Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Admin Digests 1
Admin Digests 1
2.) ISABELO T. CRISOSTOMO vs. Hence this petition. Petitioner argues that P.D. No.
CA and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES 1341, which converted the PCC into the PUP, did
(G.R. No. 106296; July 5, 1996) not abolish the PCC. He contends that if the law
had intended the PCC to lose its existence, it
FACTS: would have specified that the PCC was being
Crisostomo was appointed the President of the "abolished" rather than "converted" and that if
Philippine College of Commerce (PCC) by the the PUP was intended to be a new institution, the
President of the Philippines. During his law would have said it was being "created."
incumbency, two administrative charges were filed Petitioner claims that the PUP is merely a
against him for illegal use of government vehicles, continuation of the existence of the PCC, and,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
hence, he could be reinstated to his former 1979, was appointed president of PUP for a term
position as president. of six (6) years on March 28, 1980, with the result
that petitioner's term was cut short. In accordance
ISSUE: with of the law, therefore, petitioner became
WON petitioner Crisostomo may be reinstated. entitled only to retirement benefits or the
payment of separation pay.
HELD: NO
In part the contention is well taken, but, as will
presently be explained, reinstatement is no longer
possible because of the promulgation of P.D. No. 3.) CESAR G. VIOLA, Chairman, Brgy. 167, Zone
1437 by the President of the aPhilippines on June 15, District II, Manila vs.
10, 1978. HON. RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, Secretary DILG,
ALEX L. DAVID, President/Secretary General,
P.D. No. 1341 did not abolish, but only changed, National Liga ng mga Barangay, LEONARDO L.
the former Philippine College of Commerce into ANGAT, President, City of Manila, Liga ng mga
what is now the Polytechnic University of the Barangay
Philippines, in the same way that earlier in 1952, (G.R. No. 115844; August 15, 1997)
R.A. No. 778 had converted what was then the
Philippine School of Commerce into the Philippine FACTS:
College of Commerce. What took place was a Viola, as a barangay chairman, filed a petition for
change in academic status of the educational prohibition challenging the validity of the Art III,
institution, not in its corporate life. Hence the Sec.1-2 of the Revised Implementing Rules and
change in its name, the expansion of its curricular Guidelines for the General Elections of the Liga ng
offerings, and the changes in its structure and mga Barangay Officers insofar as they provide for
organization. the election of first, second, and third vice
presidents and for auditors for the National Liga
As petitioner correctly points out, when the ng mga Barangay and its chapters.
purpose is to abolish a department or an office or
an organization and to replace it with another He contended that the questioned positions are in
one, the lawmaking authority says so. excess of those provided in the LGC Sec.493 which
mentions as elective positions only those of the
The appellate court ruled, however, that the PUP president, vice president, and five members of the
and the PCC are not "one and the same board of directors in each chapter at the
institution" but "two different entities" and that municipal, city, provincial, metropolitan political
since petitioner Crisostomo's term was subdivision, and national levels and thus the
coterminous with the legal existence of the PCC, implementing rules expand the numbers in the
petitioner's term expired upon the abolition of the LGC in violation of the principle that implementing
PCC. rules and regulations cannot add or detract from
the provisions of the law they are designed to
But these are hardly indicia of an intent to abolish implement.
an existing institution and to create a new one.
New course offerings can be added to the ISSUE:
curriculum of a school without affecting its legal Whether or not Sec 1-2 of the Implementing Rules
existence. Nor will changes in its existing structure are valid.
and organization bring about its abolition and the
creation of a new one. Only an express declaration HELD: Yes.
to that effect by the lawmaking authority will. The creation of additional positions is authorized
by Sec. 493 of the LGC which in fact requires and
Nevertheless, the reinstatement of petitioner to not merely authorizes the board of directors to
the position of president of the PUP could not be create such other positions as it may deem
ordered by the trial court because on June 10, necessary for the management of the chapter. To
1978, P.D. No. 1437 had been promulgated fixing begin with, the creation of these positions was
the term of office of presidents of state actually made in the Constitution and By-laws of
universities and colleges at six (6) years, the Liga ng mga barangay which was adopted by
renewable for another term of six (6) years, and the First Barangay National Assembly.
authorizing the President of the Philippines to
terminate the terms of incumbents who were not There is no undue delegation of power by
reappointed. Congress in this case. SC decisions have upheld
the validity of reorganization statutes authorizing
In this case, Dr. Pablo T. Mateo Jr., who had been the President of the Philippines to create, abolish,
acting president of the university since April 3, or merge offices in the executive management.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
accordance with law. Well-settled is the rule that In January 1987, she promulgated EO 127,
reorganization is regarded as valid provided it is "REORGANIZING THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE".
pursued in good faith.
Among other offices, Executive Order No. 127
When is there reorganization made in good faith? provided for the reorganization of the Bureau of
Customs and prescribed a new staffing pattern
The general rule is that a reorganization is carried therefor. In February 1987, a brand new
out in good faith if it is for the purpose of constitution was adopted.
economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient.
In that event no dismissal or separation actually On January 1988, incumbent Commissioner of
occurs because the position itself ceases to exist. Customs Salvador Mison issued a Memorandum,
And in that case the security of tenure would not in the nature of "Guidelines on the
be a Chinese Wall. Be that as it may, if the Implementation of Reorganization Executive
abolition which is nothing else but a separation or Orders," prescribing the procedure in personnel
removal, is done for political reasons or purposely placement. It also provided that by February 1988,
to defeat security of tenure, or otherwise not in all employees covered by EO 127 and the grace
good faith, no valid abolition takes place and period extended to the Bureau of Customs by the
whatever abolition is done is void ab initio. President on reorganization shall be: a) informed
of their re-appointment, or b) offered another
What are the marks of bad faith in removal as a position in the same department or agency, or c)
result of reorganization? informed of their termination.
Sec. 2, RA 6656 enumerates the circumstances A total of 394 officials and employees of the
evidencing bad faith in the removal of employees Bureau of Customs were given individual notices
as a result of reorganization: of separation. They filed appeals with the CSC. CSC
promulgated its ruling for reinstatement of the
(1) Where there is a significant increase in the 279 employees. Mison, filed a motion for
number of positions in the new staffing pattern of reconsideration, which was denied. Commissioner
the department or agency concerned; Mison instituted certiorari proceedings.
(2) Where an office is abolished and another
performing substantially the same functions is ISSUE:
created; WON Section 16 of Article XVIII of the 1987
(3) Where incumbents are replaced by those less Constitution is a grant of a license upon the
qualified in terms of status of appointment, Government to remove career public officials it
performance and merit; could have validly done under an "automatic"-
(4) Where there is a reclassification of offices in vacancy-authority and to remove them without
the department or agency concerned and the rhyme or reason.
reclassified offices perform substantially the same
functions as the original offices; HELD: NO
(5) Where the removal violates the order of The provision benefits career civil service
separation provided in sec. 3 hereof. employees separated from the service. And the
separation contemplated must be due to or the
result of (1) the reorganization pursuant to
Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986, (2) the
reorganization from February 2, 1987, and (3) the
5.) CESAR Z. DARIO vs. resignations of career officers tendered in line
HON. SALVADOR M. MISON, HON. VICENTE with the existing policy and which resignations
JAYME and HON. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., in have been accepted. The phrase "not for cause" is
their respective capacities as Commissioner of clearly and primarily exclusionary, to exclude
Customs, Secretary of Finance, and Executive those career civil service employees separated
Secretary "for cause." In other words, in order to be entitled
(G.R. No. 81954; August 8, 1989) to the benefits granted under Section 16 of Article
XVIII of the Constitution of 1987, two requisites,
FACTS: one negative and the other positive, must concur,
Cory Aquino promulgated Proclamation No. 3, to wit:
"DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT 1. The separation must not be for cause, and
THE REFORMS MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE..., the 2. The separation must be due to any of the
mandate of the people to Completely reorganize three situations mentioned above.
the government.
By its terms, the authority to remove public
officials under the Provisional Constitution ended
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
on February 25, 1987, advanced by jurisprudence organizational processes of the DOH. EO 102 was
to February 2, 1987. It can only mean, then, that enacted pursuant to Section 17 of the Local
whatever reorganization is taking place is upon Government Code which provided for the
the authority of the present Charter, and devolution to the LGUs of the basic services and
necessarily, upon the mantle of its provisions and facilities, as well as specific health-related
safeguards. Hence, it cannot be legitimately stated functions and responsibilities.
that we are merely continuing what the
revolutionary Constitution of the Revolutionary ISSUE:
Government had started. We are through with Whether or not the HSRA and EO NO. 102 violates
reorganization under the Freedom Constitution - the constitution?
the first stage. We are on the second stage - that
inferred from the provisions of Section 16 of HELD: NO
Article XVIII of the permanent basic document. Reorganization of DOH under EO 102 is not a
usurpation of legislative power. EO 292 also
What must be understood, however, is that known as the Administrative Code of 1987, gives
notwithstanding her immense revolutionary continuing authority to the President to reorganize
powers, the President was, nevertheless, the administrative structure of the Office of the
magnanimous in her rule. This is apparent from President.
Executive Order No. 17, which established
safeguards against the strong arm and ruthless The validity of Executive Order No. 102 would,
propensity that accompanies reorganizations nevertheless, remain unaffected. Settled is the
-notwithstanding the fact that removals arising rule that courts are not at liberty to declare
therefrom were "not for cause," and in spite of the statutes invalid, although they may be abused or
fact that such removals would have been valid and disabused, and may afford an opportunity for
unquestionable. abuse in the manner of application. The validity of
a statute or ordinance is to be determined from its
Noteworthy is the injunction embodied in the general purpose and its efficiency to accomplish
Executive Order that dismissals should be made the end desired, not from its effects in a particular
on the basis of findings of inefficiency, graft, and case. Section 17, Article VII of the 1987
unfitness to render public service. Assuming, then, Constitution, clearly states: [T]he president shall
that this reorganization allows removals "not for have control of all executive departments, bureaus
cause" in a manner that would have been and offices. Section 31, Book III, Chapter 10 of
permissible in a revolutionary setting as Executive Order No. 292, also known as the
Commissioner Mison so purports, it would seem Administrative Code of 1987. It is an exercise of
that the the Presidents constitutional power of control
Commissioner would have been powerless, in any over the executive department, supported by the
event, to order dismissals at the Customs Bureau provisions of the Administrative Code, recognized
left and right. Lastly, reorganizations must be by other statutes, and consistently affirmed by this
carried out in good faith. In this case, Mison failed Court.
to prove that the reorganization was indeed made
in good faith because he hired more people to
replace those that he fired and no legitimate
structural changes have been made. 7.) ATTY. SYLVIA BANDA, et.al. vs. EDUARDO R.
ERMITA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary,
To sum up, the President could have validly The Director General of the Philippine
removed officials before the effectivity of the 1987 Information Agency and The National Treasurer
Constitution even without cause because it was a (G.R. No. 166620; April 20, 2010)
revolutionary government. However, from the
effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, the State did FACTS:
not lose its right to reorganize resulting to The NPO was formed on July 25, 1987, during the
removals but such reorganization must be made in term of former President Corazon C. Aquino
good faith. (President Aquino), by virtue of Executive Order
No. 285 which provided, among others, the
creation of the NPO from the merger of the
Government Printing Office and the relevant
6.) TONDO MEDICAL CENTER EMPLOYEES vs. CA printing units of the Philippine Information Agency
(G.R. No. 167324; July 17, 2007) (PIA).
inter alia, removing the exclusive jurisdiction of have continuing authority to reorganize
the NPO over the printing services requirements the administrative structure of the Office
of government agencies and instrumentalities. of the President.
Pursuant to Executive Order No. 378, government The Administrative Code provides that the Office
agencies and instrumentalities are allowed to of the President consists of the Office of the
source their printing services from the private President Proper and the agencies under it. The
sector through competitive bidding, subject to the agencies under the Office of the President are
condition that the services offered by the private identified in Section 23, Chapter 8, Title II of the
supplier be of superior quality and lower in cost Administrative Code:
compared to what was offered by the NPO.
Executive Order No. 378 also limited NPOs Sec. 23. The Agencies under the Office of
appropriation in the General Appropriations Act to the President. The agencies under the
its income. Office of the President refer to those
offices placed under the chairmanship of
Perceiving Executive Order No. 378 as a threat to the President, those under the
their security of tenure as employees of the NPO, supervision and control of the President,
petitioners now challenge its constitutionality, those under the administrative
contending that: (1) it is beyond the executive supervision of the Office of the
powers of President Arroyo to amend or repeal President, those attached to it for policy
Executive Order No. 285 issued by former and program coordination, and those
President Aquino when the latter still exercised that are not placed by law or order
legislative powers; and (2) Executive Order No. creating them under any specific
378 violates petitioners security of tenure, department.
because it paves the way for the gradual abolition
of the NPO. The power of the President to reorganize the
executive department is likewise recognized in
ISSUE: general appropriations laws.
Whether the E.O no. 378 is Constitutional.
Clearly, Executive Order No. 102 is well within the
HELD: YES constitutional power of the President to issue. The
In the present case, involving neither an abolition President did not usurp any legislative prerogative
nor transfer of offices, the assailed action is a in issuing Executive Order No. 102. It is an exercise
mere reorganization under the general provisions of the Presidents constitutional power of control
of the law consisting mainly of streamlining the over the executive department, supported by the
NTA in the interest of simplicity, economy and provisions of the Administrative Code, recognized
efficiency. It is an act well within the authority of by other statutes, and consistently affirmed by this
the President motivated and carried out, Court.
according to the findings of the appellate court, in
good faith, a factual assessment that this Court In establishing an executive department, bureau
could only but accept. or office, the legislature necessarily ordains an
executive agencys position in the scheme of
This Court has already ruled in a number of cases administrative structure. Such determination is
that the President may, by executive or primary, but subject to the Presidents continuing
administrative order, direct the reorganization of authority to reorganize the administrative
government entities under the Executive structure. As far as bureaus, agencies or offices in
Department. This is also sanctioned under the the executive department are concerned, the
Constitution, as well as other statutes. power of control may justify the President to
deactivate the functions of a particular office. Or a
Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, law may expressly grant the President the broad
clearly states: "[T]he president shall have control authority to carry out reorganization measures.
of all executive departments, bureaus and offices." The Administrative Code of 1987 is one such law.
Section 31, Book III, Chapter 10 of Executive Order
No. 292, also known as the Administrative Code of
1987 reads:
8.) SPOUSES AUGUSTO DACUDAO & OFELIA
SEC. 31. Continuing Authority of the DACUDAO vs. RAUL GONZALES, Secretary of
President to Reorganize his Office - The Justice
President, subject to the policy in the (G.R. No. 188056; JANUARY 08, 2013)
Executive Office and in order to achieve
simplicity, economy and efficiency, shall FACTS:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
The petitioners filed a case of syndicated estafa justice system in accordance with the accepted
against Celso Delos Angeles and his associates processes thereof"as expressed in Republic Act
after the petitioners were defrauded in a business No. 10071 (Prosecution Service Act of 2010) and
venture. Section 3, Chapter I, Title III and Section 1, Chapter
I, Title III of Book IV of Executive Order 292
Thereafter, the DOJ Secretary issued Department (Administrative Code of 1987).
Order 182 which directs all prosecutors in the To overcome this strong presumption of validity of
country to forward all cases already filed against the questioned issuances, it became incumbent
Celso Delos Angeles, Jr. and his associates to the upon petitioners to prove their unconstitutionality
secretariat of DOJ in Manila for appropriate and invalidity, either by showing that the
action. Administrative Code of 1987 did not authorize the
Secretary of Justice to issue DO No. 182, or by
Because of such DOJ orders, the complaint of demonstrating that DO No. 182 exceeded the
petitioners was forwarded to the secretariat of the bounds of the Administrative Code of 1987 and
Special Panel of the DOJ in Manila. Aggrieved, other pertinent laws. They did not do so. They
Spouses Dacudao filed this petition for certiorari, must further show that the performance of the
prohibition and mandamus assailing to the DOJs functions under the Administrative Code of
respondent Secretary of justice grave abuse of 1987 and other pertinent laws did not call for the
discretion in issuing the department Order and impositions laid down by the assailed issuances.
the Memorandum, which according to the That was not true here, for DO No 182 did not
violated their right to due process, right to equal deprive petitioners in any degree of their right to
protection of the law and right to speedy seek redress for the alleged wrong done against
disposition of the cases. them by the Legacy Group. Instead, the issuances
were designed to assist petitioners and others like
The petitioners opined that orders were them expedite the prosecution, if warranted
unconstitutional or exempting from coverage under the law, of all those responsible for the
cases already filed and pending at the Prosecutors wrong through the creation of the special panel of
Office of Cagayan De Oro City. They maintained state prosecutors and prosecution attorneys in
that DO 182 was issued in violation of the order to conduct a nationwide and comprehensive
prohibition against passing laws with retroactive preliminary investigation and prosecution of the
effect. cases. Thereby, the Secretary of Justice did not act
arbitrarily or oppressively against petitioners.
ISSUE:
WON respondent Secretary of Justice commit
grave abuse of discretion in issuing DO No. 182.
9.) SPOUSES BERNYL BALANGAUAN &
HELD: NO KATHERENE BALANGAUAN vs. CA and THE
DO No. 182 enjoyed a strong presumption of its HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING
validity. In ABAKADA Guro Party List v. Purisima, CORPORATION, LTD.
the Court has extended the presumption of (G. R. No. 174350; August 13, 2008)
validity to legislative issuances as well as to rules
and regulations issued by administrative agencies, FACTS:
saying: This is a Petition for Certiorari assailing the 28
Administrative regulations enacted by April 2006 Decision and 29 June 2006 Resolution
administrative agencies to implement of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No.
and interpret the law which they are 00068, which annulled and set aside the 6 April
entrusted to enforce have the force of 2004 and 30 August 2004 Resolutions of the
law and are entitled to respect. Such Department of Justice (DOJ) in I.S. No. 02-9230-I,
rules and regulations partake of the entitled The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking
nature of a statute and are just as Corporation v. Katherine Balangauan, et al.
binding as if they have been written in
the statute itself. As such, they have the The twin resolutions of the DOJ affirmed, in
force and effect of law and enjoy the essence, the Resolution of the Office of the City
presumption of constitutionality and Prosecutor, Cebu City, which dismissed for lack of
legality until they are set aside with probable cause the criminal complaint for Estafa
finality in an appropriate case by a and/or Qualified Estafa, filed against petitioner-
competent court. Spouses Bernyl Balangauan (Bernyl) and
DO No. 182 was issued pursuant to Department Katherene Balangauan (Katherene) by respondent
Order No. 84 that the Secretary of Justice had Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation,
promulgated to govern the performance of the Ltd. (HSBC).
mandate of the DOJ to "administer the criminal
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
Petitioners Bernyl and Katherene filed the present argue that it was not necessary for the Secretary
petition on the argument that the Court of of Justice to have his resolution recite the facts
Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in and the law on which it was based, because courts
reversing and setting aside the resolutions of the and quasi-judicial bodies should faithfully comply
DOJ when: (1) [i]t reversed the resolution of the with Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution
Secretary of Justice, Manila dated August 30, 2004 requiring that decisions rendered by them should
and correspondingly, gave due course to the state clearly and distinctly the facts of the case
Petition for Certiorari filed by HSBC on April 28, and the law on which the decision is based.
2006 despite want of probable cause to warrant
the filing of an information against the herein Petitioners Bernyl and Katherene, joined by the
petitioners; (2) [i]t appreciated the dubious Office of the Solicitor General, on the other hand,
evidence adduced by HSBC albeit the absence of defends the DOJ and assert that the questioned
legal standing or personality of the latter; (3) [i]t resolution was complete in that it stated the legal
denied the motions for reconsideration on June basis for denying respondent HSBCs petition for
29, 2006 notwithstanding the glaring evidence review that (after) an examination (of) the petition
proving the innocence of the petitioners; (4) [i]t and its attachment [it] found no reversible error
rebuffed the evidence of the herein petitioners in that would justify a reversal of the assailed
spite of the fact that, examining such evidence resolution which is in accord with the law and
alone would establish that the money in question evidence on the matter.
was already withdrawn by Mr. Roger Dwayne York;
and (5) [i]t failed to dismiss outright the petition It must be remembered that a preliminary
by HSBC considering that the required affidavit of investigation is not a quasi-judicial proceeding,
service was not made part or attached in the said and that the DOJ is not a quasi-judicial agency
petition pursuant to Section 13, Rule 13 in relation exercising a quasi-judicial function when it reviews
to Section 3, Rule 46, and Section 2, Rule 56 of the the findings of a public prosecutor regarding the
Rules of Court. presence of probable cause.
The Court of Appeals found fault in the DOJs 10.) EDUARDO B. OLAGUER AND CONRADO S.
failure to identify and discuss the issues raised by REYES in their official capacity as Fiscal Agents of
the respondent HSBC in its Petition for Review The Presidential Commission On Good
filed therewith. And, in support thereof, Government, vs. THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
respondent HSBC maintains that it is incorrect to (G.R. No. 81385; February 21, 1989)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
In the exercise of its functions, the PCGG is a co- evidence, conduct hearing and make reports, on
equal body with the regional trial courts and co- the basis of which the agency shall render its
equal bodies have no power to control the other. 5 decision. Such a procedure is a practical necessity.
The regional trial courts and the Court of Appeals Corollarily, in a catena of cases, the Supreme Court
have no jurisdiction over the PCGG in the exercise laid down the cardinal requirements of due
of its powers under the applicable Executive process in administrative proceedings, one of
Orders and Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 which is that the tribunal or body or any of its
Constitution and, therefore, may not interfere judges must act on its or his own independent
with and restrain or set aside the orders and consideration of the law and facts of the
actions of the PCGG. 6 By the same token, the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a
regional trial courts have no jurisdiction over the subordinate. Thus, it is logical to say that this
acts of fiscal agents of the PCGG acting for and in mandate was rendered precisely to ensure that in
behalf of said commission. cases where the hearing or reception of evidence
Petitioners, as fiscal agents of the PCGG, cannot is assigned to a subordinate, the body or agency
be sued in such capacity before the ordinary shall not merely rely on his recommendation but
courts. The tribunal for such purpose is the instead shall personally weigh and assess the
Sandiganbayan. evidence which the said subordinate has
It necessarily follows that the issues raised by the gathered.
private respondents before the respondent judge
to the effect that petitioners are usurpers and The TRB may grant and issue ex-parte to any
have no right to sit in the board of directors or act petitioner, without need of notice, publication or
as corporate officers of the PJI are issues which hearing, provisional authority to collect the
should be addressed to the Sandiganbayan. increase in rates.
ISSUE: FACTS:
WON the TRB Executive Director Jaime Dumlao, Jr. In 1993, Aida Eugenio passed the Career Executive
alone can authorized the provisional increase. Service Eligibility (CES). She was then
recommended to be appointed as a Civil Service
HELD: Officer Rank IV. But her appointment to said rank
It is not true that it was TRB Executive Director was impeded when in the same year, the Civil
Dumlao, Jr. alone who issued Resolution No. 2001- Service Commission (CSC) abolished the Career
89. The Resolution itself contains the signature of Executive Service Board (CESB). CESB is the office
the four TRB Directors. Petitioner Padua would tasked with promulgating rules, standards, and
argue that while these Directors signed the procedures on the selection, classification and
Resolution, none of them personally attended the compensation of the members of the Career
hearing. This argument is misplaced. Executive Service.
Eugenio then assailed the resolution which
Under our jurisprudence, an administrative agency abolished CESB. She averred that the CSC does not
may employ other persons, such as a hearing have the power to abolish CESB because the same
officer, examiner or investigator, to receive was created by law (P.D. 1). CSC on the other hand
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
argued that it has the power to do so pursuant to be subject to the rates of tax in force during
the Administrative Code of 1987 which granted the fiscal years following its reaching the said
the CSC the right to reorganize the CSC. aggregate value.
13.) HIJO PLANTATION INC., DAVAO FRUITS It therefore becomes convenient for the legislative
CORPORATION, TWIN RIVERS PLANTATION, INC. department of the government, by law, in a most
and MARSMAN & CO., INC., for themselves and general way, to provide for the conduct, control,
in behalf of other persons and entities similarly and management of the work of the particular
situated, petitioners, vs. department of the government; to authorize
CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. certain persons, in charge of the management and
control of such department.
FACTS:
Hijo Plantation, Inc., Davao Fruits Corporation, Such regulations have uniformly been held to have
Twin Rivers Plantation, Inc. and Marsman the force of law, whenever they are found to be in
Plantation(Petitioners) are engaged in the consonance and in harmony with the general
production and exportation of bananas. purposes and objects of the law. Such regulations
Owing to the difficulty of determining the once established and found to be in conformity
exchange rate of the peso to the dollar because of with the general purposes of the law, are just as
the floating rate and the promulgation of Central binding upon all the parties, as if the regulation
Bank Circular No. 289 which imposes an 80% had been written in the original law itself. Upon
retention scheme on all dollar earners, Congress the other hand, should the regulation conflict with
passed Republic Act No. 6125 entitled "an act the law, the validity of the regulation cannot be
imposing STABILIZATION TAX ON CONSIGNMENTS sustained. Respondent in gross violation of the
ABROAD TO ACCELERATE THE ECONOMIC law, instead issued Resolution No. 1995 which
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR impose a 6% stabilization tax for the calendar year
OTHER PURPOSES," approved and made effective January 1, 1972 to June 30, 1972, which obviously
on May 1, 1970), to eliminate the necessity for is in excess of its jurisdiction. It was further argued
said circular and to stabilize the peso. Among that in directing its agent bank to collect the
others, it provides as follows: stabilization tax in accordance with Monetary
Sec. 1(b) Board Resolution No. 1995, it acted whimsically
Any export product the aggregate annual and capriciously.
F.O.B. value of which shall exceed five million
United States dollars in any one calendar year It will be observed that while Monetary Board
during the effectivity of this Act shall likewise Resolution No. 1995 cannot be said to be the
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
product of grave abuse of discretion but rather the itself, a public official must locate in the statute
result of respondent's overzealous desire to carry relied upon a grant of power before he can
into effect the provisions of RA 6125, it is evident exercise it. It need not be express. It may be
that the Board acted beyond its authority under implied from the wording of the law. Absent such
the law and the Constitution. Moreover, there is a requisite, however, no warrant exists for the
no dispute that in case of discrepancy between assumption of authority. The act performed, if
the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to properly challenged, cannot meet the test of
implement said law, the basic law prevails because validity. It must be set aside. So it must be in these
said rule or regulation cannot go beyond the two petitions. That is to defer to a principle
terms and provisions of the basic law. reiterated by this Court time and time again.
14.) RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE 15.) TAYUG RURAL BANK, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner, vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, defendant-
FRANCISCO SANTIAGO and ENRIQUE MEDINA, as appellant.
Commissioner, Public Service Commission,
respondents. FACTS:
Plaintiff-Appellee, Tayug Rural Bank, Inc., is a
G.R. No. L-29247 August 21, 1974 banking corporation in Pangasinan. Plaintiff
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES, obtained thirteen (13) loans from Defendant-
INC., petitioner, vs. Appellant, Central Bank of the Philippines, by way
CONSTANCIO JAUGAN and ENRIQUE MEDINA, of rediscounting. The outstanding balance was P
Commissioner, Public Service Commission, 444,809.45 as of July 15, 1969. Appellant, issued
respondents. Memorandum Circular No. DLC-8, informing all
rural banks that an additional penalty interest rate
FACTS: of ten per cent (10%) per annum would be
It is admitted by petitioner Radio Communication assessed on all past due loans beginning January
of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI) that a telegram was 4, 1965.
filed with respondent-company and the amount of
P1.50 was paid for the transmission of said Appellee Rural Bank sued Appellant in the Court of
telegram. The telegram, however, was never First Instance of Manila, Branch III, to recover the
transmitted until now. The Petitioner not only did 10% penalty imposed by Appellant amounting to
not give any valid explanation, but did not present P16,874.97 and to restrain Appellant from
any evidence to explain why the said telegram was continuing the imposition of the penalty.
not forwarded to the addressee. This is, therefore,
a clear case where the petitioner, taking Appellant justified the imposition of the penalty
advantage of the rates fixed by this Commission by way of affirmative and special defenses, stating
collected the sum of P1.50 and promised to that it was legally imposed under the provisions of
render a service to the complainant. Upon the Section 147 and 148 of the Rules and Regulations
complaints of respondents Santiago, Juagan, and Governing Rural Banks promulgated by the
Medina, the Public service commission imposed a Monetary Board on September 5, 1958, under
fine as penalty against RCPI. authority of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 720, as
amended.
ISSUE:
Whether the Public Service Commission had the ISSUE:
jurisdiction to act on complaints by dissatisfied Whether the Monetary Board had authority to
customers of RCPI and penalize with fine. authorize Appellant Central Bank to impose a
penalty rate of 10% per annum on past due loans
RULING: of rural banks which had failed to pay their
No. There can be no justification then for the accounts on time.
Public Service Commission imposing the fines. The
law cannot be any clearer. The only power it RULING:
possessed over radio companies, as noted was the No. The supervising authority of the Monetary
fix rates. It could not take to task a radio company Board of the Central Bank over Rural Banks, is
for any negligence or misfeasance. It was bereft of spelled-out under Section 10 of R.A. 720, as
such competence. It was not vested with such follows:
authority. What it did then in these two petitions SEC. 10. The power to supervise the operation of
lacked the impress of validity. any Rural Bank by the Monetary Board of the
Central Bank as herein indicated, shall consist in
Except for constitutional officials who can trace placing limits to the maximum credit allowed
their competence to act to the fundamental law any individual borrower; in prescribing the
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
interest rate; in determining the loan period and transmitted the same to the Empresa Nacional de
loan procedure; in indicating the manner in Telecommunicaciones in Madrid. The latter,
which technical assistance shall be extended to however, mislaid said message, resulting in its
Rural Banks; in imposing a uniform accounting non-delivery to the addressee.
system and manner of keeping the accounts and
records of the Rural Banks; in undertaking After being informed of said fact, private
regular credit examination of the Rural Banks: in respondent Arnaiz, sent to then Public Service
instituting periodic surveys of loan and lending Commissioner Enrique Medina an unverified
procedures, audits, test check of cash and other letter-complaint relating the incident. Petitioner
transactions of the Rural Banks; in conducting questioned PSC's jurisdiction over the subject
training courses for personnel of Rural Banks; matter of the letter-complaint, even as it denied
and, in general in supervising the business liability for the non-delivery of the message to the
operation of the Rural Banks. addressee. PSC issued an order finding petitioner
"responsible for the inadequate and unsatisfactory
Nowhere in any of the above-quoted pertinent service complained of, in violation of the Public
provisions of R.A. 720 nor in any other provision of Service Act" and ordering it "to pay a fine of TWO
R.A. 720 for that matter, is the monetary Board HUNDRED [P200.00] PESOS under Sec. 21 of Com.
authorized to mete out on rural banks an Act 146, as amended."
additional penalty rate on their past due accounts
with Appellant. As correctly stated by the trial ISSUE:
court, while the Monetary Board possesses broad Whether respondent PSC had the jurisdiction to
supervisory powers, nonetheless, the retroactive act on complaints and impose fine upon failure of
imposition of administrative penalties cannot be petitioner to deliver the letter.
taken as a measure supervisory in character.
RULING:
There are, however, limitations to the rule-making No. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 4630, the
power of administrative agencies. A rule shaped legislative franchise under which petitioner was
out by jurisprudence is that when Congress operating, limited respondent Commission's
authorizes promulgation of administrative rules jurisdiction over petitioner only to the rate which
and regulations to implement given legislation, all petitioner may charge the Public. Thus,
that is required is that the regulation be not in Sec. 5. The Public Service Commission is hereby
contradiction with it, but conform to the standards given jurisdiction over the grantee only with
that the law prescribes. A rule is binding on the respect to the rates which the grantee may
courts so long as the procedure fixed for its charge the public subject to international
promulgation is followed and its scope is within commitments made or adhered to by the
the statute granted by the legislature, even if the Republic of the Philippines.
courts are not in agreement with the policy stated The act complained of consisted in petitioner
therein or its innate wisdom. On the other hand, having allegedly failed to deliver the telegraphic
administrative interpretation of the law is at best message of private respondent to the addressee in
merely advisory, for it is the courts that finally Madrid, Spain. Obviously, such imputed
determine what the law means. Hence an negligence had nothing whatsoever to do with the
administrative agency cannot impose a penalty subject matter of the very limited jurisdiction of
not so provided in the law authorizing the the Commission over petitioner
promulgation of the rules and regulations, much Too basic in administrative law to need citation of
less one that is applied retroactively. jurisprudence is the rule that the jurisdiction and
powers of administrative agencies, like respondent
Commission, are limited to those expressly
16.) GLOBE WIRELESS LTD., petitioner, vs. granted or necessarily implied from those granted
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and ANTONIO B. in the legislation creating such body; and any
ARNAIZ, respondents. order without or beyond such jurisdiction is void
and ineffective. The order under consideration
FACTS: belonged to this category.
A message addressed to Maria Diaz, Madrid,
Spain, filed by private respondent Antonio B.
Arnaiz with the telegraph office of the Bureau of
Telecommunications was transmitted to the
Bureau of Telecommunications in Manila. It was
forwarded to petitioner Globe Wireless Ltd. for
transmission to Madrid. Petitioner sent the 17.) DANTE M. POLLOSO, petitioner, vs.
message to the American Cable and Radio HON. CELSO D. GANGAN, Chairman,
Corporation in New York, which, in turn, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HON. RAUL C. FLORES,
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, HON. maintained that the contracted service falls within
EMMANUEL M. DALMAN, COMMISSIONER, the scope of the inhibition which clearly includes
COMMISSION ON AUDIT.respondents. "the hiring or employing private lawyers or law
practitioners to render legal services for them
FACTS: and/or to handle their legal cases.
The National Power Corporation (NPC),
represented by its President Dr. Francisco L. Viray Moreover, it is important to mention that the
entered into a service contract with Atty. intention of said Circular is to curb the observed
Benemerito A. Satorre. and persistent violation of existing laws and
regulations, including CSC MC # 5 series of 1985
Unit Auditor Alexander A. Tan, NPC-VRC, Cebu City pertaining to the employment of private lawyers
issued Notice of Disallowance for the payment of on a contractual basis in government agencies
the services rendered by Atty. Satorre in the total which involves the disbursement of public funds
amount of P283,763.39. The following reasons by subjecting the same to the conformity and
were cited for said disallowance: concurrence requirements of said Circular. Being
so, the manner of agreed payment or
1)The contract for services did not have the consideration, whether termed as a fixed retainer
written conformity and acquiescence of the basis or a fixed contract price patterned after
Solicitor General or the Corporate Counsel and existing salary scale of existing and comparable
concurrence of the Commission on Audit as positions in NPC-VRC is immaterial as both still
required under COA Circular No. 86-255 dated involve the outlay of public funds and also the
April 2, 1986. contractual employment/hiring of a private
2) The contract was not supported with lawyer.
Certificate of Availability of Funds as required
under Sec. 86 of P.D. 1445.
3)The contract was not submitted to the Civil
Service Commission for final review and was 19.) MAKATI STOCK EXCHANGE, INC.,
not forwarded to the Compensation and petitioner, vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
Position Confirmation and Classification COMMISSION and MANILA STOCK EXCHANGE,
Bureau, DBM for appropriate action as respondents.
required in CSC MC # 5 Series of 1985.
FACTS:
Petitioner argues that the phrase handling of This is an issue on resolution of the Securities and
legal cases should be construed to mean as Exchange Commission which would deny the
conduct of cases or handling of court cases or Makati Stock Exchange, Inc., permission to
litigation and not to other legal matters such as operate a stock exchange unless it agreed not to
right of way matters. list for trading on its board, securities already
listed in the Manila Stock Exchange.
ISSUE: Petitioner contended that the permission
Whether COA Circular No. 86-255 applies to the provided by law amounted to prohibition, and
nature of hiring Atty. Sattore who handled only that the commission has no power to impose it.
right of way matters and did not handle court
cases. ISSUE:
Whether the SEC has the authority to promulgate
RULING: the rule in question.
Yes. What can be gleaned from a reading of the
above circular is that government agencies and RULING:
instrumentalities are restricted in their hiring of No. It is fundamental that an administrative
private lawyers to render legal services or handle officer has only such powers as are expressly
their cases. No public funds will be disbursed for granted to him by the statute, and those
the payment to private lawyers unless prior to the necessarily implied in the exercise thereof.
hiring of said lawyer, there is a written conformity The commission cites no provision of law expressly
and acquiescence from the Solicitor General or supporting its rule against double listing. It
the Government Corporate Counsel. suggests that the power is necessary for the
execution of the functions vested in it. It argues
On the claim that COA Circular 86-255 is not that said rule was approved by the department
applicable in this case because the inhibition head before the War and it is not in conflict with
provided for in said Circular relates to the handling the provisions of securities and exchange act. The
of legal cases of a government agency and that approval of the department, by itself, adds no
the contractor was not hired in that capacity but weight on judicial litigation. The commission
to handle legal matters involving right-of-way, it is possesses no power to impose the condition of
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
the rule which result in discrimination and Thus, DLG Circular No. 89-09 was issued by
violation of constitutional rights. respondent Secretary in pursuance of his rule-
making power conferred by law and which now
has the force and effect of law.
The respondent Secretary has the power to Commission finds respondent administratively
"establish and prescribe rules, regulations and liable for deficient and inadequate service defined
other issuances and implementing laws on the under Section 19(a) of C.A. 146 and hereby
general supervision of local government units and imposes the penalty of FINE.
on the promotion of local autonomy and monitor
compliance thereof by said units." ISSUE:
Whether the NTC had the jurisdiction and impose
Also, the respondent Secretary's rule making fine against petitioner for failure to deliver the
power is provided in See. 7, Chapter II, Book IV of letters to the addressee.
the Administrative Code, to wit:
(3) Promulgate rules and regulations necessary RULING:
to carry out department objectives, policies, No. NTC has no jurisdiction to impose a
functions, plans, programs and projects; fine. Globe Wireless Ltd. vs. Public Service
Commission (G. R. No. L-27250, 21 January 1987,
147 SCRA 269) says so categorically.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
RULING:
Verily, Section 13 of Commonwealth Act No. Yes. The applicable law is PD No. 957, as amended
146, as amended, otherwise known as the by PD No. 1344, entitled "Empowering the
Public Service Act, vested in the Public Service National Housing Authority to Issue Writs of
Commission jurisdiction, supervision and control Execution in the Enforcement of Its Decisions
over all public services and their franchises, Under Presidential Decree No. 957." Section 1 of
equipment and other properties. the latter decree provides as follows:
No substantial change has been brought about by SECTION 1. In the exercise of its function to
Executive Order No. 546 invoked by the Solicitor regulate the real estate trade and business and
General's Office to bolster NTC's jurisdiction. The in addition to its powers provided for in
Executive Order is not an explicit grant of power to Presidential Decree No. 957, the National
impose administrative fines on public service Housing Authority shall have exclusive
utilities, including telegraphic agencies, which jurisdiction to hear and decide cases of the
have failed to render adequate service to following nature:
consumers. Neither has it expanded the coverage A. Unsound real estate business practices;
of the supervisory and regulatory power of the B. Claims involving refund and any other
agency. There appears to be no alternative but to claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium
reiterate the settled doctrine in administrative law unit buyer against the project owner, developer,
that: dealer, broker or salesman; and
C. Cases involving specific performance of
Too basic in administrative law to need citation contractuala statutory obligations filed by
of jurisprudence is the rule that jurisdiction and buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit
powers of administrative agencies, like against the owner, developer, dealer, broker or
respondent Commission, are limited to those salesman.
expressly granted or necessarily implied from
those granted in the legislation creating such The language of this section, especially the
body; and any order without or beyond such italicized portions, leaves no room for doubt that
jurisdiction is void and ineffective. "exclusive jurisdiction" over the case between the
petitioner and the private respondent is vested
not in the Regional Trial Court but in the National
Housing Authority.
22.) SOLID HOMES, INC., petitioner, vs.
TERESITA PAYAWAL and COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.
23.) ANTIPOLO REALTY CORPORATION,
FACTS: petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL HOUSING
The complaint was filed by Teresita Payawal AUTHORITY, HON. G.V. TOBIAS, in his capacity as
against Solid Homes, Inc. The plaintiff alleged that General Manager of the National Housing
the defendant contracted to sell to her a Authority, THE HON. JACOBO C. CLAVE, in his
subdivision lot in Marikina on June 9, 1975, for the capacity as Presidential Executive Assistant and
agreed price of P 28,080.00, and that by VIRGILIO A. YUSON, respondents.
September 10, 1981, she had already paid the
defendant the total amount of P 38,949.87 in FACTS:
monthly installments and interests. Solid Homes By virtue of a Contract to Sell, Jose Hernando
subsequently executed a deed of sale over the acquired prospective and beneficial ownership
land but failed to deliver the corresponding over Lot of the Ponderosa Heights Subdivision
certificate of title despite her repeated demands from the petitioner Antipolo Realty Corporation.
because, as it appeared later, the defendant had Hernando transferred his rights over subject lot to
mortgaged the property in bad faith to a financing private respondent Virgilio Yuson. The transfer
company. was embodied in a Deed of Assignment and
Substitution of Obligor executed with the consent
Solid Homes moved to dismiss the complaint on of Antipolo Realty, in which Mr. Yuson assumed
the ground that the court had no jurisdiction, this the performance of the vendee's obligations
being vested in the National Housing Authority under the original contract, including payment of
under PD No. 957. his predecessor's installments in arrears. However,
ISSUE: for failure of Antipolo Realty to develop the
Whether the NHA had the jurisdiction over cases subdivision project in accordance with its
involving claims, refund and any other claims filed undertaking under Clause 17 of the Contract to
by the subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer. Sell, Mr. Yuson paid only the arrearages pertaining
to the period up to, and including, the month of
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
August 1972 and stopped all monthly installment The substantive provisions being applied and
payments falling due thereafter Clause 17 reads: enforced by the NHA in the instant case are found
in Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 957 which
Failure by the SELLER shall permit the BUYER to reads:
suspend his monthly installments without any
penalties or interest charges until such time that Sec. 23. Non-Forfeiture of Payments. No
such improvements shall have been completed installment payment made by a buyer in a
subdivision or condominium project for the lot
Antipolo Realty rescinded the Contract to Sell, and or unit he contracted to buy shall be forfeited in
claiming the forfeiture of all installment payments favor of the owner or developer when the buyer,
previously made by Mr. Yuson. Aggrieved by the after due notice to the owner or developer,
rescission of the Contract to Sell, Mr. Yuson desists from further payment due to the failure
brought his dispute with Antipolo Realty before of the owner or developer to develop the
public respondent NHA. subdivision or condominium project according
to the approved plans and within the time limit
Antipolo Realty contende that the jurisdiction to for complying with the same. Such buyer may, at
hear and decide Mr. Yuson's complaint was lodged his option, be reimbursed the total amount paid
in the regular courts, not in the NHA, since that including amortization and interests but
complaint involved the interpretation and excluding delinquency interests, with interest
application of the Contract to Sell. thereon at the legal rate.
Yes. The cease and desist order issued by the LLDA with the administrative complaint filed with the
requiring the City Government of Caloocan to stop Ombudsman (OBM-ADM-0-91-0151) by the
dumping its garbage in the Camarin open private respondents against the petitioners for
dumpsite found by the LLDA to have been done in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
violation of Republic Act No. 4850, as amended, Act.
and other relevant environment laws, cannot be
stamped as an unauthorized exercise by the LLDA The Solicitor General, commenting on the Petition
of injunctive powers. By its express terms, stated that (a) "The authority of the Ombudsman
Republic Act No. 4850, as amended by P.D. No. is only to recommend suspension and he has no
813 and Executive Order No. 927, series of 1983, direct power to suspend;" and (b) "Assuming the
authorizes the LLDA to "make, alter or modify Ombudsman has the power to directly suspend a
order requiring the discontinuance or pollution." government official or employee, there are
Section 4, par. (d) explicitly authorizes the LLDA conditions required by law for the exercise of such
to make whatever order may be necessary in the powers; and said conditions have not been met in
exercise of its jurisdiction. the instant case".
Assuming arguendo that the authority to issue a Petitioners adopted the position of the Solicitor
"cease and desist order" were not expressly General that the Ombudsman can only suspend
conferred by law, there is jurisprudence enough to government officials or employees connected with
the effect that the rule granting such authority his office.
need not necessarily be express. While it is a
fundamental rule that an administrative agency ISSUE:
has only such powers as are expressly granted to it Whether the Ombudsman has the power to
by law, it is likewise a settled rule that an suspend government officials and employees
administrative agency has also such powers as are working in offices other than the Office of the
necessarily implied in the exercise of its express Ombudsman, pending the investigation of the
powers. 26 In the exercise, therefore, of its express administrative complaints filed against said
powers under its charter as a regulatory and officials and employees.
quasi-judicial body with respect to pollution cases
in the Laguna Lake region, the authority of the RULING:
LLDA to issue a "cease and desist order" is, Yes. In upholding the power of the Ombudsman to
perforce, implied. Otherwise, it may well be preventively suspend petitioners, respondents
reduced to a "toothless" paper agency. invoke Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770, which
provides:
The issuance, therefore, of the cease and desist
order by the LLDA, as a practical matter of Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension. The
procedure under the circumstances of the case, is Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively
a proper exercise of its power and authority under suspend any officer or employee under his
its charter and its amendatory laws. Had the cease authority pending an investigation, if in his
and desist order issued by the LLDA been judgment the evidence of guilt is strong, and (a)
complied with by the City Government of the charge against such officer or employee
Caloocan as it did in the first instance, no further involves dishonesty, oppression or grave
legal steps would have been necessary. misconduct or neglect in the performance of
duty; (b) the charge would warrant removal
from the service; or (c) the respondent's
continued stay in office may prejudice the case
25.) DRA. BRIGIDA S. BUENASEDA, Lt. Col. filed against him.
ISABELO BANEZ, JR., ENGR. CONRADO REY
MATIAS, Ms. CORA S. SOLIS and Ms. ENYA N. The preventive suspension shall continue until
LOPEZ, petitioners, vs. the case is terminated by the Office of
SECRETARY JUAN FLAVIER, Ombudsman Ombudsman but not more than six months,
CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, and NCMH NURSES without pay, except when the delay in the
ASSOCIATION, represented by RAOULITO disposition of the case by the Office of the
GAYUTIN, respondents. Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or
petition of the respondent, in which case the
FACTS: period of such delay shall not be counted in
Principally, the petition seeks to nullify the Order computing the period of suspension herein
of the Ombudsman directing the preventive provided.
suspension of petitioners.
When the constitution vested on the Ombudsman
The questioned order was issued in connection the power "to recommend the suspension" of a
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
public official or employees (Sec. 13 [3]), it latter to distraint the goods, chattels or effects and
referred to "suspension," as a punitive measure. other personal property of Jaime Ancla, a sub-
All the words associated with the word contractor of Azarcon and, a delinquent taxpayer.
"suspension" in said provision referred to
penalties in administrative cases. Section 24 of The Warrant of Garnishment was issued to
R.A. No. 6770, which grants the Ombudsman the Azarcon ordering him to transfer, surrender,
power to preventively suspend public officials and transmit and/or remit to BIR the property in his
employees facing administrative charges before possession owned by taxpayer Ancla.
him, is a procedural, not a penal statute. The
preventive suspension is imposed after Petitioner Azarcon, in signing the Receipt for
compliance with the requisites therein set forth, Goods, Articles, and Things Seized Under
as an aid in the investigation of the administrative Authority of the National Internal Revenue,
charges. assumed the undertakings specified in the receipt
and left in his possession pending investigation is 1
Under the Constitution, the Ombudsman is blue Isuzu dump truck.
expressly authorized to recommend to the
appropriate official the discipline or prosecution of Subsequently, Azarcon wrote a letter to the BIRs
erring public officials or employees. In order to Regional Director for Revenue Region 10 stating
make an intelligent determination whether to that Mr. Jaime Ancla intends to cease his
recommend such actions, the Ombudsman has to operations with him, and that this is evidenced by
conduct an investigation. In turn, in order for him the fact that sometime in August, 1985 he
to conduct such investigation in an expeditious surreptitiously withdrew his equipment from his
and efficient manner, he may need to suspend the custody. He therefore expressed his desire to
respondent. relinquish whatever responsibilities he has over
the property, and that this cancellation shall take
The purpose of R.A. No. 6770 is to give the effect immediately.
Ombudsman such powers as he may need to
perform efficiently the task committed to him by Incidentally, Azarcon reported the taking of the
the Constitution. Such being the case, said statute, truck to the security manager of PICOP, Mr. Delfin
particularly its provisions dealing with procedure, Panelo, and requested him to prevent this truck
should be given such interpretation that will from being taken out of the PICOP concession. By
effectuate the purposes and objectives of the the time the order to bar the trucks exit was given,
Constitution. Any interpretation that will hamper however, it was too late.
the work of the Ombudsman should be avoided.
Regional Director Batausa responded in a letter,
The Administrative Code of 1987 also empowered stating that Azarcon voluntarily assumed the
the proper disciplining authority to "preventively liabilities of safekeeping and preserving the unit in
suspend any subordinate officer or employee behalf of the BIR and his failure to observe said
under his authority pending an investigation provisions does not relieve Azarcon from
responsibility.
(2) That his authority to take part in the It is true that Sec. 206 of the NIRC, as pointed out
performance of public functions or to perform by the prosecution, authorizes the BIR to effect a
public duties must be -- constructive distraint by requiring any person to
a. by direct provision of the law, or preserve a distrained property.
b. by popular election, or
c. by appointment by competent authority.[28] However, we find no provision in the NIRC
constituting such person a public officer by reason
Granting arguendo that the petitioner, in signing of such requirement. The BIRs power authorizing a
the receipt for the truck constructively distrained private individual to act as a depositary cannot be
by the BIR, commenced to take part in an activity stretched to include the power to appoint him as a
constituting public functions, he obviously may public officer.
not be deemed authorized by popular election.
The prosecution argues that Article 222 of the
2. No, petitioners designation by the BIR as a Revised Penal Code defines the individuals
custodian of distrained property does not qualify covered by the term officers under Article 217 of
as appointment by direct provision of law, or by the same Code. And accordingly, since Azarcon
competent authority. became a depository of the truck seized by the BIR
he also became a public officer who can be
The Solicitor General contends that the BIR, in prosecuted under Article 217.
effecting constructive distraint over the truck
allegedly owned by Jaime Ancla, and in requiring The Court is not persuaded. Article 222 of the RPC
the petitioner Alfredo Azarcon who was in reads:
possession thereof to sign a pro forma receipt for
it, effectively designated petitioner a depositary Officers included in the preceding provisions. --
and, hence, a public officer. This is based on the The provisions of this chapter shall apply to
theory that the power to designate a private private individuals who, in any capacity whatever,
person who has actual possession of a distrained have charge of any insular, provincial or municipal
property as a depository of distrained property is funds, revenues, or property and to any
necessarily implied in the BIRs power to place the administrator or depository of funds or property
property of a delinquent tax payer (sic) in distraint attached, seized or deposited by public authority,
as provided for under Sections 206, 207 and 208 even if such property belongs to a private
(formerly Sections 303, 304 and 305) of the individual.
National Internal Revenue Code, (NIRC) x x x.
The language of the foregoing provision is clear. A
It is axiomatic in our constitutional framework, private individual who has in his charge any of the
which mandates a limited government, that its public funds or property enumerated therein and
branches and administrative agencies exercise commits any of the acts defined in any of the
only that power delegated to them as defined provisions of Chapter Four, Title Seven of the RPC,
either in the Constitution or in legislation or in should likewise be penalized with the same
both. penalty meted to erring public officers. Nowhere
in this provision is it expressed or implied that a
Thus, although the appointing power is the private individual falling under said Article 222 is
exclusive prerogative of the President, the to be deemed a public officer.
quantum of powers possessed by an
administrative agency forming part of the The Court thus finds petitioner Alfredo Azarcon
executive branch will still be limited to that and his co-accused Jaime Ancla to be both private
conferred expressly or by necessary or fair individuals erroneously charged before and
implication in its enabling act. Hence, an convicted by Respondent Sandiganbayan which
administrative officer has only such powers as are had no jurisdiction over them.
expressly granted to him and those necessarily
implied in the exercise thereof. It is evident that the petitioner did not cease to be
a private individual when he agreed to act as
Implied powers are those which are necessarily depositary of the garnished dump truck.
included in, and are therefore of lesser degree Therefore, when the information charged him and
than the power granted. It cannot extend to other Jaime Ancla before the Sandiganbayan for
matters not embraced therein, nor are not malversation of public funds or property, the
incidental thereto. For to so extend the statutory prosecution was in fact charging two private
grant of power would be an encroachment on individuals without any public officer being
powers expressly lodged in Congress by our similarly charged as a co-conspirator.
Constitution. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan had no
jurisdiction over the controversy and therefore all
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
the proceedings taken below as well as the which inherently is administrative in character and
Decision rendered by Respondent Sandiganbayan, a function which calls for the exercise of the quasi-
are null and void for lack of jurisdiction. judicial function of the Commission.
The second basic principle is the doctrine of non- The decision of the Director of Lands having
interference which should be regarded as highly become final and executory, the then-Executive
important in judicial stability and in the Director of the Department of Environment and
administration of justice whereby the judgment of Natural Resources-Cordillera Autonomous Region
a court of competent jurisdiction may not be (DENR-CAR), on petition of Narcisa, issued an
opened, modified or vacated by any court or Order of Execution directing the Community
tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction. Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO) Officer to enforce the decision "by
The SEC is at the very least co-equal with the ordering Petitioner Nio and those acting in his
Regional Trial Court. As such, one would have no behalf to refrain from continuously occupying the
power to control the other. Moreover, in the area and remove whatever improvements they
instant case, judgment was rendered by the trial may have introduced thereto."
court in Civil Case No. 88-44404 approving the
compromise agreement between EQUITABLE on Attempts to enforce the Order of Execution failed,
one hand, and FREEMAN and Saw Chiao Lian on prompting Narcisa to file a complaint for
the other. A writ of execution was issued against ejectment before the Baguio City Municipal Trial
the defendants to enforce the judgment and 2 Court in Cities (MTCC).
properties of FREEMAN were levied upon and sold
to FREEMAN MANAGEMENT as highest bidder in Narcisas counsel, Atty. Edilberto Claravall, later
the public auction. petitioned the DENR-CAR for the issuance of a
Special Order authorizing the City Sheriff of
Finally, the judgment was fully satisfied and a Baguio, the City Police Station, and the Demolition
certificate of sale was issued to FREEMAN Team of the City Government to demolish or
MANAGEMENT. It is axiomatic that after a remove the improvements on the lot introduced
judgment has been fully satisfied, the case is by Nio. The DENR-CAR denied the petition, citing
deemed terminated once and for all. It cannot be lack of jurisdiction over the City Sheriff of Baguio,
modified or altered. the City Police Station, and the Demolition Team
of the City Government.
Hence, the properties sold to FREEMAN
MANAGEMENT are now considered excluded from But on July 16, 1997, the Demolition Team of
the corporate assets of FREEMAN and can no Baguio City headed by Engineer Orlando Genove
longer be the subject of the proceedings in the and the Baguio City Police, on orders of then
SEC for the dissolution of the latter. Therefore SEC Baguio City Police Officer-In-Charge (OIC) Donato
exceeded its jurisdiction when it issued a writ of Bacquian, started demolishing the houses of Nio
injunction enjoining FREEMAN MANAGEMENT and his herein co-respondents.
from consolidating its ownership over the 2
parcels of land it acquired as highest bidder in the Nio and his wife Josefina Nio thereupon filed a
execution sale. Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer
for Temporary Restraining Order before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City. The RTC
denied the petition. However the Court of Appeals
granted the petition on appeal.
29.) THE CITY OF BAGUIO, MAURICIO DOMOGAN, Mayor Mauricio Domogan through the Demolition
and ORLANDO GENOVE, Petitioners, vs. Team and City Engineers Office are ordered to
FRANCISCO NIO, JOSEFINA NIO, EMMANUEL cease and desist from enforcing the amended
NIO, and EURLIE OCAMPO, Respondents. order of execution issued by Oscar N. Hamada,
Regional Executive Director of the Department of
FACTS: The Bureau of Lands awarded on May 13, Environmental and Natural Resources, concerning
1966 to Narcisa A. Placino a parcel of land the demolition or removal of the structures made
identified as Lot No. 10 (the lot) located at Saint by petitioners until private respondent applied for
Anthony Road, Dominican-Mirador Barangay, a special order abovementioned with the proper
Baguio City. court.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
ISSUE: Whether or not the enforcement of the The BOR approved the MOA and PSU issued a
Amended Order of Execution needs a hearing and voucher for payment of honoraria to PSU
court order which Sec. 10(d) of Rule 39 of the personnel engaged in the project. Later, however,
Rules of Court requires despite the fact that an the the approved honoraria rates were found to be
administrative agency which is clothed with quasi- higher than the rates provided for in the
judicial functions issued the Amended Order of guidelines of National Compensation Circular
Execution. (NCC) No. 53. Accordingly, adjustments were
made by deducting amounts from subsequent
HELD: Yes. In general, the quantum of judicial or disbursements of honoraria.
quasi-judicial powers which an administrative
agency may exercise is defined in the enabling act Bonifacio Icu, COA resident auditor at PSU, alleged
of such agency. In other words, the extent to that there were excess payments of honoraria.
which an administrative entity may exercise such This was based on the premise that Compensation
powers depends largely, if not wholly, on the Policy Guidelines (CPG) No. 80-4 issued by the
provisions of the statute creating or empowering DBM which provided for lower rates than NCC No.
such agency. 53 was the schedule for honoraria and per diems
applicable to work done under the MOA between
There is, however, no explicit provision granting the PSU and the DENR.
the Bureau of Lands (now the Land Management
Bureau) or the DENR (which exercises control over A letter was sent by PSU to the Chairman of the
the Land Management Bureau) the authority to COA requesting reconsideration of the action of its
issue an order of demolition which the resident auditor. COA denied the reconsideration
Amended Order of Execution, in substance, is. and ruled that CPG. No. 80-4 is the applicable
guideline in respect of the honoraria as CPG No.
While the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands is 80-4 does not distinguish between projects locally
confined to the determination of the respective funded and projects funded or assisted with
rights of rival claimants to public lands or to cases monies of foreign-origin.
which involve the disposition of public lands, the
power to determine who has the actual, physical Subsequently, honoraria for the period from
possession or occupation or the better right of January 1989 to January 1990 were disbursed in
possession over public lands remains with the accordance with NCC No. 53. A Certificate of
courts. Settlement and Balances was then issued by the
COA resident auditor of PSU showing disallowance
of alleged excess payment of honoraria which
petitioner was being required to return.
30.) RUFINO O. ESLAO, in his capacity as
President of Pangasinan State University, The resolution of the dispute lies in the
petitioner, vs. determination of the circular or set of provisions
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondent. applicable in respect of the honoraria to be paid
to PSU personnel who took part in the evaluation
FACTS: On 9 December 1988, PSU entered into a project, i.e., NCC No. 53 or CPG No. 80-4.
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the
Department of Environment and Natural ISSUE: Whether or not the special project applies
Resources (DENR) for the evaluation of 11 to NCC 53 (foreign assisted), for CPG No. 80-4
government reforestation operations in applies only to "locally-funded projects.
Pangasinan.
HELD: NCC 53 should apply.
A notice to proceed with the review and
evaluation of the 11 reforestation operations was Sec. 2.1 of CPG No. 80-4 defines "special project"
issued by the DENR to PSU. The latter complied as an inter-agency or inter-committee activity or
with this notice and did proceed. an undertaking by a composite group of
officials/employees from various agencies which
PSU Vice President for Research and Extension [activity or undertaking] is not among the regular
and Assistant Project Director Victorino P. Espero and primary functions of the agencies involved.
requested the Office of the President of PSU, to
have the University's Board of Regents (BOR) Examination of the definition in CPG No. 80-4 of a
confirm the appointments or designations of "special project" reveals that definition has two (2)
involved PSU personnel including the rates of components: firstly, there should be an inter-
honoraria and per diems corresponding to their agency or inter-committee activity or undertaking
specific roles and functions. by a group of officials or employees who are
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
drawn from various agencies; and secondly, the to foreign-assisted projects only. The explicit text
activity or undertaking involved is not part of the of NCC No. 53 states that it was issued to
"regular or primary" functions of the participating prescribe/authorize the classification and
agencies. compensation rates of positions in foreign-assisted
projects (FAPs) including honoraria rates for
Examination of the MOA and its annexes reveals personnel detailed to FAPs and guidelines in the
that two (2) groups were actually created. The first implementation thereof pursuant to
group consisted of the coordinating committee, Memorandum No. 173 dated 16 May 1988 and
the membership of which was drawn from officials which apply to all positions in foreign-assisted
of the DENR and of the PSU; and the second, the projects only.
evaluation project team itself which was, in
contrast, composed exclusively of PSU personnel. Clearly, NCC No. 53 amended the earlier CPG No.
80-4 by carving out from the subject matter
We believe that the first component of the CPU originally covered by CPG No. 80-4 all "foreign-
No. 80-4's definition of "special project" is assisted [special] projects." CPG No. 80-4 was,
applicable in respect of the group which is charged accordingly, modified so far as "foreign-assisted
with the actual carrying out of the project itself, [special] projects (FAPs)" are concerned. It is this
rather than to the body or group which fact or consequence of NCC No. 53 that
coordinates the task of the operating or respondent COA apparently failed to grasp.
implementing group.
Thus, CPG No. 80-4 does not control, nor even
To construe the administrative definition of relate to, the DENR evaluation project for at least
"special project" otherwise would create a two (2) reasons: firstly, the evaluation project was
situation, which we deem to be impractical and not a "special project" within the meaning of CPG
possibly even absurd, under which any No. 80-4; secondly, that same evaluation project
undertaking entered into between the senior was a Foreign-Assisted Project to which NCC No.
officials of government agencies would have to be 53 is specifically applicable.
considered an "inter-agency or inter-committee
activity," even though the actual undertaking or Even in its Comment respondent COA submits that
operation would be carried out not by the the issue as to whether or not the project was
coordinating body but rather by an separate group special already became moot in the face of the
which might not (as in the present case) be drawn opinion/ruling of the DBM that since it (the
from the agencies represented in the coordinating project) is "foreign-assisted" NCC 53 should apply,
group. for CPG No. 80-4 applies only to "locally-funded
projects.
As already noted, in the case at hand, the project
team actually tasked with carrying out the Under the Administration Code of 1987, the
evaluation of the DENR reforestation activity is Compensation and Position Classification Bureau
composed exclusively of personnel from PSU; the of the DBM "shall classify positions and determine
project team's responsibility and undertaking are appropriate salaries for specific position classes
quite distinct from the responsibilities of the and review appropriate salaries for specific
coordinating [DENR and PSU] committee. Thus, position classes and review the compensation
the project team is not a "composite group" as benefits programs of agencies and shall design job
required by the definition of CPG No. 80-4 of evaluation programs."
"special projects." It follows that the evaluation
projects here involved do not fall within the ambit In Warren Manufacturing Workers Union
of a "special project" as defined and regulated by (WMWU) v. Bureau of Labor Relations, the Court
CPG No. 80-4. held that "administrative regulations and policies
enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the
We do not consider it necessary to rule on law have the force of law and are entitled to great
whether the project at hand involved an respect." It is difficult for the Court to understand
undertaking "which is not among the regular and why, despite these certifications, respondent COA
primary functions of the agencies involved" since took such a rigid and uncompromising posture
the reforestation activity evaluation group is not, that CPG No. 80-4 was the applicable criterion for
as pointed out above, a "special project" within honoraria to be given members of the
the meaning of CPG No. 80-4. In any case, this reforestation evaluation project team of the PSU.
particular issue was not raised by any of the
parties here involved. Respondent COA's contention that the DBM
clarification is unconstitutional as that ruling does
Examination of the provisions of NCC No. 53 not fulfill the requisites of a valid classification is,
makes it crystal clear that the circular is applicable in the Court's perception, imaginative but
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS 1
Atty. Vic Alabastro
F4
nonetheless an after-thought and a futile attempt is, under its constitutional mandate, authorized to
to justify its action. As correctly pointed out by substitute its own judgment for any applicable law
petitioner, the constitutional arguments raised by or administrative regulation with the wisdom or
respondent COA here were never even propriety of which, however, it does not agree, at
mentioned, much less discussed, in COA Decisions least not before such law or regulation is set aside
Nos. 1547 (1990) and 2571 (1992) or in any of the by the authorized agency of government i.e.,
proceedings conducted before it. the courts as unconstitutional or illegal and
void.
COA is not authorized to substitute its own
judgment for any applicable law or administrative The COA, like all other government agencies, must
regulation with the wisdom or propriety of which respect the presumption of legality and
it does not agree at least not before such law or constitutionality to which statutes and
regulation is set aside by the authorized agency of administrative regulations are entitled 26 until
government as unconstitutional or illegal and void. such statute or regulation is repealed or amended,
or until set aside in an appropriate case by a
Mindful of the detailed provisions of the MOA and competent court (and ultimately this Court).
Project Proposal governing project duration and
project financing as regulated by NCC No. 53, the
Court is not persuaded that petitioner can so
casually assume implicit consent on the part of
the DENR to an extension of the evaluation
project's duration.