Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Admin Digests
Admin Digests
investigation. All the challenged order did was to require petitioner to deliver
and deposit the documents. The documents required to be produced
constitutes evidence of the most solid character as to whether there was a
failure to comply with the mandates of law. The matter was properly within its
cognizance and the means necessary to give it force and effectiveness should
be deemed implied unless such is arbitrary. Wherefore, petition for certiorari
is denied.
4. Evangelista v. Jarencio 69 scra 99,1975
Facts:
The President of the Philippines under Executive Order No. 4 of January 7,
1966 created the Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government
Operations (PARGO). He charged the agency with the responsibility to
investigate all activities involving or affecting immoral practices, graft and
corruption, smuggling, lawlessness, subversion, and all other activities which
are prejudicial to the government.The President vested in the Agency all the
powers of an investigating committee including the power to summon
witnesses by subpoena or subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, take
testimony or evidence
relevant to the investigation.
On June 7, 1968, pursuant to the powers vested in the Agency, petitioner
Quirico Evangelista as Undersecretary of the agency, issued to respondent
Fernando Manalastas, then Acting City Public ServiceOfficer of Manila, a
subpoena ad testificandum commanding him to be and appear as witness at
the office
of the PARGO. Instead of obeying the subpoena, Manalastas filed a Petition
for prohibition and/or injunction with preliminary injunction and/or restraining
order which was granted by the CFI of Manila,
hence, this petition.
Issue / Held:
WON the Agency enjoys the authority to issue subpoenas in its conduct of
fact-finding investigations.
YES. Manalastas lost.
Ratio:
An administrative agency may be authorized to make investigations, not only
in proceedings of a legislative or judicial nature, but also in proceedings
whose sole purpose is to obtain information upon which future action of a
legislative or judicial nature may be taken and may require the attendance of
witnesses in proceedings of a purely investigatory nature.
The petitioner draws its subpoena power in EO No. 4 and the enabling law
fixes no distinction when and in what function the subpoena power should be
exercised. The Court finds no reason to depart from the established rule, ubi
lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. Nor could the court find merit
in the argument that the subpoena power granted by Section 580 of the
Revised Administrative Code is restricted under the Rules of Court to abridge
its application.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58. (17)