administrative remedies “is that it will deprive the peculiarly within the competence of the administrative
complainant of a cause of action”; it does not affect the agency, until the administrative process had run its
jurisdiction of the court. course, and prevention of attempts to swamp the courts
by a resort to them in the first instance.
The underlying principle of the rule rests on the presumption
that the administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance
to pass upon the matter, will decide the same correctly.

1. Quintos, Jr. is the owner of a race horse named “King’s Toss” W/N Quintos has a valid cause of complaint -- NO
duly registered with the National Stud Farm for which he was
issued a certificate of registration, making it eligible for racing. Quintos prematurely instituted a suit in court for damages. He
However, “King’s Toss” was stricken-off the list of eligible race did not explain this short-circuiting of administrative process,
horses on the very day of the race. Hence, Quintos, Jr. filed a and gave no reason for his failure to exhaust administrative
complaint against herein National Stud Farm, Philippine Racing remedies.
Club, Inc. and their respective Board of Trustees for violation of
his right to due process, alleging grave abuse of discretion upon Failure to apply such a basic concept as exhaustion of
Quintos v. their oppressive revocation of his certificate. administrative remedies would be attended with
National Exhaustion of the The trial court dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground of consequences adverse to such equally well-settled
Stud Farm Administrative lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies - that the postulates in administrative law of primary jurisdiction
GRN L- Remedies and administrative remedy of Q was to ask the Board of Trustees of and ripeness of review. It is true that the doctrine of
37052 Doctrine of Primary NSF to reconsider its resolution cancelling the certificate of primary jurisdiction goes no further than to determine
November Jurisdiction registration, and in case of denial to appeal to the Games and whether it is the court or agency that should make the
29, 1973 Distinguished Amusements Board of the Office of the President. initial decision.
Industrial Enterprises was granted a coal operating contract by ISSUE: W/N the Court of Appeals was correct in ruling that
the Bureau of Energy Development (BED) to explore two coal the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to rule upon the matter
blocks. Subsequently, it applied for a contract for the exploration (rescinding the MoA) because BED should have been the
Industrial of three additional coal blocks. one, being the expert agency, to do so first - YES
Enterprises
Inc. v. CA, Doctrine of Primary The BED advised Industrial Enterprises that due to the objective The matter to be decided on, the MoA, is not just any
G.R. 88550, Jurisdiction; What of rationalizing the country’s overall coal supply-demand contract; it involves a coal-operating contract and is
April 18, Courts Ought To balance, it would be better that Marinduque Mining and inextricably related with (1) the right to develop coal-bearing
1990 Do Industrial Corporation (MMIC) would be the corporation to lands, and (2) alignment with the integrated national program

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 explore the coal blocks, since it was already operating in the for coal-development and with the objective of rationalizing
area. the country’s overall coal-supply-demand balance. Such
matter, pursuant to Sections 11 and 12 of P.D. 1206, is within
Industrial Enterprises then assigned and transferred its rights the expertise of the BED. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the
and interests to MMIC in the two coal blocks it was operating, in BED, in the first instance at least, to pass upon any question
a Memorandum of Agreement. involving the MoA between Industrial Enterprises and MMIC
should be sustained.
But Industrial Enterprises later on filed for rescission of the MoA
due to allegations that (1) MMIC took possession of the coal The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction is formulated as such;
blocks even before the MoA was finalized and approved by it may occur that the Court has jurisdiction over a
BED, (2) MMIC discontinued work, (3) MMIC failed to apply for a particular case, which means that the matter involved is
coal operating contract for other coal blocks in the area, and (4) also judicial in character. However, if the case is such
MMIC failed to pay the reimbursements agreed upon and to that its determination requires the expertise, specialized
assume Industrial Enterprise’s loan obligations. Industrial skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies
Enterprises also wanted the Energy Minister (now Secretary) to because technical matters or intricate questions of fact
approve the return of the coal operating contract from MMIC to are involved, then relief must first be obtained on an
Industrial Enterprises. administrative proceeding before a remedy will be
supplied by the courts even though the matter is within
The Trial Court ordered rescission while the Court of Appeals the proper jurisdiction of a court.
reversed the rescission. The Court of Appeals held that there
were genuine issues between the parties and that the Trial The question of what coal areas should be exploited and
Court had no jurisdiction over the action considering that the developed and which entity should be granted coal operating
BED, as the expert administrative agency in the field of coal contracts over said areas involves a technical determination
industry, has the power to decide controversies on the matter. by the BED as the administrative agency in possession of the
specialized expertise to act on the matter. It behooves the
Trial Court to stand aside even when apparently they
have statutory power to proceed in recognition of the
primary jurisdiction of an administrative agency.

Said doctrine does not, however, call for the dismissal of

the case below. It need only be suspended until after the
matters within the administrative agency’s competence
are threshed out and determined.
Arrow Trans Petitioner Arrow and private respondent Sultan are both Whether or not the issuance of the provisional permit was
v BOTrans domestic corporations. Arrow is a holder of a Certificate of legal. - YES.
March 21, Ex parte hearing in Public Convenience to operate a public utility bus. Sultant
1975 GRN provisional permits applied for the issuance of a CPC to operate a similar service. For a provisional permit to operate a public utility, an ex

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
L 39655 Without the required publication, public respondent Board parte hearing would suffice. The decisive consideration is
granted a provisional permit to operate. Petitioner moved for the existence of public need. That was shown in this case,
reconsideration and cancellation of the provisional permit. respondent Board, on the basis of demonstrable data, being
Before resolution of the motion, petitioner filed for herein petition satisfied of the pressing necessity for the grant of the
arguing that there must be publication before a provisional provisional permit sought.
permit can be issued, with reference made to PD 101, which
authorized the Board to grant provisional permits when The Public Service Commission may not reduce or increase
warranted. rates established in a judgment that has become final,
without proper notice; and that a Commission order reducing
or increasing said rates without such notice is void." Under
the facts of that case, the procedural due process infirmity
amounting to lack of jurisdiction is quite apparent. The
opposite is true with this present petition which deals with a
grant of provisional permit. Clearly then, the allegation of a
failure to follow the command of the due process guarantee
is bereft of any legal foundation.
Issue: W/N the court has the power to review the case of the
validity of House Resolution No. 1109

Held: No. The Court’s power of review may be awesome, but

it is limited to actual cases and controversies dealing with
parties having adversely legal claims, to be exercised after
full opportunity of argument by the parties, and limited further
to the constitutional question raised or the very lis mota
Petitions, as concerned citizens and taxpayers, seek to trigger a presented.
justiciable controversy that would warrant a definitive An aspect of the “case-or-controversy” requirement is
interpretation by this Court of Section 1, Article XVII, which the requisite of “ripeness.” In our jurisdiction, the issue of
provides for the procedure for amending or revising the ripeness is generally treated in terms of actual injury to the
Constitution. The petitioners contend that the House Resolution plaintiff. Hence, a question is ripe for adjudication when the
contradicts the procedures set forth by the 1987 Constitution act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the
regarding the amendment or revision of the same as the individual challenging it.
separate voting of the members of each House (the Senate and In the present case, the fitness of petitioners’ case for
the House of Representatives) is deleted and substituted with a the exercise of judicial review is grossly lacking. In the first
Lozano v vote of three-fourths of all the Members of Congress (i.e., ¾ of place, petitioners have not sufficiently proven any adverse
Nograles the “members of Congress” without distinction as to which injury or hardship from the act complained of. In the second
June 16, institution of Congress they belong to). place, House Resolution No. 1109 only resolved that the
2009 House of Representatives shall convene at a future time for

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 the purpose of proposing amendments or revisions to the
Constitution. No actual convention has yet transpired and no
rules of procedure have yet been adopted. More importantly,
no proposal has yet been made, and hence, no usurpation of
power or gross abuse of discretion has yet taken place. As
held in Tan v Macapagal, only after it has made concrete
what it intends to submit for ratification may the appropriate
case be instituted.
A party will be allowed to litigate only when he can
demonstrate that (1) he has personally suffered some actual
or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct
of the government; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the
challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed
by the remedy being sought. Locus standi requires a
personal stake in the outcome of a controversy for significant
reasons. It assures adverseness and sharpens the
presentation of issues. In the cases at bar, petitioners have
not shown the elemental injury in fact that would endow them
with the standing to sue.

Ocampo v
Gonzales
G.R. Nos.
172074-76
June 1,
2007
Director of Mines accepted the lease application of Minlawi When must the counting of the 30-day period provided by the
Mining Association in Mines Reconstitution Case No. V-40, and law be reckoned? Follow the rules on ordinary appeals
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (SARN)
dismissed the appeal. A copy of the decision as received by Legislature has provided the method or procedure by which a
Hora and he presented a motion for reconsideration but it was review of the decision may be had in the courts of justice.
Decision of denied by the SARN. Copy of the order of denial was received Under Section 4 of RA 739, it is evident that Legislature
Sec of Agri Secretary of by Hora and it elevated the case by filing a petition for certiorari intended that an appeal may be had against the decision
& Nat. Agriculture should and injunction with the SC praying that the decision of the as in ordinary civil cases. Appeal may be taken in the
Resources be appealed to a Director of mines and SARN be set aside and be declared null same manner as appeals are made in the courts of
v. CFI Court of Justice for and void -- dismissed since the action should have been an justice in ordinary civil actions. In short, follow the
(1955) Review ordinary action. Hora moved to reconsider the dismissal but it procedure for appeal in ordinary civil actions defined in

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 was denied. Section 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The right to
appeal from a decision of the SARN is a statutory right, it can
Hora filed a complaint in the CFI of Manila praying that the only be invoked in accordance with the manner in which
orders of the Director of Mines and SARN be set aside. the legislature has provided for the purpose.
Defendants presented a motion to dismiss on the ground that
court had no jurisdiction to entertain Hora.

Another petition was filed alleging that the decision of the SARN
has become final because the complaint filed with the CFI was
presented beyond the 30-day period within which an appeal
from the decision of the SARN must be made to a court of
competent jurisdiction.
W/N the petitions should be granted --

The 1935, 1973 Constitutions and the Election Code of 1978

evinces that there is a definite tendency to enhance and
invigorate the role of COMELEC as the independent
constitutional body charged with the safeguarding of free,
peaceful and honest elections. Therefore, the COMELEC’s
actuations should be brought to the SC on certiorari.
6 independent candidates for representative to the Interim
Pambansa filed petitions for certiorari with restraining order and The actuations of COMELEC are final, executory and even
preliminary injunction. They brought the resolution of the Board inappealable. This means that the same shall be subject to
of Canvassers declaring the result of the voting to the review by the SC when it comes to the measure of the
COMELEC which subsequently declared the final result of the Court’s reviewing authority or prerogative in the premises.
canvass.
A review is different from certiorari since a certiorari deals
In one petition, it was alleged that COMELEC exceeded its exclusively with grave abuse of discretion, which may not
jurisdiction and denied due process to petitioner in extending its exist when the decision is otherwise erroneous. Under the
inquiry beyond the election records passed upon by the existing constitutional and statutory provisions, the
Regional Board of Canvassers. Such petition raised pure certiorari jurisdiction of the Court over orders, rulings
questions of law and jurisdiction. and decisions of the COMELEC is not as broad as it used
Aratuc v. Another petition was on the ground that COMELEC committed to be and should be confined to instances of grave
COMELEC Methods of Review grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in 8 abuse of discretion amounting to patent and substantial
(1979) - Certiorari specifications. denial of due process.
Elks Club v Appeal, see page The case is a petition for certiorari against the Judge of the CIR W/N the Supreme Court may pass upon the question – NO
Rovira 441 who penned the appealed decision, on the ground that on

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
(1948) issuing its decision, the judge acted with grave abuse of · Appeal by certiorari is different from special civil action of
discretion. certiorari. Appeal from a CIR decision is by certiorari and
only questions of law may be raised in it. In a special
Appellant contends that the CIR has jurisdiction only over civil action of certiorari, the only question that may be
controversies on industrial and agricultural disputes under raised is whether or not respondent acted with grave
Commonwealth Act 103, and the controversy between the abuse.
petitioner and its laborers and employees is not an industrial · Nevertheless, the Court found as untenable the
dispute because Elks Club is not an industrial organization contention of the appellant. The question of whether or not
Elks Club is an industrial organization is a question of fact
which the Court cannot pass upon since only questions of
law may be raised on appeal, and that from the records, it
does not appear that such a question has ever been raised in
the lower court.

Collector Court of Tax The Collector of Internal Revenue (CIR) in a letter through the ISSUE 1: W/N the Supreme Court may consider questions
of Internal Appeals; Remedy City Treasurer of Cebu, demanded Aznar to pay his income tax of facts involved in the controversy – YES
Revenue of Persons deficiencies from 1945-1951 amounting to P732K.
v. Aznar Adversely The Supreme Court in passing upon petitions to review
and Court Affected by Ruling CIR also instructed City Treasurer of Cebu to place the by certiorari decisions or rulings of the CTA may
of Tax of the Court; properties of said taxpayer under constructive distraint to review, revise, reverse, amend or modify not only the
Appeals, Power of the guarantee the satisfaction of the taxes thus assessed. As legal issues involved therein but also the findings of
G.R. No. Supreme Court to appearing in the records, City Treasurer of Cebu served a fact upon which said decision or ruling is based.
L-10370, Review Questions warrant of distraint and levy to Aznar
January of Fact Any party adversely affected by any ruling, order or
31, 1958 An exchange of communications between the Internal decision of the CTA has by law two ways of elevating
Revenue Office and the Aznar which resulted into a reduction his case to the SC:
in the income tax assessment (from P732K-P380K)
1. By filing in the Court a quo a notice of appeal and
Upon receipt of the corrected assessment, Aznar filed with the with this Court a petition for review within 30 days from
CTA a petition to review the same and subsequently an urgent the date he receives notice of said ruling, order or
petition to restrain CIR from proceeding with the collection of decision adverse to him (Sec, 18, Rep. Act 1125) – SC
the alleged tax deficiencies thru summary methods (distraint, can go over the evidence on record and pass upon
levy) and on the ground that the right to collect has already questions of fact.
prescribed.
2. By causing such ruling, order or decision of the CTA
Lower court: decided in favor of Aznar; issued the injunction likewise reviewed by us upon a writ of certiorari in
enjoining CIR from proceeding with collection. proper cases (Sec. 19, R. A. No. 1125) – SC could only

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 pass upon issues involving questions of law.
CIR filed petition to review by certiorari in the SC, contending
that collection of taxes cannot be restrained by injunction; and However, when the interest of justice so demands,
that even if the court a quo could have lawfully issued the petitions for review may be considered as petition for a
same, CTA acted with grave abuse of discretion when it did not writ of certiorari and vice--versa, and if this Court has
require the taxpayer to file a bond as exhorted by Section 11 of the power to consider the evidence to determine the
Republic Act No. 1125. facts in cases of review, there is no plausible reason for
depriving this Court of such power in petitions for
certiorari specially because in the latter cases the
petitioner oftenly charges the respondent Court with
the commission of grave abuse of discretion the
determination of which usually depends on the facts
and circumstances of the points in controversy.

In this case, CIR filed with CTA a notice of appeal from the
resolution of said Court that is now subject of this recourse
which clearly shows the CIR’s intention to appeal the matter
to SC. Otherwise, he would not have filed the notice of
appeal which is required in petitions for review.

Also, the Solicitor General did not file any MR of the said
resolution which is a requisite that is necessary in petitions
for certiorari.

ISSUE 2: W/N CIR can enforce collection of deficiency

income tax against Aznar through distraint and levy – YES,
CIR can enforce

After lapse of 3 years from false, fraudulent or erroneous

income tax return is filed, collection can no longer be
effected by administrative methods but only through judicial
proceedings.

ISSUE 3 [MAINLY A TAX-RELATED ISSUE]: W/N CTA

erred in issuing the injunction restraining CIR from
proceeding with the collection of the taxes by means of the
summary methods of distraint and levy. – NO, CTA did not

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 err.

While Section 305 of the National Internal Revenue Code

(NIRC) precludes the use of injunction to restrain the
collection of taxes, however, Section 11 of Republic Act No.
1125 allows the Tax Court to issue said writ of injunction
provided taxpayer either deposits the amounts claimed or
files a surety bond for not more than double the amount with
the court. Republic Act No. 1125, being of later enactment,
is deemed to have modified said Section 305 of the NIRC.

Bond requirement before the writ is to be issued, only in

cases where means sought to be employed for the
enforcement of the collection of the tax are by themselves
legal and not where same were declared null and void, as
where the summary methods of distraint and levy would be
utilized in the collection of deficiency income taxes, after the
3-year prescriptive period as provided by Section 51-d of
the Internal Revenue Code has already elapsed.

As the Collector of Internal Revenue, through the Office of

the City Treasurer of Cebu, placed the properties of the
taxpayer under distraint and levy only on February 20, 1953,
to secure the payment of alleged income tax deficiencies for
the tax years 1945 to 1951, and as with respect to the taxes
demanded for the year 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948, the said
warrant was issued beyond the 3- year period of limitations
as prescribed by Section 51-d of the Tax Code, and
following the ruling adopted by this Court as regards the
issuance by the Tax Court of writs of injunction, the
respondent Court did not err in enjoining the Collector from
using summary administrative methods without requiring the
taxpayer to post a bond or make a deposit as far as the tax
years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 are concerned. As
regards 1949 to 1951, the answer is all too obvious, though
We must have in mind that the court a quo acted on the
erroneous assumption that the period for said summary

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 administrative methods had already lapsed and that the
effect of its ruling is a fait accompli.

DISPOSITION: CTA decision set aside, case remanded to

lower court to determine tax liabilities of Matias H. Aznar
that have not prescribed under the terms and period fixed
by Sections 331 and 332 of the NIRC, respondent Matias H.
Aznar is ordered to deposit with said court the amount
demanded from him for the years 1949 to 1951 or furnish a
surety bond for not more than double said amount. Costs
are taxed against respondent Matias H. Aznar. It is so
ordered.

Issue: W/N the official duty of the Secretary of Interior is

ministerial – NO

Ruling:
Duty of Secretary is discretionary under the law to either
annul the results or confirm the same. That the Dept
Head who appoints the members of the Board Medical
Examiners, who has the power of confirmation of the
report of the Board, cannot do more than perform the
clerical duty of approving the results under any and all
circumstances, is too specious an argument to merit
Blanco et al. took the physicians examination and apparently serious consideration.
passed the same. The Board of Medical Examiners submitted
the final results to the Dept. Head for confirmation but the Issue: W/N Mandamus will prosper in this case – NO
Secretary of Interior held the same in abeyance pending
outcome of a related investigation regarding leakage Ruling:
allegations. Mandamus is not available to review exercise of
discretion by a public officer. Where the law imposes
The Secretary of Interior annulled the results. On the other upon a public iofficer the right and duty to exercise
hand, the law provides that the results of all exams shall be judgment, it is his judgment that is to be exercised and
Blanco v. submitted to the Dept Head(Sec. of Interior) and made known to not that of the court.
Board of candidates within one month after date of exams.
Medical Non statutory Issue: W/N Mandamus will issue to correct abuse of
Examiner methods of review; Blanco et al. asks SC to order Secretary of Interior to confirm discretion – YES
(1924) mandamus the final results of the physicians’ examinations.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Ruling:
Mandamus may issue to correct abuse of discretion if
the case is proper.
Policarpio was the widow of a member of the Armed Forces
killed in action in 1942. Upon her application, she was granted a ISSUE:
monthly pension by the Philippine Veterans Board. The Pension W/N it was proper for lower court to compel delivery of
was stopped because Policarpio received a similar pension from warrants - NO
US Veterans Administration.
RULING:
Policarpio applied to Phil Veterans Board for resumption of her Court improperly intervened in ordering the delivery of the
pension. The Secretary of Phil Veterans Board issued a warrants. It being established that the resumption of the
Relation between memorandum that pension was resumed. In view thereof, the pension had not yet been approved by the Board, the
Statutory and Non- Auditor caused Treasury Warrants to be prepared in favor of Memorandum of the Secretary and the preparation of the
Statutory Methods Policarpio. warrants was obviously unauthorized, and taking of such
of Review action proves nothing but that the error or lack of authority
However, Delivery of Warrants was subsequently stopped was not discovered until later, as shown by the subsequent
Mandamus - Court because Phil Veterans Board “had not yet granted the withholding of the warrants.
granted petition restoration of Policarpio’s pension.”
asking it to order It was improper to compel delivery of the warrants because
the Philippine Policarpio applied to the CFI for a Writ of Mandamus to compel the Board might, in the exercise of its discretion, refuse to
Veterans Board to their release. In their Answer, the Board pleaded that restore Policarpio’s pension. Even if the refusal should be
Policarpio v. release treasury preparation of Warrants were ordered by mistake, because wrongful or erroneous, the court could not properly
Phil warrants the petition had not yet been acted upon by the Board. intervene until the appellee-petitioner should have
Veterans preparation of exhausted her administrative remedies. The court should
Board which was made by The Lower Court decreed that Issuance of the Writ of have limited itself to ordering the Board to take action upon
(1956) mistake Mandamus. the petition.
Chua Hiong was alleged to have secured the cancellation of his ISSUE:
alien certificate of registration with the Bureau of Immigration WoN Chua Hiong’s citizenship should first be determined in a
through fraud and misrepresentation and to have maliciously judicial proceeding. -- YES
and illegally exercised privileges and rights belonging to citizens
of the Philippines. RULING:
The jurisdiction of the Deportation Board to deport exists only
Chua Hiong Upon the institution of the proceedings by the Deportation with regard to aliens who are admittedly so. Where, however,
v. Procedure to be Board, a warrant for his arrest was issued. He filed a bond for a resident is admittedly a citizen, or conclusively shown to be
Deportation followed in his release and thereafter petitioned said Deportation Board for such, the Board lacks jurisdiction and its proceedings are null
Board deportation the dismissal of the proceedings on the following grounds (1) the and void ab initio and may be summarily enjoined by the
(1955) proceedings. jurisdiction to deport aliens exists only with regard to aliens (2) courts.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 claim of citizenship is supported by sufficient evidence to entitle
him to a declaration of his citizenship (3) his Filipino citizenship The Deportation Board has, in the first instance, power to
has already been declared by the Secretary of Labor, in determine the nationality of the deportee. Its jurisdiction is not
representation of the President, and the same is binding on the divested by the mere claim of Filipino citizenship. But it must
other executive branches of the government, the Deportation quash the proceedings if it is convinced that the evidence
Board including. However, the motion to quash was denied by submitted by the deportee shows that he is a Filipino citizen.
the Deportation Board.
A respondent who claims to be a citizen and not therefore
Petitioner then filed a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that subject to deportation has the right to have his citizenship
his arrest was made without jurisdiction; that the Board be reviewed by the courts, after the deportation proceedings.
prohibited from continuing the deportation proceedings against When the evidence submitted by a respondent is conclusive
him; and that a writ of preliminary injunction issue to restrain the of his citizenship, the right to immediate review should also
Deportation Board from hearing the case until after his petition is be recognized and the courts should promptly enjoin the
heard by this Court. deportation proceedings.

In cases where the evidence is neither decisively

conclusive in favor of the deportee’s claim for Filipino
citizenship, nor decisively conclusive against said claim,
the question of alienage or citizenship should first be
decided in a judicial proceeding, suspending the
administrative proceedings in the meantime that the
alienage or citizenship is being finally determined in the
courts.

The Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association had been licensed by W/N a ground exists for the issuance of a writ of prohibition --
the government to recruit, contract and embark laborers for NO
Hawaii. When the association made an application for the
renewal of its license, Cabanero objected on the ground that The function of the writ of prohibition is to prevent the
said association had no juridical personality, in that it was doing of an act which is about to be done. It is not
neither incorporated nor licensed to do business in the intended to provide a remedy for acts already
Philippines in accordance with the Corp Code. accomplished. It is one which commands the person to
whom it is directed not to do something. If the thing has
Relation between In view of this, the Sec of Labor issued a provisional license been done, the writ of prohibition cannot undo it for that
statutory and non- authorizing the association to recruit, embark and contract would require an affirmative act; and the only effect of a
Cabanero v. statutory methods laborers but subject to the condition that the license will ipso writ of prohibition is to suspend all action and to prevent
Torres of review; writ of facto expire 90 days after issuance upon showing that it had any further proceeding in the prohibited direction.
(1935) prohibition already acquired a juridical personality by registration as a

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 foreign corporation. Furthermore, the Sec announced that no new license will be
issued unless the association registers itself. The Court must
The association filed a petition for a writ of prohibition seeking to assume that the Sec will carry out his his announced
declare illegal, null and void the license issued and to prohibit purpose; hence, no ground exists for the issuance of a writ of
the Sec to renew the same or issue a new license. prohibition.
ISSUE:
1. W/N Lemi’s right to due process was violated - YES
2. 2. W/N the injunction prayed for is warranted - YES

1. Right to due process violated

Section 3, Radio Control Act, and Section 17, Department
Order No. 11, series of 1950, both mandate that a hearing
should be conducted before the revocation of a license to
operate a radio station for violations of radio laws and
regulations. Included in this mandate of a hearing are acts
Lemi was operating a radio broadcasting station, DZQR, with his which effectively amount to a revocation of license (i.e.
transmitter licensed with the government. He was also a holder discontinuance of operation) such as confiscations of
of a government franchise which authorized him to construct, transmitters among others.
install, maintain and operate radio stations. Respondents here
prayed for a search warrant due to the alleged use of Lemi of his Here, no hearing was conducted. Aside from the fact that
radio transmitter in violation of law. this violated the aforementioned laws and regulations,
this also amounted to a violation of Lemi’s right to due
In the middle of a broadcast, the search warrant was served and process in the administrative proceedings, as he was not
the transmitter was seized. accorded an opportunity to be heard or to explain his
side before his license was effectively revoked and his
Respondents argue that Lemi was using a transmitter different operations suspended through the confiscation of his
from that which he was licensed to use. Lemi then filed for transmitter.
preliminary mandatory injunction.
Additionally, that the seizure was made under authority of
It is also important to note that the Radio Control Office, which a search warrant does not cure the fact that the seizure
issues licenses for operators of radio stations, did not act on was made in violation of the laws and regulations
Lemi’s petition for renewal of his license. Also, before Lemi filed requiring previous hearing.
Lemi vs for injunction, no hearing was held in order to ascertain whether
Valencia Due Process; Prior or not Lemi’s renewal should be granted. As a consequence of 2. Injunction warranted
G.R. L- Hearing the inaction of the Radio Control Office, Lemi continuously While courts should exercise great care in granting
20768 Feb Methods of Review; operated DZRQ assuming that his petition was not flawed and preliminary mandatory injunctions, it was held in Meralco v.
28, 1963 Injunction therefore impliedly granted. Del Rosario that in cases of extreme urgency, where

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 petitioner’s right to to the writ is clear, where
considerations of relative inconvenience are strongly in
his favor, where where there appears to be a willful
invasion of petitioner’s right, the injury inflicted upon
him being a continuing one, and where the effect of the
mandatory injunction would not be to create a new
relation between the parties but solely to re-establish a
pre-existing relation between them recently and
arbitrarily interrupted by the respondent, courts should
not hesitate in granting writs.

Since Lemi is unable to continue his broadcasting, and since

his contractual obligations with third parties are affected, then
the injunction is warranted here.
Reyes v.
Court of
Appeals
(1957)

NOTE: I
used the
case
digested by Issue: W/N CIR can be restrained from proceeding with the
D2017 but The CTA issued a resolution restraining the CIR from collecting collection/levy of any property of the taxpayer - YES.
the title of taxes through summar administrative proceedings. CIR sought
that case is to nullify this resolution arguing that such disregarded the NIRC CTA empowered by law to grant injunction to restrain
CIR v. provision stating that no court shall have the authority to grant collection of internal revenue tax.
Reyes and an injunction to restrain collection of internal revenue taxes.
The provision sec 11 of RA 1125 was deemed to amend the
CA. The
case cited However RA1125 states that 1. that any person can appeal who NIRC provision in view of the repealing clause. It is based on
in the were adversely affected by rulings of the CIR. And that no the assumption that the collection by summary proceedings
syllabus appeal taken to the CTA can suspend the payment or levy of is in accordance with existing law. What is suspended is the
has no GR any property of the taxpayer for his liability provided however act of collecting, while in this case the Court suspended the
No. and I that when in the opinion of the Court the collection may use of the method employed to verify collection which was
can’t find a jeopardize Govt interest, the court may suspend the collection evidently illegal.
case with Grant of Injunctive and require taxpayer to deposit the amount first.
the same relief

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
year.

Issue: W/N AZ’s citizenship may be determined via

declaratory relief

Held: No. The list found in Rule 66 of the Rules of Court as

grounds for a declaratory relief is exclusive. Furthermore,
until after all administrative remedies shall have been
exhausted, no court may compel an administrative
agency to decide in a particular way matters that are
vested to them exclusively. In this case, from a decision of
AZ applied for the purchase of a parcel of land belonging to a Bureau of Lands, an appeal can be made to the Secretary of
public domain. An opposition was field by FA however on the Agriculture and Natural Resources. However, AZ did not
Azajar v. ground that she is a Chinese citizen who is not entitled to even bother to wait for the decision of Bureau of Lands. If she
Ardales & acquire lands of a public domain. She then filed a petition for a is indeed a Filipino Citizen, she could have went with the
Bu. of declaratory judgment claiming that such opposition raises administrative proceedings and submitted pieces of evidence
Lands Judicial Review; uncertainty as to her citizenship which would lead the Bureau of to prove her citizenship.
(1955) Declaratory Relief Lands into denying her application
Mejoff if an alien from Russia who was brought to this country ISSUE: W/N Mejoff is entitled to be released from custody.—
from Shanghai as a secret operative by the Japanese during the YES.
latter’s regime in the country. Upon liberation, he was arrested
Judicial review of, as a Japanese spy, by the U.S. Army and was handed to the RULING: Foreign nationals are entitled to protection equally
or relief against, Commonwealth Government; he was declared as having with citizens. Also, petitioner’s entry into the country was not
administrative entered the country illegally. unlawful, he was brought by the armed and belligerent forces
actions: Habeas of a de facto government whose decrees were law during the
Corpus— Alien After repeated failures to ship him abroad, the authorities occupation. Premises considered, the writ will issue
who was ordered to removed him to Bilibid Prison up to the filing of his second commanding the respondents to release the petitioner from
be deported had habeas corpus, the first having been denied by the Supreme custody upon these terms: He shall be placed under
been in detention of Court reasoning that the detention was only temporary and is a surveillance of the immigration authorities or their agents in
Mejoff v. more than two (2) necessary step in the process of exclusion or expulsion of such form and manner as may be deemed adequate to
Dir. Of years because the undesirable aliens which have pending deportation insure he keeps peace and be available when the
Prisons 90 Government had arrangements. 2 years have already passed since the first government is ready to deport him. Such surveillance shall
Phil. 70 been unable to ship habeas corpus case and the government still hasn’t found ways be reasonable and such reasonableness shall be submitted
(1951) him abroad. and means of removing the petitioner out of the country. to the Court for decision in case of abuse.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Muya came to the Philippines aboard S/S Kimberley as a
stowaway chinese citizen under the name Tiu Kim Kee.
Detected and returned to the point of departure, Muya entered
the country again arriving from HK on board a PAL plane and
sought admission as a Filipino citizen, on the strength of a
Certificate of Registration and Entry issued by the PH Consulate
in HK by authority of the DFA Secretary.

His identity with the 1959 stowaway was duly established

through his fingerprints and he was detained by the immigration
authorities and investigated by a Board of Special Inquiry. After
the hearing, Board recommended his exclusion and deportation
as an alien entering the PH through false and misleading
statements. The recommendation was affirmed by the Board of
Immigration Commissioners.

Muya instituted a case with the CFI, claiming to be a Filipino

citizen, and seeking to annul the decision of the Immigration
Commissioners and praying for his release. But the same was
dismissed on the ground that all administrative remedies
afforded to herein petitioner has not been availed of and
exhausted.

Muya went to CFI Pampanga and filed a petition for Declaratory

Judgment with Mandamus, again asserting Filipino citizenship W/N Muya is entitled for a declaratory judgment to be
and asking he be declared a Filipino citizen, and for the court to considered a Filipino citizen? No.
issue an injunction to restrain his deportation. (Granted by the There is no proceeding established by law, or the rules, for
CFI of Pampanga) the judicial declaration of citizenship of an individual.
- Immigration authorities sought reconsideration
questioning the authority of the lower court to issue a W/N the exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable?
writ of preliminary injunction against officers stationed Yes.
Bd of outside its territorial jurisdiction Commissioners of Immigration are under the DOJ, hence,
Immigration - That Muya had not exhausted all administrative Muya was duty-bound to exhaust the administrative
Comm. v. Exhaustion of remedies remedies by appealing first to the Secretary of Justice
Domingo Administrative - Citizenship claimed cannot be the object of a before seeking the intervention of the courts, as ruled in
(1963) Remedies declaratory relief Soriano v. Galang.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 WON the Office of the President (OP) may revoke, modify or
disregard the decision of the CFI on the accion publiciana, a
matter well within its jurisdiction -- yes

Figurado Plaza (Plaza) purchased a 900 sq.m. parcel of public The jurisdiction over the matter actually belongs to the DARN
land from a certain Luis Peggy thinking it belonged to the latter. and the OP (as the former’s alter ego) as the case involves
However, its actual occupant, Ernesto Reyes (Reyes), already public land.
had a miscellaneous sales application filed before the Bureau of
Lands at the time of Plaza’s purchase; The land in question is public land. Its administration,
disposition and alienation is lodged in the Director of Lands
Plaza filed an accion publiciana before the CFI Butuan City subject to the control of the Secretary of Agriculture and
against Reyes which was later on resolved in his favor, resulting Natural Resources as alter ego of the President (Secs. 3, 4
to Reyes’ ejectment. Meanwhile, Plaza opposed Reyes’ and 5, Commonwealth Act 141). The President, through the
miscellaneous sales application before the Bureau, the latter Executive Secretary, may review, affirm, reverse, or modify
finding unanimously with the Secretary of Agricultural and the orders and decisions of the Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources that the property was public land, and that Natural Resources
Reyes was a mere tenant of Plaza whose preferential right to
purchase was recognized by the Bureau; The disposition of public land is an executive, not a judicial,
function. The decision of the Court of First Instance in the
Reyes appealed before the OP resulting to the reversal of the action for recovery of possession filed by Plaza against
DANR’s decision; Reyes did not bind nor bar the Office of the President from
exercising its power as the final authority in the disposition of
Plaza filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus lands of the public domain. Its decision was not yet final
before the CA against the decision of the OP for totally when the Office of the President decided the miscellaneous
disregarding the CFI’s decision over the accion publiciana, thus sales applications of Reyes and Plaza. Furthermore, the
amounting to GADALEJ. CA however ruled in Reyes’ favor, administrative case was instituted ahead of Civil Case No.
thereby dismissing the Special Civil Action under Rule 65 on the 1128. Reyes filed his Miscellaneous Sales Application No.
ground that the administrative decision already attained 460-A on September 28,1966 while Civil Case 1128 as filed
Plaza v finality and therefore binding upon Plaza; by Plaza on November 18, 1966 only. Plaza should have
Tuvera exhausted his administrative remedies before going to court.
GRN 42782 Plaza filed a Petiiton for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 Having failed to do so. his recourse to the courts was
Sept 29, before the High Court, hence the instant case. premature. The dismissal of his complaint by the Court of
1989 Appeals was proper

Iloilo Zoning · The case is a petition for review under Rule 45. W/N there was a violation of the rule on exhaustion of
Board v · The City Council of Iloilo enacted Zoning Ordinance 2001- administrative remedies – YES
Gegato- 072 which provides for a prohibition to operate a funeral
Abecia Judicial Review establishment at a minimum radial distance of at least 25 meters · Gegato-Abecia failed to exhaust the available

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
Funeral from restaurants, food centers, and other food establishments. administrative remedies. It should have appealed first before
GRN15711 · Gegato-Abecia Funeral Homes applied with the City Zoning the HLURB since the Board has the power to act as the
8 Dec 8, Board for the issuance of a permit to operate a funeral on a 4- appellate body on decisions and actions of local and regional
2003 storey building located between a restaurant and a bakery. It planning and zoning bodies and of the deputized officials of
contended that since its business is without embalming facilities, the Commission, on matters arising from the performance of
it should be excepted from the prohibition. Its application was these functions.
denied. · Gegato-Abecia cannot rely on HLURB’s order upon
o It then filed a petition for mandamus with the RTC to compel which the latter declined to assume jurisdiction over the
the Zoning Board to grant its prayer for exception. It likewise application for a location clearance, HLURB’s refusal to act
claimed that the Zoning Ordinance is unconstitutional insofar as on the application was not based on the absence of appellate
it prohibits the operation of funeral establishments without jurisdiction, but on lack of authority to issue locational
embalming facilities. Even assuming that the ordinance is valid, clearances. The HLURB nevertheless correctly indorsed the
Gegato-Abecia claims that there was grave abuse due to the application to the zoning administrator of the city because the
outright denial of the application. power to issue permits and locational clearances for locally
o The Trial Court granted the mandamus significant projects is now lodged with the city/municipality
with a comprehensive land use plan.
· The fact that the Rules of Procedure of the HLURB
does not categorically provide for a procedure on the
remedy of appeal from decisions of LGUs will not
operate to divest HLURB of the appellate jurisdiction
specifically granted to it by law.

Ramos v. Decision of The subject of the petition for certiorari herein is an appeal of ISSUE: W/N CFI erred in dismissing the case for lack of
Secretary Secretary of CFI Rizal IV dismissal of petition for review of the decision of cause of action (such being grave abuse of discretion).
of Agriculture and Secretary of Agriculture, which reversed Director of Mines’ Stated otherwise, W/N the Sec. of Agric. committed grave
Agriculture Natural award of a coal mine concession to Ramos, and instead gave abuse of discretion (amounting to lack/excess of jurisdiction)
and Resources, not of it to Manto. in reversing the Director of Mines and awarding the
Natural his subordinates, concession to Manto) – NO, Sec.
Resources conclusive, upon Manto first applied for the Cebu coal mine concession in 1953,
, G.R. No. Supreme Court. while Ramos applied for the same area in 1964. As provided in Timbancaya v. Vicente which provides the
L-29097, standard rule:
January OTHER TOPIC: The Bureau of Mines rules required bidding. Ramos submitted
28, 1974 Secretary of a bid of P0.50/ton guaranteed 9,600 tons/yr; Manto submitted The invariable rule laid down by this Court in reviewing
Agriculture and P0.10/ton guaranteed 2,000 tons/yr. (3 rd bid submitted by administrative decisions of the Executive Branch of the
Natural Manto’s brother-in-law/attorney-in-fact, P0.15/ton guaranteed Government is that the findings of fact made therein
Resources with 100 tons/yr). must be respected so long as they are supported by
wide latitude of substantial evidence, even if not overwhelming or

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
discretion in Director of Mines awarded the concession to Ramos, with the preponderant; that it is not for the reviewing court to
awarding lease of condition that he reimburse Manto for whatever improvements weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility
coal land to the the latter may have introduced, and other expenses. of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its own judgment
applicant or to any for that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency
other qualified Manto appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural of the evidence; that the administrative decision in
person. Resources, who reversed the Director of Mines and awarded matters within the executive jurisdiction can only be set
the concession to Manto, with the condition that he match aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud, or
Ramos’ bid. The justifications are as follows: Manto filed his error of law.
application first; Manto met all the requirements of the Bureau
of Mines, including paying for all the related expenses (e.g., These principles negate the power of a reviewing court to
survey), Manto was the one who introduced most of the re-examine the sufficiency of the evidence in an
improvements; Manto practically prepared the entire place for administrative case as if originally instituted therein, and do
mining, only for it to be taken over by Ramos simply because not authorize the court to receive additional evidence that
of the higher bid. was not submitted to the administrative agency concerned.
Common sense dictates that the question whether the
Ramos went to CFI on a special civil action (certiorari) to administrative agency abused its discretion in weighing the
reverse the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources evidence should be resolved solely on the basis of the proof
(“Sec. of Agric.,” in short), but the CFI dismissed the case for that the administrative authorities had before them and no
lack of cause of action (grave abuse of discretion). other.

Appellant contends that the findings and decision of the

Director of Mines in his favor should not have been reversed
by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. This
is without merit. The Secretary can review and reverse such
findings and conclusions of his subordinate, the Director of
Mines and it is the decision of the Secretary that is
conclusive upon the Court in the absence of grave abuse of
discretion, collusion, fraud and clear error of law and fact.

Although there is no express provision of the rules and

regulations governing the lease and development of coal
lands in the Philippines issued by the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources on May 26, 1922,
allowing the applicant to equal the highest bid at the public
auction, said rules and regulations confer upon the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources wide
latitude of discretion in awarding the lease to the applicant

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 or to any other qualified persons. It is therein (in The
Disposal of Coal Lands Regulations Governing the Leasing
and Development of Coal Lands in the Philippine Islands,
Issued by Sec. of Agric. Rafael Corpus on May 26, 1922)
provided as follows: “After due notice and publication of all
applications have been compiled with, lease may be
rewarded by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources to the applicant or to the person or corporation
best qualified, in the opinion of the Secretary of Agriculture
and Natural Resources, to carry out the provisions of the
lease.”

Thus, there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the

Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in allowing
applicant Jacinto R. Manto to equal the bid of petitioner--
appellant and awarding to the former the coal area in
question.

Also, the Court found that the Secretary applied a policy

allowing previous applicants to match the winning bid,
ordinarily for disposable lands of the public domain, to coal
mine policy; the Court found this “judicious.”

NOTE: A clue about the relationship of the Bureau of Mines

to the DANR: “as Department Head the said Secretary can
review and reverse such findings and conclusions of his
subordinate, the Director of Mines.”

DISPOSITION: Decision appealed from AFFIRMED.

Ignacio, as representative of heirs of deceased, filed a protest Issue: W/N the issues raised involved only questions of law –
with Bureau of Lands alleging that certain homestead and sales YES
applications of third parties overlapped with certain portions of
the deceased’s homestead. Ruling:
The issues raised in appeal before the CA do not call for an
The Director of Lands affirmed the decision of the Regional examination of probative value of evidence. For a question
Ignacio v. Questions open to Land Officer excluding said portions from the deceased’s to be one of law, it must not involve an examination of
CA (1980) review homestead. However, The OP decided on appeal that the the probative value of the evidence presented by

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 contested portions belonged to the decedent. litigants. There is a question of law when doubt or
difference of opinion arises as to what is the law on a
Petition for certiorari before the CFI was filed to annul decision certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is
of OP, alleging it was rendered with abuse of discretion and in question of fact, when the doubt or difference arises as
excess of jurisdiction. to the truth or falsity of facts alleged.

CFI dismissed the petition for failing to allege any error Issue: assuming there was error by the OP, did it constitute
committed by the OP which would constitute grave abuse of grave abuse of discretion? – NO
discretion as required by Sec. 1, Rule 65.
Ruling:
The CA certified the case to the SC on ground that only It was mere error of judgment and thus not correctible by
questions of law were involved. certioriari. Also, findings of fact by executive officials are
generally conclusive upon the courts. Grave abuse of
discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to
an evasion of positive duty or to virtual refusal to
perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility. Not every erroneous conclusion of law or
fact is abuse of discretion.
Orlina filed an Application with Bureau of Lands for purchase for ISSUE:
tract of Public Land. Following an investigation by the Bureau of W/N Orlina should be considered a Filipino Citizen - arising
Lands, Orlina’s application was rejected allowing him, however, from the undisputed evidence correctly decided by the
to file a sale or lease application for the portion of land classified Director of Lands - No
to be suitable for commercial purposes.
Two MRs for the Decision was filed and denied. On appeal to RULING:
Questions Open to the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, the decision was Decisions of Director of Lands when approved by Secretary
Review affirmed. of Agriculture and Commerce is generally conclusive on the
One condition for the purchase of a tract of land of Public courts. Director of Lands is by law vested with direct
Director of Lands Agricultural Land, provided by Public Land Law, is that the executive control over land matters and his decisions as to
rejected sale purchaser shall be a citizen of lawful age. Questions of Fact shall be conclusive when approved by the
application for tract Orlina stated in his application that he was a Filipino Citizen but Secretary.
of public land on the Director of lands found and held that he was a Chinese
Orlina v. his conclusion from Citizen. Although Orlina was presumptively a Filipino Citizen, Decisions of the Director of Lands, a quasi-judicial officer, is
Singson facts found that certain acts of Orlina were pointed to as demonstrating that he entitled to great respect by the courts. Discretion is lodged by
Encarnacio applicant was forfeited his Philippine Citizenship: law in the Director of Lands which should not be interfered
n (1934) Chinese Citizen ● It was stated that Orlina voluntarily applied for a Landing with.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Certificate of Residence which was issued by the Insular
Collector of Customs and which is only given to Chinese However, Certain Decisions of the Director of Lands are
persons. reviewable by the courts. Any action which is based upon
● Orlina applied for registration of a boat and it was a misconstruction of the law can be corrected by the
denied by the Insular Collector of Customs on the courts.
ground that the was a Chinese Citizen and Orlina
submitted to the ruling. There are many indicators that show that Orlina had the
intention and desire to be considered a Filipino Citizen. He
has taken a Filipino name, gone into business and improved
his property here, no implied renunciation of citizenship, etc.
Therefore, on the facts found by the Director of Lands, the
court held that Clear error of law resulted in not considering
Orlina as a Filipino Citizen and so qualified under the Public
Land Law to purchase public agricultural land.
ISSUE: W/N the substantial evidence rule was complied with
-- NO.

Petitioner GONZALES engages in trawl fishing, and the RULING:

respondents are his EMPLOYEES at his fishing boat. The only evidence came from the testimony of the
EMPLOYEES and the VICLU president, plus the membership
Acting Prosecutor of the CIR filed a complaint against petitioner, slips of EMPLOYEES.
charging him with unfair labor practice in dismissing the In fact, there’s evidence of something more:
EMPLOYEES without just cause but by reason of their The membership slip was signed on Nov. 15, 1951, but the
membership in VICLU. ship’s records show that the ship (and the EMPLOYEES)
were out on sea on that day
Petitioner denied this reasoning, claiming the reason why the Two of the EMPLOYEES that were dismissed, Baes and
EMPLOYEES were fired was because they were planning to Barroc, weren’t even VICLU members,
steal the boat. Petitioner was never officially notified that respondents were
members of the Victory Labor Union. No demand for check-
The SC noted the application of the substantial evidence rule, off deductions from their wages was ever served upon him
under which the findings of fact of the CIR are not disturbed on Plus, evidence shows that EMPLOYEES the fish caught by
appeal as long as they are supported by "such relevant them and sold them to private parties and pocketed the
Probative weight of evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to proceeds thereof. This circumstance is a clear indication of
Gonzales v. testimony of support a conclusion." (Because the CIR ruled on a bare sabotage and pilferage pure and simple, and basis for
Victory witnesses; majority on the basis of the mere allegations of the respondent dismissal
Labor Union substantial EMPLOYEES)
(1969) evidence rule Bare testimony of respondents, is insufficient to

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 establish the charge of unfair labor practice under the
standard fixed by law and enunciated in the decisions of
this Court.

W/N the conclusion of the Commission was tenable -- NO

The conclusion was unreasonably harsh on the deceased

laborer. As street cleaner or sweeper, he was naturally
This case is a petition to review on certiorari the decision of exposed to all kinds of dust and dirt on the city streets. To
respondent Chairman, Workmen’s Compensation en banc, conclude that because deceased worked in open air, his
dismissing the compensation claim of Lambino for herself and in employment was healthful and invigorating without taking into
behalf of her children against City of Manila for the death of her account the particular job is unjustified. So is saying that
husband, a street cleaner and sweeper of said city. He became there was no urgency in the performance of his duties and
ill and was found to have pulmonary tuberculosis. He was laid therefore could have so arranged his work hours to avoid
off from his work, but was reinstated to work at a construction, exposing himself to rain or sun. This holding is unreasonably
where he was often overtaken by rain and exposed to the heat harsh on the laborer who conscientiously performs his duties,
Lambino v. of the sun. Thereafter, he died. WCC concluded that the illness especially considering that when rain continuously falls in the
Baens del which caused his death was neither contracted in the course of city, garbage accumulates and must be removed by street
Rosario his employment nor aggravated by the nature of his work; and cleaners.
GRN L- his daily routine did not present any urgency to compel him to
18434 continue working even under inclement weather; and that his Finally, the fact that the city reinstated the deceased in spite
December Questions open to work was in the open air, thus, healthful and had invigorating of his illness to work at a construction, aggravated his
29, 1962 review effect on his health. ailment.
H.E. Heacock allegedly promised its employees a yearly bonus
premised on the condition that it would have sufficient profits.
The Union alleges that in 1947, Heacock gave the bonuses but
ISSUE: W/N the factual findings of the Court of Industrial
in succeeding years, it gave bonuses only to high-ranking
Relations and its Decision may be overruled by the Court
officials and employees and not its low-earning employees.
H.E. absent grave abuse of discretion – NO
Heacock alleges that its grant of bonus was based on its profit
Heacocks
and that it was purely discretionary and out of liberality. The Court held that it is not in a position to pass upon, much
Co. v.
less alter, said findings which are conclusive, without any
National Material to consider here are the following circumstantial pieces
allegation of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the court
Labor Hierarchy of of evidence which tend to prove the promise of Heacock
a quo. Findings of fact of the lower court are conclusive
Union, G.R. Evidentiary Values; management to its employees of a bonus: (1) an article printed
upon the Supreme Court, absent any proof that the lower
L-11135, Findings of lower in three newspapers which state that Heacock treats its
court gravely abused its discretion.
Apr. 30, court binding upon employees well and grants bonuses to all its employees at
1958 the Supreme Court year’s end; (2) a letter of management to the Union saying that it

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 would be impossible to raise wages due to bonuses being
granted at the end of the year, and (3) oral evidence presented
by the Union to back up their claims.

Based on these circumstantial pieces of evidence, the Court of

Industrial Relations ruled in favor of the Union and ordered
Heacock to pay bonuses to its employees amounting to one
month salary.

W/N the ERB is the proper authority to decide on the issues

raised. - YES-

The interpretation of an administrative government agency

like the ERB, which is tasked to implement a statute, is
accorded great respect and ordinarily controls the
construction of the courts. A long line of cases establish the
basic rule that the courts will not interfere in matters which
Petitioner PSPC (Shell) is engaged in the business of importing are addressed to the sound discretion of government
crude oil, refining the same and selling various petroleum agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming
products through a network of service stations throughout the under the special technical knowledge and training of such
country. Private respondent PDSC owns and operates a Caltex agencies.
service station at the corner of the MIA and Domestic Roads in
Pasay City. On June The record discloses that the ERB Decision approving Shell's
30, 1983, Shell filed with the quondam Bureau of Energy application in ERB Case No. 89-57 was based on hard
Utilization (BEU) an application for authority to relocate its Shell economic data on developmental projects, residential
Service Station at Tambo, Paranaque, Metro Manila, to Imelda subdivision listings, population count, public conveyances,
Marcos Avenue of the same municipality. commercial establishments, traffic count, fuel demand,
growth of private cars, public utility vehicles and commercial
PDSC filed an opposition to the application on the grounds that: vehicles, etc., rather than empirical evidence to support its
1] there are adequate service stations attending to the motorists' conclusions.
requirements in the trading area covered by the application; 2]
ruinous competition will result from the establishment of the Time and again this Court has ruled that in reviewing
Weight of proposed new service station; and 3] there is a decline not an administrative decisions, the findings of fact made therein
administrative increase in the volume of sales in the area. must be respected as long as they are supported by
interpretation; substantial evidence, even if not overwhelming or
Review of Shell asserts that the construction of a state-of-the-art gasoline preponderant; that it is not for the reviewing court to weigh
ERB v. CA administrative service station in the area is a necessity dictated by the the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of the
(2001) decisions. "emerging economic landscape." PDSC says otherwise. witnesses or otherwise substitute its own judgment for that of

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 the administrative agency on the sufficiency of evidence; that
the administrative decision in matters within the executive
jurisdiction can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of
discretion, fraud or error of law.

ERB is in a better position to resolve petitioner Shell's

application, being primarily the agency possessing the
necessary expertise on the matter. The power to determine
whether the building of a gasoline retail outlet in a trading
area would benefit public interest and the oil industry lies with
the ERB not the appellate courts.
Issue: W/N an En Banc order reversing an order the division
should disprove facts or arguments contained in the latter

Held: Yes. A Commission En Banc occupies the position of

a reviewing court. Hence, it would ordinarily be bound by
the factual findings made by the reviewed court save in
certain exception as when the findings are entirely
based on speculations, or are based on an inference
manifestly absurd, or when there is a misapprehension
of facts or the findings facts are contrary to the
admissions of both parties. No such exceptions are cited in
reversing the finding of the Division in this case. While indeed
the Commission En Banc does have authority to review the
evidence and record and modify the factual findings which
The Public Service Commission en banc, by a vote of 4 to 2, would ultimately affect the resolution of the case, no such
reversed the original decision of the first division granting C a modifications of findings of fact were made to justify the
certificate of public convenience to operate an ice plant in reversal of the decision in this case. A showing of a mistake
Cabuyao, Laguna. The En Banc Order however did not recite in the appreciation of facts is especially needed in this case
Caspena v. any contrary fact or circumstance to justify the reversal. It did not since the Commissioner had fully concurred in the original
Salisi Judicial Review; deny the facts proving the necessity of the more ice supply in decision of the division but had a change of heart when it
(1973) Reversal order Cabuyao as maintained in the decision of the Division. voted the contrary in the En Banc decision.
When substantial An administrative complaint was filed with the office of Secretary ISSUE: W/N the substantial evidence rule apply to
Borja v. evidence rule not of Public Works and Communications against a number of adjudications of a claim of private ownership of property vis-
Moreno applicable— There landowners, among them is petitioner, for abatement of a-vis the government.—YES.
11 SCRA is substantial nuisance and demolition of illegally constructed dams. The
568 (1984) evidence decision of the Secretary was to remove the dams found across RULING: Where substantial evidence rule applicable,

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
supporting the channel bordering the properties owned by the petitioner courts bound to look no further.However, the decision of
administrative was assailed by the latter on administrative grounds. the administrative officer supported by substantial
decision that the evidence is not necessarily conclusive upon the courts.
stream in which Among the issued raised is the court’s finding that the store
dams were illegally which runs through the land of the petitioner is not a public In this case, although there is substantial evidence to support
constructed is not navigable river but his private property. the conclusion of the respondent Secretary that the stream is
private property but a public navigable river, the Court does not feel justified in
a public navigable affirming the aforesaid conclusion because the investigation
river, however was conducted with manifest disregard to the requirements of
administrative due process. Therefore the investigation is set aside and the
investigation issue of ownership is left for determination in other
conducted was in proceeding.
violation of the
requirements of
due process.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS: CASES
CASE TOPIC FACTS ISSUE, RULING, & DOCTRINE
Azarcon owned and operated an earth-moving business. His
services were contracted by PICOP for its concession in Surigao
del Sur. He would engage the services of other sub-contractors
like Ancla (whose trucks were left at Azarcon’s residence).

On May 25, 1983, a Warrant of Distraint of Personal Property

was issued by BIR addressed to the Regional Director W/N the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over Azarcon
commanding them to distraint the goods, chattels, or effects of considering that the crimes were committed solely by private
Ancla, sub-contractor of Azarcon, a delinquent taxpayer. A individuals? No.
warrant of garnishment was issued to Azarcon ordering him to
surrender the property owned by Ancla. Azarcon, in signing the Jurisdiction of the Court must appear clearly from the statute
law or it will not be held to exist. At the time the action was
receipt for goods, articles, and things seized assumed the
instituted, PD 1606 provides the specific instances wherein the
undertakings specified in the content of the receipt. Sandiganbayan would exercise jurisdiction over a private
individual. The circumstances of the present case do not fall
Subsequently, Azarcon wrote a letter to the Regional Director of within the specifications of the Sandiganbayan law. Unless
BIR stating that he relinquishes the responsibility he had over Azarcon is proven to be a public officer, Sandiganbayan would
Ancla’s property. BIR Regional Director said that Azarcon’s have no jurisdiction over the crime charged.
failure to comply with the provisions of of the warrant of
W/N Azarcon is a public officer? No.
garnishment did not relieve him of his responsibility.
Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code determines who are
Azarcon and Ancla were charged before the Sandiganbayan with public officers. First, he was not deemed authorized by public
malversation of public funds or property that Azarcon, as a election, and his designation by the BIR as property custodian
depository/administrator of property seized or deposited by the of the distrained property would not qualify as an appointment
BIR offered himself as custodian of the truck (worth 80k) by direct provision of law, neither by competent authority. No
Azarcon v. unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated public fund when the provision in the NIRC constitutes a person a public officer by
authorization to be the custodian of a distrained property. The
Sandigan truck was converted to his personal use and benefit.
BIR’s power to authorize a private individual to act as a
bayan Feb depositary cannot be stretched to include the power to
26 1997 Sandiganbayan found Azarcon guilty. appoint him as a public officer.
Officemates of petitioner in DAR filed a complaint alleging that ISSUE: w/n CA was correct in providing a penalty of
Cabalitan the petitioner sold to them a sham card ostensibly exempting the suspension and not dismissal -- YES
v. DAR holder from the Unified Vehicular Volume Reduction program (a
CSC scheme by MMDA to decongest traffic by prohibiting motor EO 292 provides that the offense of conduct prejudicial to the
January vehicles on certain days from traversing the streets). Hence, they best interest of the service is a ground for disciplinary action.
23, 2006 demanded reimbursement but petitioner made excuses to avoid CSC Memo Circular 19-99 classifies it as a grave offense

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 demand. which carries suspension for first offense and dismissal for
2nd offense.
DAR Sec charged petitioner with grave misconduct and found
petitioner guilty. MR denied. CA did not err in holding that since the petitioner’s contract of
Appeal to CSC but CSC found him guilty and ordered dismissal employment had already expired, his suspension should be
from service. MR to CSC -- decision modified and found already deemed served. The purpose of such suspension was
petitioner guilty only of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of already accomplished -- that is to keep him out of office for the
the service. CSC suspended petitioner since the sale of spurious stated period of time, not only as a punishment but to prevent
exemption cards is alien and unrelated to the official functions further mischief in the office.
and duties of the petitioner; hence he did not commit a serious
offense punishable by dismissal. But petitioner was not entirely
free from any administrative liability since sale was done during
office hours.
COA issued Memorandum No. 97-038. The Memo directed all W/N the petitioners are covered by the constitutional ban, and
unit heads/auditors/team leaders of national government the disallowance - YES
agencies and GOCCs which have effected payment of any form
of additional compensation or remuneration to cabinet PD 257, the law creating the NHA, provides that the members
secretaries, their deputies and assistants, or their of the Board of the NHA may have their respective alternates
representatives, in violation of the rule on multiple positions to: whose acts shall be considered the acts of their principals with
- immediately cause the disallowance of such additional right to receive their benefit.
compensation; and - The board is composed of Secretaries of Public
- Effect the refund of the same Works, Transportation and Communication, Finance,
The Memorandum likewise stated that EO 284 is unconstitutional Labor, Industry, the Director-General of the National
insofar as it allows Cabinet members, their deputies and Economic and Development Authority, the Executive
assistants to hold other offices, in addition to their primary Secretary and the General Manager of the Authority.
offices, and to receive compensation Section 13, Art 7 of the Constitution provides that the
President, the VP, and Members of the Cabinet, and their
NHA Resident Auditor Vasquez issued a Notice of Disallowance deputies and assistants shall not hold any other office or
disallowing in audit the payment of representation allowances employment during their tenure.
and per deems of Cabinet members who were ex-officio - The prohibition is not to be interpreted as covering
members of the NHA Board and/or their alternates who actually positions held without additional compensation in ex
received the payments. officio capacities. Ex officio means from office or by
- Petitioners appealed from the Notice of Disallowance to virtue of office.
Dela Cruz the COA based on the SC decision in CLU v. Anti-graft - The ex officio position being actually and in legal
v. COA League which clarified that the constitutional ban against contemplation part of the principal office, it follows that
Nov. 29 multiple positions apply only to members of teh Cabinet, the official concerne has no right to receive additional
2001 their deputies/assistants. It does not cover officials with compensation for his services in the said position since

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 equivalent rank or those lower than the position of it is already paid for and covered by the compensation
Assistant Secretary. in the principal office.
- They also argued that NHA directors are not Secretaries, Since the Executive Department Secretaries, as ex officio
USecs, or ASecs, and that they occupy positions lower members of the NHA Board, are prohibited from receiving
than the position of ASec. extra compensation, their alternates are also not entitled to
- COA denied the appeal. receive such compensation. A contrary rule would give
petitioners a better right than their principals.

Gaminde Term v. Tenure On June 11, 1993, the President of the Philippines appointed ISSUE: Whether the term of office of Atty. Thelma P. Gaminde, as
v. petitioner Thelma P. Gaminde, ad interim, Commissioner, Civil Commissioner, Civil Service Commission, to which she was
Commis Transitory Service Commission. She assumed office on June 22, 1993, appointed on June 11, 1993, expired on February 02, 1999, as
stated in the appointment paper, or on February 02, 2000, as
sion on Constitutional after taking an oath of office. On September 07, 1993, the
claimed by her? – Her term expired on February 2, 1999.
Audit, G. provisions in Commission on Appointment, Congress of the Philippines
R. No. relation to confirmed the appointment. Her appointment paper states that The Court held that the term of office of Ms. Thelma P. Gaminde as
140335. members of the she was appointed “ad interim ... for a term expiring Commissioner, Civil Service Commission, under an appointment
Decemb Constitutional February 2, 1999. By virtue hereof, you may qualify and enter extended to her by President Fidel V. Ramos on June 11, 1993,
er 13, Commissions upon the performance of the duties of the office, furnishing this expired on February 02, 1999. However, she served as de facto
2000 Office and the Civil Service Commission with copies of your officer in good faith until February 02, 2000, and thus entitled to
oath of office.” receive her salary and other emoluments for actual service
rendered. Consequently, the Commission on Audit erred in
disallowing in audit such salary and other emoluments, including that
However, on February 24, 1998, petitioner sought clarification
of her co-terminous staff.
from the Office of the President as to the expiry date of her term
of office. In reply to her request, the Chief Presidential Legal The Court reversed the decisions of the Commission on Audit
Counsel, in a letter dated April 07, 1998. opined that petitioner’s insofar as they disallow the salaries and emoluments of
term of office would expire on February 02, 2000, NOT on Commissioner Thelma P. Gaminde and her coterminous staff during
February 02, 1999. her tenure as de facto officer from February 02, 1999, until February
02, 2000.
Relying on said advisory opinion, petitioner remained in office
after February 02, 1999. On February 04,1999, Chairman The term of office of the Chairman and members of the Civil Service
Commission is prescribed in the 1987 Constitution, as follows:
Corazon Alma G. de the Commission on Audit requesting
"SECTION 1 (2). The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be
opinion on whether or not Commissioner Thelma P. Gaminde
appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on
and her co-terminus staff may be paid their salaries Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of
notwithstanding the expiration of their appointments on those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years,
February 02, 1999. a Commissioner for five years, and another Commissioner for three
years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be
The General Counsel, Commission on Audit, issued an opinion only for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any
that the term of Commissioner Gaminde has expired on Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
February 02, 1999 as stated in her appointment conformably capacity."

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
with the constitutional intent.
Consequently, on March 24, 1999, CSC Resident Auditor In Republic vs. Imperial, the Court said that "the operation of the
Flovitas U. Felipe issued notice of disallowance No. 99-002-101 rotational plan requires two conditions, both indispensable to its
workability: (1) that the terms of the first three (3) Commissioners
(99), disallowing in audit the salaries and emoluments
should start on a common date, and, (2) that any vacancy due to
pertaining to petitioner and her co-terminus staff, effective
death, resignation or disability before the expiration of the term
February 02, 1999. should only be filled only for the unexpired balance of the term."

Therafter, petitioner appealed the disallowance to the Consequently, the terms of the first Chairmen and Commissioners of
Commission on Audit en bacn. The Commission on Audit the Constitutional Commissions under the 1987 Constitution must
issued Decision dismissing petitioner’s appeal. The start on a common date, irrespective of the variations in the dates of
Commission on Audit affirmed the propriety of the disallowance, appointments and qualifications of the appointees, in order that the
holding that the issue of petitioner’s term of office may be expiration of the first terms of seven, five and three years should
lead to the regular recurrence of the two-year interval between the
properly addressed by mere reference to her appointment
expiration of the terms
paper which set the expiration date on February 02,1999, and
that the Commission is bereft of power to recognize an Applying the foregoing conditions to the case at bar, we rule that the
extension of her term, not even with the implied acquiescence appropriate starting point of the terms of office of the first appointees
of the Office of the President. to the Constitutional Commissions under the 1987 Constitution must
In time, petitioner moved for reconsideration; however, on be on February 02, 1987, the date of the adoption of the 1987
August 17, 1999, the Commission on Audit denied the motion. Constitution. In case of a belated appointment or qualification, the
Hence, this petition. interval between the start of the term and the actual qualification of
the appointee must be counted against the latter.

In the law of public officers, there is a settled distinction

between "term" and "tenure." "The term of an office must be
distinguished from the tenure of the incumbent. The term
means the time during the officer may claim to hold office as of
right, and fixes the interval after which the several incumbents
shall succeed one another. The tenure represents the term
during which the incumbent actually holds the office. The term
of office is not affected by the hold-over. The tenure may be
shorter than the term for reasons within or beyond the power of
the incumbent."

In concluding that February 02, 1987 is the proper starting point of

the terms of office of the first appointees to the Constitutional
Commissions of a staggered 7-5-3 year terms, the Court considered
the plain language of the 1987 Constitution provisions relating to the
Constitutional Commissions that uniformly prescribed a seven-year
term of office for Members of the Constitutional Commissions,

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 without re-appointment, and for the first appointees terms of seven,
five and three years, without re-appointment. In no case shall any
Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
capacity. There is no need to expressly state the beginning of the
term of office as this is understood to coincide with the effectivity of
the Constitution upon its ratification (on February 02, 1987).

On the other hand, Article XVIII, Transitory Provisions, 1987

Constitution provides: “SEC. 15. The incumbent Members of the
Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the
Commission on Audit shall continue in office for one year after the
ratification of this Constitution, unless they are sooner removed for
cause or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office
or appointed to a new term thereunder. In no case shall any Member
serve longer than seven years including service before the
ratification of this Constitution.”

What the above quoted Transitory Provisions contemplate is

tenure not term of the incumbent Chairmen and Members of the
Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections and
the Commission on Audit, who shall continue in office for one
year after the ratification of this Constitution, unless they are
sooner removed for cause or become incapacitated to
discharge the duties of their office or appointed to a new term
thereunder. The term unless imports an exception to the
general rule. Clearly, the transitory provisions mean that the
incumbent members of the Constitutional Commissions shall
continue in office for one year after the ratification of this
Constitution under their existing appointments at the discretion
of the appointing power, who may cut short their tenure by: (1)
their removal from office for cause; (2) their becoming
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office, or (3) their
appointment to a new term thereunder, all of which events may
occur before the end of the one year period after the effectivity
of the Constitution.However, the transitory provisions do not
affect the term of office fixed in Article IX, providing for a
seven-five-three year rotational interval for the first appointees
under this Constitution.

Given the foregoing common starting point, the Court computed the
terms of the first appointees and their successors to the Civil Service

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Commission under the 1987 Constitution by their respective lines, as
follows:

First line: Chairman — Seven-year term. February 02, 1987 to

February 01, 1994.

Second line: Commissioner — Five-year term. February 02, 1987 to

February 02, 1992.

Third line: Commissioner — Three-year term. February 02, 1987 to

February 02, 1990.

To illustrate Commissioner Gaminde’s case: Commissioner Five-

year term: February 02, 1987 to February 02, 1992. On January 30,
1988, the President nominated Atty. Samilo N. Barlongay
Commissioner, Civil Service Commission. On February 17, 1988,
the Commission on Appointments, Congress of the Philippines,
confirmed the nomination. He assumed office on March 04, 1988.
His term ended on February 02, 1992. He served as de facto
Commissioner until March 04, 1993.

On June 11, 1993, the President appointed Atty. Thelma P.

Gaminde Commissioner, Civil Service Commission, for a term
expiring February 02, 1999. This terminal date is specified in her
appointment paper. On September 07, 1993, the Commission on
Appointments confirmed the appointment. She accepted the
appointment and assumed office on June 22, 1993. She is bound by
the term of the appointment she accepted, expiring February 02,
1999. In this connection, the letter dated April 07, 1998, of Deputy
Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona clarifying that her term would
expire on February 02, 2000, was in error. What was submitted to
the Commission on Appointments was a nomination for a term
expiring on February 02, 1999. Thus, the term of her successor must
be deemed to start on February 02, 1999, and expire on February
02, 2006.

Thus, the third batch of appointees would then be having terms of

office as follows:
First line: Chairman, February 02, 2001 to February 02, 2008;
Second line: Commissioner, February 02, 1999 to February 02,
2006; and,

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 Third line: Commissioner, February 02, 1997 to February 02, 2004,
thereby consistently maintaining the two-year interval.

Thus, there is a regular interval of vacancy every two (2) years,

namely, February 02, 1994, for the first Chairman, February 02,
1992, for the first five-year term Commissioner, and February 02,
1990, for the first three-year term Commissioner. Their successors
must also maintain the two year interval, namely: February 02, 2001,
for Chairman; February 02, 1999, for Commissioner Thelma P.
Gaminde, and February 02, 1997, for Commissioner Ramon P.
Ereñeta, Jr

As an aside, the Court commended Atty. Ramon P. Ereñeta for resigning,

with respect to the third line: Commissioner Three-year term. February 02,
1987 to February 02, 1990. Atty. Mario D. Yango was incumbent
commissioner at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution. His
extended tenure ended on February 02, 1988. In May, 1988, President
Corazon C. Aquino appointed him Commissioner, Civil Service Commission
to a new three-year term thereunder. He assumed office on May 30, 1988.
His term ended on February 02, 1990, but served as de facto Commissioner
until May 31, 1991. On November 26, 1991, the President nominated Atty.
Ramon P. Ereñeta as Commissioner, Civil Service Commission. On
December 04, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the
nomination. He assumed office on December 12, 1991, for a term
expiring February 02, 1997. Commendably, he voluntarily retired on
February 02, 1997. On February 03, 1997, President Fidel V. Ramos
appointed Atty. Jose F. Erestain, Jr. Commissioner, Civil Service
Commission, for a term expiring February 02, 2004. He assumed office on
February 11, 1997.

Attorney Erwin B. Javellana was an elected City Councilor of ISSUE: W/N Javellana may validly act as counsel considering
Bago City, Negros Occidental. On October 5, 1989, City his incumbency as a public official - NO
Engineer Ernesto C. Divinagracia filed Administrative Case No.
C-10-90 against Javellana for violation of Code of Conduct and Held: The complaint for illegal dismissal filed by Javiero and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Catapang against City Engineer Divinagracia is in effect a
complaint against the City Government of Bago City, their real
Divinagracia's complaint alleged that Javellana, an incumbent employer, of which petitioner Javellana is a councilman.
member of the City Council or Sanggunian Panglungsod of Bago Hence, judgment against City Engineer Divinagracia would
JAvellana City, has continuously engaged in the practice of law without actually be a judgment against the City Government. By
v. DILG securing authority as required by DLG Memorandum Circular No. serving as counsel for the complaining employees and
Aug 10, 80-38 -- specifically that Javellana appeared as counsel in assisting them to prosecute their claims against City Engineer
1992 several criminal and civil cases in the city, without prior authority Divinagracia, the petitioner violated Memorandum Circular No.

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 of the DLG Regional Director. Moreover, Javellana appeared as 74-58 (in relation to Section 7[b-2] of RA 6713) prohibiting a
counsel in a suit against City Engineer Divinagracia. government official from engaging in the private practice of his
profession, if such practice would represent interests adverse
to the government.
ISSUE:
W/N Ormita is guilty of Misconduct - YES

RULING:
Clerks of Court are important functionaries of the judiciary.
They perform function as custodian of court’s funds, revenues,
property, and premises. They are also the administrative
assistants of judges and have the duty to assist in
management of the calendar of the court and all other matters
that do not involve discretion or judgment properly belonging to
the Judge.

By releasing Mr. Murao on account of the cash bond, Ormita

arrogated unto herself the authority to exercise judicial
discretion. Ormita overstepped the boundaries of her function
by undertaking an act that fell squarely within the discretion of
Nones filed a sworn Administrative Complaint charging Ormita, the Judge. Ormita overstepped boundaries of her function and
Clerk of Court of MTC Bangar, La Union with Usurpation of a such usurpation was equivalent to misconduct.
Judge’s function.
A judicial office demands the best possible men and
Nones alleged Ormita issued an Order directing the Bureau of women in the service.No position demands greater moral
Jail Management and Penology to discharge from custody Mr. righteousness and uprightness from its holder than the
Alfredo Murao for having filed sufficient bail bond of P5,000 forjudicial office. Those connected with the dispensation of
his provisional liberty relative to his Criminal Case for Frustrated
justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility. Clerks of
Homicide. Nones claims that the released prisoner is a relative of
court in particular must be individuals of competence,
Ormita’s husband. honesty, and probity, charged as they are with
Nones v. safeguarding the integrity of the court and its
ORmita The Court Administrator opined that Ormita’s act of ordering the proceedings. Ormita, as a court employee, was required to
Oct 9 release of Mr. Murao from Jail had absolutely no legal basis and conduct herself with propriety and decorum, in order that her
2002 should be Fined P1,000 with a warning. actions would be beyond suspicion
NTC v. Three Levels of Civil Hamoy was the Vice Predient Vis-Min Operations & Maintenance W/N Hamoy’s position is a third-level CES position - NO
Hamoy Service Positions; of NTC in Cebu City. NTC President and CEO thereafter W/N Appointment was station-specific - YES
Apr 2, Career Executive reassigned Hamoy to NTC Power Center in Diliman, Quezon W/N The reassignment violated Hamoy’s security of tenure

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
2009 Service comprising City, to handle special projects, as well as overall supervision, and pertinent regulations - YES
third level monitoring and control of all activities related to sale of NTC’s
Reassignment and sub-transmission assets and certain personnel of Sub- Positions in the Career Executive Service (CES) under the
Detail; Distinguished Transmission Divestment Department. Administrative Code include Undersecretary, Assistant
Secretary, Bureau Director, Regional Director, Assistant
Later on, right before his one-year reassignment was to expire, Regional Director, Chief of Department Service and other
Hamoy was made OIC of the Power Systems Reliability Group officers of equivalent rank as identified by the CES Board, all of
(PSRG), concurrent with his position as Vice President for whom are appointed by the President. Third-level positions
Special Projects in Diliman. in the Civil Service are only those belonging to the Career
Executive Service, or those appointed by the President of
Hamoy asked to be returned to his original position as VP in the the Philippines. Thus, for having been appointed by the
VisMin Operations & Maintenance. He reasoned out that his President of NTC and not by the President of the Philippines,
reassignment already exceeded one year and that he did not Hamoy was not part of the Career Executive Service.
give his consent to the reassignment; both of which are violations
of regulations on reassignment. NTC President and CEO refused Appointees to CES positions who do not possess the
to return him to VisMin and the board of directors of NTC required CES eligibility do not enjoy security of tenure.
subsequently approved his position as Vice President of Special Appointment by the President completes the attainment of
Projects in Diliman in a board resolution. CES rank.

Hamoy appealed to CSC, saying that his reassignment violated An appointment is considered station-specific when the
his security of tenure. CSC denied his appeal, saying that there particular office or station where the position is located is
was no grave abuse of discretion in his reassignment, and that specifically indicated on the face of the letter of
since his position was a third-level civil service position, and was appointment. Here, the letter of appointment of Hamoy
not station-specific, then he could be reassigned or transferred contained the particular office or station where his previous
from one organizational unit to another within the same agency position was located, by the words “VIS-MIN” which means
without violating his right to security of tenure. Additionally, CSC Visaya-Mindanao region and implying the office in such region
said that his detail did not exceed one year since it was which is in Cebu City.
superseded by designation and reassignment which was to meet
the needs of the company. A reassignment is a movement of an employee from one
organizational unit to another in the same department or
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the CA reversed the CSC. agency which does not involve a reduction in rank, status
or salary and does not require the issuance of an
appointment. A detail, on the other hand, is a movement
from one agency to another. Hamoy’s movement from the
Office of the VP Vis-Min Operations & Management in Cebu
City to the OFfice of the President and CEO in Diliman,
Quezon City was a reassignment, as he was moved from one
department to another within the same agency. Necessarily,

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 therefore, such movement should last for only one year, as per
the Revised Rules on Reassignment. However, Hamoy was
designated additional duties and was even designated as OIC
of the Power Systems Reliability Group (PSRG). Additionally,
the reassignment was done without his consent and against
his objections. Considering that the reassignment exceeded
one year, and he did not consent to nor accept such
reassignment without protest, the reassignment would be
violative of the Revised Rules on Reassignment.
W/N Sales is entitled to payment of his back salary

NO. That is to conform to the ruling in the case of Villamor v.

Lacson which says that the general proposition is that a public
official is not entitled to any compensation if he has not
Mathay, the then Auditor General of the Bureau of Posts, denied rendered any service. As you work, so shall you earn. And
When is a public a claim for back salaries of Sales, appointed Clerk II, previously even if the Court considers the punishment as
official entitled to designated Acting Postmaster of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, suspension, before a public official or employee is entitled
wages; if who was found short of P992.46 and P1,000.00 on his accounts. to payment of salaries withheld, it should be shown that
suspended, The amount in question covers the period during which time he the suspension was unjustified or that the employee was
employee must was under suspension. It was on the latter date that he received innocent of the charges proffered against him.
prove suspension a resolution of the then Commissioner of Civil Service reducing
Sales v. was unjustified or what was originally the penalty of dismissal to six months Furthermore, the action at bar is one of mandamus. For
Mathay was innocent before suspension, finding petitioner guilty at most of gross neglect of mandamus to lie, the legal right of the petitioner must be well
May 3, he could claim back duty. Hence, this petition for mandamus. defined, clear and certain, otherwise the petition for the
1984 wages issuance of such writ, will be denied.
Abolition; Power to Petitioner seek the nullification of E.O 191 and E.O. 223 on the The general rule is that the power to abolish a public office is
create office ground that such orders were issued by the Office of the lodged with the Legislature. This proceeds from the legal
necessarily implies President with grave abuse of discretion and in violation of their
precept that the power to create includes the power to destroy.
power to abolish it constitutional right to security of tenure. Except where the office was created by the Constitution
President may itself, it may be abolished by the Legislature that brought
reorganize executive President Corazon Aquino, through an E.O., created the it into existence. The exception, however, is that as far as
Buklod ng departments, Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) as part of bureaus, agencies or offices in the executive department
Kawaning bureaus, offices, and the then Ministry of Finance. EIIB was declared as the agency are concerned, the President’s power of control may
EIIB v. agencies with primary responsibility for anti-smuggling operations. justify him to inactivate the functions of a particular office, or
Zamora Except for certain laws may grant him the broad authority to carry out
Jul 10, constitutional offices During the incumbency of President Joseph Estrada, he issued reorganization measures which even includes abolishing
2001 which have special E.O 191 which deactivated EIIB for the findings that “the certains positions and offices, as in this case in the pursuit of

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
immunity for salary designated functions of the EIIB are also being performed by efficiency.
and tenure, no other existing agencies of the government” and that “there is a
vested rights exists need to constantly monitor the overlapping of functions among Section 78, R.A. 8760 recognizes the authority of the
relating to office and those agencies.” President to effect organizational changes in the
salary department or agency under the executive structure. The
President Estrada then issued E.O. 223 which provided that all mandate is that the actual streamlining and productivity
EIIB personnel occupying positions specified therein shall be improvement in agency organization and operation shall
deemed separated from the service pursuant to a bona fide be effected pursuant to Circulars or Orders issued for the
reorganization resulting to abolition, redundancy, merger, purpose by the Office of the President as advised by
division, or consolidation of positions. Heads of departments, bureaus, offices, and agencies. The
Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau is a bureau
Hence this petition. attached to the Department of Finance which is under the
Office of the President. Hence, it is subject to the President’s
continuing authority to reorganize.

Reorganization is carried out in good faith if it is for the

purpose of economy or to make the bureaucracy more
efficient. R.A. 6656 provides for circumstances which may be
considered as evidence of bad faith in the removal of civil
service employees made as a result of reorganization: (a)
where there is a significant increase in the number of positions
in the new staffing pattern of the department or agency
concerned; (b) where an office is abolished and another
performing substantially the same functions is created; (c)
where incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms
of status of appointment, performance, and merit; (d) where
there is a classification of offices in the department or agency
concerned and the reclassified offices perform substantially the
same functions as the original offices; and (f) where the
removal violates the order of separation. There is no evidence
to show that the reorganization in this case was done and in
bad faith and to prejudice the employees of the EIIB. Such
reorganization was done in pursuance of the ultimate purpose
of E.O. 191, which is economy.

Petitioners’ right to security of tenure is not violated. Abolition

of an office within the competence of a legitimate body if
done in good faith suffers from no infirmity. Valid abolition

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 of offices is neither removal nor separation of the
incumbents. Moreover, except for constitutional offices
which provide for special immunity as regards salary and
tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an
office or its salary.
W/N Villar’s appointment as COA Chairman, while sitting
in that body and after having served for four (4) years of
his seven (7) year term as COA commissioner, is valid in
light of the term limitations imposed under, and the
circumscribing concepts tucked in, Sec. 1 (2), Art. IX(D) of
the Constitution

No. The Constitution clearly provides that if the vacancy results

from the expiration of the term of the predecessor, the
appointment of a COA member shall be for a fixed 7-year term.

Here, the vacancy in the position of COA chairman left by

Carague in February 2, 2008 resulted from the expiration of his
Pres Arroyo appointed Carague as Chairman of the COA for a 7-year term. Under that circumstance, there can be no
term of 7 years. Carague’s term of office started on February 2, unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor to speak
2001 to end on February 2, 2008. On February 7, 2004, Villar of. Hence, in light of the 7-year aggregate rule, Villar’s
was appointed as the third member of the COA for a term of 7 appointment to a full term is not valid as he will be allowed
years starting February 2, 2004 until February 2, 2011. to serve more than seven 7 years under the constitutional
ban.
Following the retirement of Carague on February 2, 2008 and
during the fourth year of Villar as COA Commissioner, Villar was Villar had already served 4 years of his 7-year term as COA
designated as Acting Chairman of COA from February 4, 2008 to Commissioner. A shorter term, however, to comply with the 7-
April 14, 2008. Subsequently, on April 18, 2008, Villar was year aggregate rule would also be invalid as the corresponding
nominated and appointed as Chairman of the COA. Shortly appointment would effectively breach the clear purpose of the
thereafter, the Commission on Appointments confirmed his Constitution of giving to every appointee so appointed
appointment. He was to serve as Chairman of COA, as expressly subsequent to the first set of commissioners, a fixed term of
indicated in the appointment papers, until the expiration of the office of 7 years.
original term of his office as COA Commissioner or on February
2, 2011. Doctrines:
Funa v. ● The appointment of members of any of the three
Villar Apr Funa challenges the constitutionality of the appointment of constitutional commissions, after the expiration of the
24, 2012 Reynaldo A. Villar as Chairman of the COA. uneven terms of office of the first set of

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 commissioners, shall always be for a fixed term of
seven (7) years; an appointment for a lesser period is
void and unconstitutional. The appointing authority
cannot validly shorten the full term of seven (7) years
in case of the expiration of the term as this will result in
the distortion of the rotational system prescribed by the
Constitution.
● Appointments to vacancies resulting from certain
causes (death, resignation, disability or impeachment)
shall only be for the unexpired portion of the term of
the predecessor, but such appointments cannot be
less than the unexpired portion as this will likewise
disrupt the staggering of terms laid down under Sec.
1(2), Art. IX(D).
● Members of the Commission, e.g. COA, COMELEC or
CSC, who were appointed for a full term of seven
years and who served the entire period, are barred
from reappointment to any position in the Commission.
Corollarily, the first appointees in the Commission
under the Constitution are also covered by the
prohibition against reappointment.
● A commissioner who resigns after serving in the
Commission for less than seven years is eligible for an
appointment to the position of Chairman for the
unexpired portion of the term of the departing
chairman. Such appointment is not covered by the ban
on reappointment, provided that the aggregate period
of the length of service as commissioner and the
unexpired period of the term of the predecessor will
not exceed seven (7) years and provided further that
the vacancy in the position of Chairman resulted from
death, resignation, disability or removal by
impeachment. The Court clarifies that “reappointment”
found in Sec. 1(2), Art. IX(D) means a movement to
one and the same office (Commissioner to
Commissioner or Chairman to Chairman). On the other
hand, an appointment involving a movement to a
different position or office (Commissioner to Chairman)

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo
 would constitute a new appointment and, hence, not,
in the strict legal sense, a reappointment barred under
the Constitution.
● Any member of the Commission cannot be appointed
or designated in a temporary or acting capacity
Singun, the Chief Trade and Industry Development Specialist
(under DTI) of Cagayan, wrote Regional Director Jose Hipolito
signifying his intention to apply for an 8 month leave of absence. Issue: Whether the detail order issued by Undersecretary
Also signified his intention to retire from the service thereafter. Ordoez effectively withdrew Singun’s resignation.
Filed said application again. This time, it was sent to Assistant
Secretary Maglaya for her to comment on it. Without waiting for Held: YES.
her reply, Singun once again filed his application for leave (for a To constitute a complete and operative resignation
shorter period) and retirement. Hipolito approved this time and from public office, there must be: (a) an intention to
issued a memorandum for it. However, Undersecretary Ordoez relinquish a part of the term; (b) an act of relinquishment;
issued a memorandum detailing Singun to the Office of the and (c) an acceptance by the proper authority. The final or
Undersecretary for Regional Operations on the very day that his conclusive act of a resignations acceptance is the notice
cessation from office is to take effect. Singun then wrote Hipolito of acceptance.
again stating that he was reconsidering his earlier letter of In this case, the Court of Appeals and the CSC declared that
resignation and that he decided to wait until he could qualify for there was nothing in the records to show that respondent was
early retirement. CSC said that Sigun is considered resigned duly informed of the acceptance of his resignation. Neither did
considering that he Dirctor Hipolito already accepted his he received the memorandum. The contention that Singun
resignation. CSC further states that Singun’s letter withdrawing knew his resignation was accepted since he had notice of his
his resignation did not automatically restore him to his position approval for leave is without merit. there is a specific form used
because Director Hipolito should first approve the withdrawal for an application of leave of absence and the approval of his
before it becomes effective. Hence, Director Hipolito informed U- application for leave of absence does not necessarily mean the
Sec Ordoez that Singun is considered resigned. Singun argued acceptance of his resignation.
DTI RPI v. that his resignation was ineffective because he was not notified Until the resignation is accepted, the tender or offer to
Singun of its acceptance for he did not receive a copy of his approved resign is revocable. And the resignation is not effective
Mar 14, resignation letter and Director Hipolitos memorandum accepting where it was withdrawn before it was accepted
2008 Resignation his application for resignation

LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS D19

Aurelio, Batungbacal, Biliran, Cadiente, Dones, Gallardo, Gesta, Mangaser, Pintor, Sunga, Sy, Toledo