FACTS

Pursuant to Civil Service Act of 1959 (R.A. No. 2260) which conferred upon the
Commissioner of Civil Service to prescribe, amend and enforce suitable rules and
regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of this Civil Service Law, the Commission
interpreted provisions of Republic Act No. 2625 amending the Revised Administrative Code
and adopted a policy that when an employee who was on leave of absence without pay on a
day before or on a day time immediately preceding a Saturday, Sunday or Holiday, he is
also considered on leave of absence without pay on such Saturday, Sunday or Holiday.
Petitioner Peralta, affected by the said policy, questioned the said administrative
interpretation.

ISSUES

Whether or not the Civil Service Commission’s interpretative construction is:

(1) valid and constitutional.

(2) binding upon the courts.
RULING

(1) NO. The construction by the respondent Commission of R.A. 2625 is not in accordance
with the legislative intent. 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 speaks of the granting of a right and the law does not provide for a distinction
between those who have accumulated leave credits and those who have exhausted their
leave credits in order to enjoy such right. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere
debemus.The fact remains that government employees, whether or not they have
accumulated leave credits, are not required by law to work on Saturdays, Sundays and
Holidays and thus they can not be declared absent on such non-working days. They cannot
be or are not considered absent on non-working days; they cannot and should not be
deprived of their salary corresponding to said non-working days just because they were
absent without pay on the day immediately prior to, or after said non-working days. A
different rule would constitute a deprivation of property without due process.
(2) NO. 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.
The general rule vis-a-vis legislation is that an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no
rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal
contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

But, as held in Chicot County Drainage District vs. Baxter State Bank:
. . . . It is quite clear, however, that such broad statements as to the effect of a determination
of unconstitutionality must be taken with qualifications. The actual existence of a statute,
prior to such determination is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot
always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The
effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects
— with respect to particular relations, individual and corporate; and particular conduct,
private and official.

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. Also,
administrative and practical considerations must be taken into account if this ruling will have
a strict restrospective application. The Court, in this connection, calls upon the respondent
Commission and the Congress of the Philippines, if necessary, to handle this problem with
justice and equity to all affected government employees

5.REALTY EXCHANGE VENTURE CORP. V SENDINO

FACTSRespondent Sendino entered into a reservation agreement with petitioner

Realty Exchange Venture, Inc. (REVI) for a lot located in Raymondville Subdivision in
Sucat for P307,800. Sendino paid a total of P5000 as reservation fee.Six months thereafter
Sendino paid 16K as downpayment. She was however advised by REVI to change
her co-maker. Sendino agreed, to which she asked for an extension of one month or so. For
alleged non-compliance with the appropriate documentary requirements, REVI unilaterally
rescinded the contract.Sendino sued for Specific Performance against REVI with the Office
of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) of the HLURB. REVI argued that
OAALA-HLURB has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case because EO 90 which
created the HLURB did not grant such powers to it. Although such quasi-judicial function
was exercised by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC), HLURB’s
predecessor.

Part III | Admin Law Cases | Dean Roy2D 2012ANTONIO | CABRAL | CRUZ | HIPOLITO |
MENDOZA J | MENDOZA R | SIRON | SOLLER3ISSUES1.Whether the HLURB has quasi-
judicial functions notwithstanding the absence of such grant of power by EO 90.2.Whether a
decision can be rendered by OAALA- a subordinate office of the Board of
Commissioners.RULING1.YES. The HLURB has quasi-judicial functions. Although such
power was not granted by the law creating the HLURB, it can be implied from the fact that
HLURB is the sole regulatory board for housing and land development. HLURB would have
been reduced to a functionally sterile entity if it lacked the powers exercised by its
predecessor, the HSRC, which included the power to settle disputes concerning land use.
2.YES. The Board of Commissioners may delegate such function to the OAALA.The power
conferred upon an administrative agency to issue rules and regulations necessary to
carry out its functions has been held to be an adequate source of authority to
delegate a particular function. The board may adopt rules of procedure for the conduct
of its business for the effective accomplishment of its mandated functions.