Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin 22. US vs.

s. Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil 169 (1014)

Agencies
23. People vs. Santos, 63 Phil 300 (1936)
Powers and Functions in General
24. People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil 640 (1954)
1. Makati Stock Exchange Inc. vs. SEC, 14 SCRA
25. Hilado vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 100 Phil
620 (1965)
288 (1956)
2. Radio Communications of the Phil. vs. Board of
26. Ollada vs. Secretary of Finance, 109 Phil 1072
Communications, 80 SCRA 471 (1977)
(1960)
3. Matienzo vs. Abellera, 162 SCRA 11 (1988)
27. Fortich vs. Corona, 298 SCRA 685 (1998)
4. Vda. de Herrera vs. Bernardo, 650 SCRA 87
28. Eastern Shipping Lines Inc. vs. CA, 291 SCRA
(2011)
485 (1998)
Investigatory Powers
Adjudicatory Powers
5. Ruperto vs. Torres, 100 Phil. 1098 (1957)
29. Philex Mining Co. vs. Zaldivia, 43 SCRA 479
6. Carmelo vs. Ramos, 6 SCRA 836 (1962)
(1972)
7. Evangelista vs. Jarencio, 69 SCRA 99 (1975)
30. Antipolo Realty Co. vs NHA, 153 SCRA 399
8. Catura vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 37 SCRA
(1987)
303 (1971)
31. Guerzon vs. CA, 164 SCRA 182 (1988)
Rule-Making Powers
Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin
9. Victorias Milling Co. vs. Social Security Agencies

Commission, 4 SCRA 627 (1962) Makati Stock Exchange vs SEC

10. Manuel vs. General Auditing Office, 42 SCRA G.R No. L-23004 June 30, 1965

660 (1976) This is a review of the resolution of the

11. Olsen and Co. vs. Aldanese, 43 Phil 259(1922) Securities and Exchange Commission which

12. Young vs. Rafferty, 33 Phil. 276 (1916) would deny the Makati Stock Exchange, Inc.,

13. Sy Man vs. Fabros, 93 Phil. 1093 (1913) permission to operate a stock exchange

14. Interprovincial Auto Bus Co. vs. Collector of unless it agreed not to list for trading on its

Internal Revenue, 98 Phil. 290 (1956) board, securities already listed in the Manila

15. Phil. Lawyers' Assoc. vs. Agrava, 105 Phil 173 Stock Exchange.

(1959) Objecting to the requirement, Makati Stock

16. Philippines Inter-Island Shipping Association of Exchange, Inc. contends that the

the Phil. vs. CA, 266 SCRA 489 (1997) Commission has no power to impose it and

17. Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Fortune that; anyway, it is illegal, discriminatory and

Tobacco Co., 658 SCRA 289 (2011) unjust.

18. Lupangco vs. CA, 160 SCRA 848 (1988) Issue: Whether the Commission may "in the public

19. Olsen and Co. vs. Herstein and Rafferty, 35 Phil interest" prohibit (or make impossible) the

520 (1915) establishment of another stock exchange (besides

20. People vs. Maceren, 79 SCRA 450 (1977) the Manila Stock Exchange), on the ground that the

21. US vs. Panlilio, 28 Phil 608 (1914) operation of two or more exchanges adversely
affects the public interest. Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin
Agencies
Ruling:
People vs Santos
The Legislature has specified the conditions under
Facts:
which a stock exchange may legally obtain a permit
The herein accused and appellee Augusto A.
(sec. 17, Securities Act); it is not for the Commission
Santos is charged with having ordered his
to impose others. If the existence of two competing
fishermen to manage and operate the
exchanges jeopardizes public interest — which is
motor launches Malabon II and Malabon Ill
doubtful — let the Congress speak. 12 Undoubtedly,
registered in his name and to fish, loiter and
the opinion and recommendation of the
anchor within three kilometers of the shore
Commission will be given weight by the Legislature,
line of the Island of Corregidor over which
in judging whether or not to restrict individual
jurisdiction is exercised by naval and military
enterprise and business opportunities. But until
authorities of the United States, without
otherwise directed by law, the operation of
permission from the Secretary of
exchanges should not be so regulated as practically
Agriculture and Commerce.
to create a monopoly by preventing the
Section 28 of Administrative Order No. 2 relative to
establishment of other stock exchanges and
fish and game, issued by the Secretary of
thereby contravening:
Agriculture and Commerce, provides as follows:
(a) the organizers' (Makati's) Constitutional right to
28. Prohibited fishing areas. — No boats
equality before the law;
licensed in accordance with the provisions
(b) their guaranteed civil liberty to pursue any
of Act No. 4003 and this order to catch,
lawful employment or trade; and
collect, gather, take, or remove fish and
(c) the investor's right to choose where to buy or to
other sea products from Philippine waters
sell, and his privilege to select the brokers in his
shall be allowed to fish, loiter, or anchor
employment. 13
within 3 kilometers of the shore line of
And no extended elucidation is needed to conclude
islands and reservations over which
that for a licensing officer to deny license solely on
jurisdiction is exercised by naval or military
the basis of what he believes is best for the
authorities of the United States, particularly
economy of the country may amount to
Corregidor, Pulo Caballo, La Monja, El Fraile,
regimentation or, in this instance, the exercise of
and Carabao, and all other islands and
undelegated legislative powers and discretion.
detached rocks lying between Mariveles
Thus, it has been held that where the licensing
Reservation on the north side of the
statute does not expressly or impliedly authorize
entrance to Manila Bay and Calumpan Point
the officer in charge, he may not refuse to grant a
Reservation on the south side of said
license simply on the ground that a sufficient
entrance: Provided, That boats not subject
number of licenses to serve the needs of the public
to license under Act No. 4003 and this order
have already been issued. (53 C.J.S. p. 636.)
may fish within the areas mentioned above
only upon receiving written permission
therefor, which permission may be granted
by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce upon recommendation of the
military or naval authorities concerned.
Issue: Whether Augusta Santos Section 28 Order
No. 2 relative to fish and game, issued by the
Secretary of Agriculture is valid.
Ruling:
Act No. 4003 contains no similar provision
prohibiting boats not subject to license from fishing
within three kilometers of the shore line of islands
and reservations over which jurisdiction is exercised
by naval and military authorities of the United
States, without permission from the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce upon recommendation
of the military and naval authorities concerned.
Inasmuch as the only authority granted to the
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, by section
4 of Act No. 4003, is to issue from time to time such
instructions, orders, rules, and regulations
consistent with said Act, as may be necessary and
proper to carry into effect the provisions thereof
and for the conduct of proceedings arising under
such provisions; and inasmuch as said Act No. 4003,
as stated, contains no provisions similar to those
contained in the above quoted conditional clause of
section 28 of Administrative Order No. 2, the
conditional clause in question supplies a defect of
the law, extending it. This is equivalent to legislating
on the matter, a power which has not been and
cannot be delegated to him, it being exclusively
reserved to the then Philippine Legislature by the
Jones Law, and now to the National Assembly by
the Constitution of the Philippines. Such act
constitutes not only an excess of the regulatory
power conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture
and Commerce, but also an exercise of a legislative
power which he does not have, and therefore said
conditional clause is null and void and without
effect.
Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin
Agencies
FORTICH VS. CORONA (G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998)
Facts:
The Provincial Development Council (PDC) of Bukidnon,
headed by Governor Carlos O. Fortich, passed Resolution No.
6, dated January 7, 1993, designating certain areas along
Bukidnon-Sayre Highway as part of the Bukidnon AgroIndustrial
Zones where the subject property is situated.
Pursuant to Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160, otherwise known as
the Local Government Code, the Sangguniang Bayan of
Sumilao, Bukidnon, on March 4, 1993, enacted Ordinance No.
24 converting or re-classifying 144 hectares of land in Bgy. San
Vicente, said Municipality, from agricultural to
industrial/institutional with a view of providing an
opportunity to attract investors who can inject new economic
vitality, provide more jobs and raise the income of its people.
During the public consultation, the people of the affected
barangay rallied behind their respective officials in endorsing
the project. Notwithstanding the foregoing favorable
recommendation, however, on November 14, 1994, the DAR,
thru Secretary Garilao, invoking its powers to approve
conversion of lands under Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657, issued
an Order denying the instant application for the conversion of
the subject land from agricultural to agro-industrial and,
instead, placed the same under the compulsory coverage of
CARP and directed the distribution thereof to all qualified
beneficiaries.
The DAR Secretary ordered the DAR Regional Director “to
proceed with the compulsory acquisition and distribution of
the property.”Governor Carlos O. Fortich of Bukidnon
appealedthe order of denial to the Office of the President and
prayed for the conversion/reclassification of the subject land acted beyond his jurisdiction when he issued the questioned

as the same would be more beneficial to the people of Resolution.

Bukidnon. Issue:

In resolving the appeal, the Office of the President, through Whether the final and executory Decision dated March 29,

then Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres, issued a Decision in 1996 can still be substantially modified by the “Win-Win”

OP Case No. 96-C-6424, dated March 29, 1996, reversing the Resolution.

DAR Secretary’s decision. OP found that the instant Held:

application for conversion by the Municipality of Sumilao, NO. The Supreme Court held that:

Bukidnon is impressed with merit. To be sure, converting the 1. The rules and regulations governing appeals to the

land in question from agricultural to agro-industrial would Office of the President of the Philippines are

open great opportunities for employment and bring about embodied in Administrative Order No. 18. Section 7

real development in the area towards a sustained economic thereof provides:

growth of the municipality. On May 20, 1996, DAR filed a SEC. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of

motion for reconsideration of the OP decision. However, on the President shall, except as otherwise provided for by

June 23, 1997, an Order was issued by then Executive special laws, become final after the lapse of fifteen

Secretary Ruben D. Torres denying DAR’s motion for (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties,

reconsideration for having been filed beyond the unless a motion for reconsideration thereof is filed

reglementary period of fifteen (15) days. The said order within such period.

further declared that the March 29, 1996 OP decision had Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party

already become final and executory. shall be allowed and entertained, save in exceptionally

On October 9, 1997, some alleged farmer-beneficiaries began meritorious cases.

their hunger strike in front of the DAR Compound in Quezon Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin
Agencies
City to protest the OP Decision of March 29, 1996. On
When the Office of the President issued the Order
November 7, 1997, the Office of the President resolved the
dated June 23,1997 declaring the Decision of March 29,
strikers’ protest by issuing the so-called “Win/Win” Resolution
1996 final and executory, as no one has seasonably
penned by then Deputy Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona.
filed a motion for reconsideration thereto, the said
The said Resolution modified the approval of the land
Office had lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case, more
conversion to agro-industrial area only to the extent of fortyfour
(44) hectares, and ordered the remaining one hundred so modify its Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction, the

(100) hectares to be distributed to qualified farmerbeneficiaries. Office of the President has no more authority to

The petitioners cried foul. They filed a case to the Supreme entertain the second motion for reconsideration filed

Court urging it to annul and set aside the “Win-Win” by respondent DAR Secretary, which second motion

Resolution and to enjoin respondent Secretary Ernesto D. became the basis of the assailed “Win-Win” Resolution.

Garilao of the Department of Agrarian Reform from Section 7 of Administrative Order No. 18 and Section 4,

implementing the said Resolution. The petitioners further Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court mandate that only

alleged that respondent then Deputy Executive Secretary one (1) motion for reconsideration is allowed to be

Renato C. Corona “committed grave abuse of discretion and taken from the Decision of March 29, 1996. And even if
a second motion for reconsideration was permitted to 1. to ship or otherwise bring into the Philippine

be filed in “exceptionally meritorious cases,” as Islands any animal suffering from, infected with,

provided in the second paragraph of Section 7 of AO 18, or dead of any dangerous communicable

still the said motion should not have been entertained disease, or any of the effects pertaining to such

considering that the first motion for reconsideration animal which are liable to introduce such

was not seasonably filed, thereby allowing the Decision disease into the Philippine Islands;

of March 29, 1996 to lapse into finality. Thus, the act 2. to expose such animal either alive or dead on

of the Office of the President in re-opening the case and any public road or highway where it may come

substantially modifying its March 29,1996 Decision in contact with other domestic animals; and

which had already become final and executory, was in 3. to transport in any form without a certificate

gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that issued by authority of the Director of Agriculture

accord finality to administrative determinations." whenever the Secretary of the Interior shall

2. The orderly administration of justice requires that the declare that a dangerous communicable animal

judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body disease prevails in any island, province,

must reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and municipality, township, or settlement and that

regulations. The noble purpose is to write finis to there is danger of spreading such disease

disputes once and for all. This is a fundamental Pursuant to the said Act, the Director of Agriculture

principle in our justice system, without which there issued an order that all of his carabaos in the barrio of

would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and Masamat, municipality of Mexico, Pampanga Province,

adherence to this principle must always be maintained had been exposed to the disease commonly known as

by those who wield the power of adjudication. Any act rinderpest, and that said carabaos were accordingly

which violates such principle must immediately be declared under quarantine, and were ordered kept in a

struck down. corral designated by an agent of the Bureau of

Therefore, the assailed “Win-Win” Resolution which Agriculture and were to remain there until released by

substantially modified the Decision of March 29, 1996 after it further order of the Director of Agriculture. However, it

has attained finality, is utterly void was alleged that Adriano Panlilio, illegally and

Notes: Act No. 4003 voluntarily and without being authorized to do so, and

"Fisheries Act" Approved December 5, 1932 . while the quarantine against said carabaos was still in

AN ACT TO AMEND AND COMPILE THE LAWS RELATING TO force, permitted and ordered said carabaos to be taken

FISH AND OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCES OF THE PHILIPPINE from the corral in which they were then quarantined and

ISLANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. that by virtue of said orders of the accused, his servants

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin and agents took the said carabaos from the said corral
Agencies
and drove them from one place to another for the
US vs. Panlilio (G.R. No. L-9876 December 8, 1914)
purpose of working them.
Facts:
Nowhere in the Act is the violation of the order of
Act No. 1760 provides that the following acts of any
Bureau of Agriculture prohibited or made unlawful, nor
person, firm or corporation are unlawful:
is there provided any punishment for a violation of such K.S. YOUNG, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. JAMES J.

order. RAFFERTY, Collector of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L10951

Issue: FACTS:

Whether the accused may be convicted for violation of Section 6(j) of the Internal Revenue Act (Act No.

the quarantine order issued by the Director of 2239) authorizes the Collector of Internal Revenue

Agriculture, assuming there was a violation. to specify the manner in which the proper books of

Held: accounts shall be kept. Pursuant thereto, the

No. The court held that: Collector of Internal Revenue issued a circular letter

Section 6 of the Act simply authorizes the Director of requiring every merchant and manufacturer, to keep

Agriculture to do certain things, among them, paragraph a record of his daily sales either in English or in the

(c) "to require that animals which are suffering from Spanish language, and providing that any violation

dangerous communicable diseases or have been or failure to comply with the provisions of the circular

exposed thereto be placed in quarantine at such place will subject the offender to prosecution under the

and for such time as may be deemed by him necessary provisions of Section 185 of Act No. 2339.

to prevent the spread of the disease." Nowhere in the ISSUE:

law, however, is the violation of the orders of the Bureau Is the consular letter in question within the scope

of Agriculture prohibited or made unlawful, nor is there and purview of the authority delegated by Act No.

provided any punishment for a violation of such orders. 2339?

Section 8 provides that "any person violating any of the HELD:

provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished No. (1) Keeping of books in any particular language

by a fine of not more than one thousand pesos, or by not required by law. ~ The Collector is authorized to

imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both determine that persons subject to the percentage

such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the tax shall keep their sales record in a bound book of

court, for each offense." A violation of the orders of the numbered pages, and that this record shall be

Bureau of Agriculture, as authorized by paragraph (c), spread upon the books, in the tabulated form

is not a violation of the provision of the Act. The orders specified in the circular. But the law does not

of the Bureau of Agriculture, while they may possibly provide nor require that the books be kept in any

be said to have the force of law, are statutes and particular language.

particularly not penal statutes, and a violation of such (2) keeping of books in any language allowed by

orders is not a penal offense unless the statute itself law. ~ No one will deny that sales could be recorded

somewhere makes a violation thereof unlawful and in a bound volume as is specified using the

penalizes it. Nowhere in Act No. 1760 is a violation of tabulated form prescribed by the Collector in any

the orders of the Bureau of Agriculture made a penal modern language.

offense, nor is such violation punished in any way In other words, all the information could be recorded

therein.” in the designated book in the required form in

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Chinese or in local dialect or in some other
Agencies
languages as accurately as it could be recorded in of social unrest, or other similar critical situations

English or Spanish. requiring immediate action. In resolving whether to

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin assume jurisdiction over a case or to refer the same to
Agencies
the particular agency concerned, the COSLAP has to
CELIA S. VDA. DE HERRERA vs. EMELITA
consider the nature or classification of the land involved,
BERNARDO, EVELYN BERNARDO as Guardian of
the parties to the case, the nature of the questions raised,
Erlyn, Crislyn and Crisanto Bernardo (G.R. No.
and the need for immediate and urgent action thereon to
170251)
prevent injuries to persons and damage or destruction to
FACTS:

Respondents heirs of Crisanto S. Bernardo filed a

property. The law does not vest jurisdiction on the
complaint before the Commission for the Settlement of
COSLAP over any land dispute or problem.
Land Problems (COSLAP) against petitioner for
In the instant case, the COSLAP has no jurisdiction
interference and trespassing over a portion of a parcel of
over the subject matter of respondents' complaint. The
land. Petitioner alleged that he inherited his property from
present case does not fall under any of the cases
his father who bought from a certain Domingo Villaran.
enumerated under Section 3, paragraph 2 (a) to (e) of
The COSLAP ruled that respondents have a rightful claim
E.O. No. 561. The dispute between the parties is not
over the subject property. The Court of Appeals affirmed
critical and explosive in nature, nor does it involve a
the ruling. Hence, petitioner elevated the case to the
large number of parties, nor is there a presence or
Supreme Court.
emergence of social tension or unrest. It can also
ISSUE:
hardly be characterized as involving a critical
Whether or not the COSLAP has jurisdiction to decide the
situation that requires immediate action.
question of ownership between the parties.
~
HELD:
It is axiomatic that the jurisdiction of a tribunal, including
No. Administrative agencies, like the COSLAP, are
a quasi-judicial officer or government agency, over the
tribunals of limited jurisdiction that can only wield
nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is
powers which are specifically granted to it by its
determined by the material allegations therein and the
enabling statute.
character of the relief prayed for, irrespective of
1
whether the petitioner or complainant is entitled to any or
Under Section 3 of E.O. No. 561, the
all such reliefs.
COSLAP has two options in acting on a land dispute or
Since the COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the action, all
problem lodged before it, to wit:
the proceedings therein, including the decision
(a) refer the matter to the agency having appropriate
rendered, are null and void.2 A judgment issued by a
jurisdiction for settlement/resolution; or (b) assume
quasi-judicial body without jurisdiction is void. It
jurisdiction if the matter is one of those enumerated in
cannot be the source of any right or create any
paragraph 2 (a) to (e) of the law, if such case is critical
obligation.3 All acts performed pursuant to it and all
and explosive in nature, taking into account the large
claims emanating from it have no legal effect.
number of parties involved, the presence or emergence
4 Having to inspection by the members.2

no legal effect, the situation is the same as it would be as Thereafter, respondent Celestino Tabaniag and the other

if there was no judgment at all. It leaves the parties in the members sought an injunction to prevent Pablo Catura from

position they were before the proceedings. taking his oath of office after being re-elected in view of his

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin alleged persistence in the abuse of his authority in the
Agencies
disbursement of union funds as well as his refusal to make a full
CATURA vs CIR
and detailed report of all financial transactions of the union.
G.R. No. L-27392 January 30, 1971
Instead of granting the injunction sought, the order issued by
FACTS: Celestino Tabaniag as well as other employees
Associate Judge Joaquin M. Salvador limited itself to requiring
constituting more than ten percent of the entire membership of
and directing "personally the respondents Pablo Catura and
such labor organization filed a complaint against Pablo Catura
Luz Salvador, president and treasurer, respectively, of the
and Luz Salvador, the President and Treasurer, respectively, of
Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration Employees'
the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration Employees
Association, to deliver and deposit to this Court all the said
Association, a legitimate labor organization duly registered.
Association's book of accounts, bank accounts, pass books,
That during their tenure, they were responsible for unauthorized
union funds, receipts, vouchers and other documents related to
disbursement of union funds with complainants on various
the finances of the said labor union. There was a motion for
occasions and that when demanded from them a full and
reconsideration on January 2, 1967 by now petitioners Pablo
detailed report of all financial transaction of the records of the
Catura and Luz Salvador on the ground that they were not
financial activities of the union open to inspection by the
heard before such order was issued, which moreover in their
members, they refused.
opinion was beyond the power of respondent Court. With
The executive board of the said labor organization called for a
Associate Judge Ansberto P. Paredes dissenting, the order was
general membership meeting so that Pablo Catura and Luz
sustained in a resolution by the Court en banc on February 28,
Salvador could be confronted about the status of the union
1967. Hence the present petition filed.
funds. Pablo Catura, as President cancelled the meeting. The
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court acted beyond its power, when it
same was reiterated but there was no response. The members
ordered delivery and deposit of Association's book of accounts, bank
then referred the matter to the Department of Labor which
accounts, pass books, union funds, receipts, vouchers and other
issued subpoenas for the presentation of book accounts but
documents related to the finances
without success. After setting forth that complainants had
HELD:
exhausted all remedies provided in the union's constitution and
No, the Court did not act beyond its power when it called
by-laws, which were all unavailing, the complaint sought, after
for the exercise of the statutory power of investigation by
due hearing and judgement, to declare present petitioners, as
requiring the petitioners to deliver and deposit with the
respondents, guilty of unfair labor practice under the above
Court all of its book of accounts, bank accounts, pass
provision of the Industrial Peace Act, for them to cease and
books, union funds, receipts, vouchers and other
desist from further committing such unfair labor practice
documents related to its finances at the hearing of the
complained of, and to render a full and detailed report of all
petition before it on January 3, 1967.
financial transactions of the union as well as to make the book
The complaint against petitioners as President and
of accounts and other records of these financial activities open
Treasurer of the union, specifically recited an Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin
Agencies
unauthorized disbursement of union funds as well as the
G.R. Nos. 167274-75 July 21, 2008
failure to make a full and detailed report of financial
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,
transactions of the union and to make the book of
vs.
accounts and other records of its financial activities open
FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, Respondent.
to inspection by the member. The matter was deemed
Facts: Fortune Tobacco Corporation, herein respondent,
serious enough by the prosecutor of respondent
is a manufacturer/producer of several cigarette brands.
Court to call for the exercise of the statutory power
On the other hand, herein Petitioner, Commissioner of
of investigation to substantiate the alleged violation
Internal Revenue is a domestic corporation duly
so as to assure that the rights and conditions of
organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of
membership in a labor organization as specifically
the Republic of the Philippines. Fortune Tobacco was
set forth in Section 17 be respected.
granted a tax refund or tax credit representing specific
It cannot be said that such a requirement is beyond the
taxes erroneously collected from its tobacco products.
statutory power conferred. If it were otherwise, the
The tax refund is being re-claimed by the Commissioner
specific provisions of law allegedly violated may not be
of Internal Revenue in this petition.
effectively complied with. The authority to investigate
Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a refund
might be rendered futile if respondent Court could be held
as alleged overpaid excise tax for the month of January
as having acted contrary to law. To paraphrase Justice
2000?
Laurel, the power to investigate, to be conscientious and
Held:
rational at the very least, requires an inquiry into existing
Yes. Fortune Tobacco is entitled to a refund.
facts and conditions. The documents required to be
Fortune Tobaccos claim for refund is premised on its
produced constitutes evidence of the most solid
erroneous payment of the tax, or better still the
character as to whether or not there was a failure to
government’s exaction in the absence of a law.
comply with the mandates of the law. It is not for this
Tax refunds (or tax credits), on the other hand,
Court to whittle down the authority conferred on
are not founded principally on legislative grace but on
administrative agencies to assure the effective
the legal principle which underlies all quasi-contracts
administration of a statute, in this case intended to
abhorring a person’s unjust enrichment at the expense
protect the rights of union members against its
of another. The dynamic of erroneous payment of tax
officers. The matter was properly within its cognizance
fits to a tee the prototypic quasi-contract, solutio
and the means necessary to give it force and
indebiti, which covers not only mistake in fact but also
effectiveness should be deemed implied unless the
mistake in law.
power sought to be exercised is so arbitrary as to trench
In the case at bar, the rule in the interpretation
upon private rights of petitioners entitled to priority. No
of tax laws is that a statute will not be construed as
such showing has been made; no such showing can be
imposing a tax unless it does so clearly, expressly, and
made. To repeat, there should be no question about the
unambiguously. A tax cannot be imposed without clear
correctness of the order herein challenged
and express words for that purpose. Accordingly, the
general rule of requiring adherence to the letter in
construing statutes applies with peculiar strictness to tax
laws and the provisions of a taxing act are not to be
extended by implication.
The Government is not exempt from the
application of solutio indebiti. Indeed, the taxpayer
expects fair dealing from the Government, and the latter
has the duty to refund without any unreasonable delay
what it has erroneously collected. If the State expects its
taxpayers to observe fairness and honesty in paying
their taxes, it must hold itself against the same standard
in refunding excess (or erroneous) payments of such
taxes. It should not unjustly enrich itself at the expense
of taxpayers. And so, given its essence, a claim for tax
refund necessitates only preponderance of evidence for
its approbation like in any other ordinary civil case.
Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin
Agencies
G.R. No. L-6791 March 29, 1954
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
QUE PO LAY, defendant-appellant.
Facts:
This is an appeal raised by Que Po Lay based on
the claim that Circular #20 was not published in the
Official Gazette prior to the act or omission imputed by
the appellant. Under C.A. 638 and Act 2930 both
require that such circular be published in the Oficial
Gazette, but Solicitor General contends that the two
acts merely enumerate and make a list of what should
be published in the Official Gazette for guidance of the
different branches of the government.
Issue:
Whether or not such circular should be
published?
Held:
Yes. The question of non publication is
fundamental and decisive if as a matter of fact circular
#20 had not been published as required by law before
its violation then in the eyes of the law there was no such
circular to be violated consequently appellant
committed no violation on the circular nor committed
any offense.
Under the provisions of the old and new civil
code both requires publication on the Official Gazette to
be binding, although such circular of the central bank is
not a statute or law but it has a penal sanction for its
violation thus having the force and effect of the law
which should be published before becoming effective.
Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin
Agencies
Phil. Lawyer’s Association vs AGRAVA
FACTS:
Respondent Director issued a circular
announcing that he had scheduled for an
examination for the purpose of determining
who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys
before the Philippines Patent Office. The
petitioner contests that one who passed the bar
examinations and licensed by the Supreme
Court are duly qualified to practice before the
Philippine Patent Office.
Respondent answered that the prosecution of
patent cases does not involve entirely and
purely the practice of law but includes the
application of scientific and technical knowledge
and training.
Respondent also stated Sec. 78 of the Patent
Law of the Philippines which stated that the
“Director, subject to the approval of the Sec. of
Justice, shall promulgate the necessary rules
and regulations, not inconsistent with law, for
the conduct of all business in the Patent Office.”
ISSUE:
 WON the Director of Patents is allowed to hold his orders and decisions are, under the law,

an examination even if they are already member taken to the Supreme Court.

of the Bar? For the foregoing reasons, the petition for

HELD: prohibition is granted and the respondent

Although the transaction of business in the Director is hereby prohibited from requiring

Patent Office involves the use and application of members of the Philippine Bar to submit to an

technical and scientific knowledge and training, examination or tests and pass the same before

still, all such business has to be rendered in being permitted to appear and practice before

accordance with the Patent Law, as well as other the Patent Office. No costs.

laws, including the Rules and Regulations Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin
Agencies
promulgated by the Patent Office in accordance
MANUEL VS GENERAL AUDITING OFFICE
with law.
FACTS:
Not only this, but practice before the Patent
Benito Manuel who was Mayor of Lingayen,
Office involves the interpretation and
Pangasinan applied for retirement.
application of other laws and legal principles, as
He sought for the commutation of his vacation
well as the existence of facts to be established
and sick leave wherein he filed a memorandum
in accordance with the law of evidence and
to the General Auditing Office stating that he is
procedure.
entitled to unused vacation and sick leave
The above provisions of Section 78 certainly and
earned for a period of 10 years and 7 months.
by far, are different from the provisions of the
The General Auditing Office ruled that the
United States Patent Law as regards authority to
application of the petitioner could not be
hold examinations to determine the
allowed in audit.
qualifications of those allowed to practice
ISSUE:
before the Patent Office.
WON petitioner is entitled to the commutation
In conclusion, we hold that under the present
of his vacation and sick leaves.
law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized
HELD:
by this Tribunal to practice law, and in good
It is expressly provided under Section 286 of
standing, may practice their profession before
the Revised Administrative Code that vacation
the Patent Office, for the reason that much of
and sick leave shall be cumulative, any part
the business in said office involves the
thereof not taken within the calendar year
interpretation and determination of the scope
earned being carried over the succeeding years
and application of the Patent Law and other
with the employee voluntarily retiring or being
laws applicable, as well as the presentation of
separated from the service without fault on his
evidence to establish facts involved; that part of
part, being entitled to the commutation of all
the functions of the Patent director are judicial
such accumulated vacation or sick leave to his
or quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from
credit provided that it shall in no case exceed
ten (10) months. the power to summon witnesses by subpoena

There cannot be the least doubt therefore that dues tecum, administer oaths, testimony or

the petitioner, who was a municipal mayor and evidence relevant to the investigation.

as such an elective official for sixteen (16) • Petitioner Evangelista as Undersecretary of the

years, having to his credit four (4) successive Agecy issued to respondent Manalasta the

terms as Mayor of Lingayen, Pangasinan could Acting City Public Service Officer of Manila, a

not be denied his plea for the commutation for subpoena ad testificandum commanding him

vacation and sick leave. to appear as witness a th office of PARGO to

If, however, to be considered as having declare and testify on a pending investigations.

pertinence and relevance, it cannot as an • Instead of obeying the subpoena respondent

administrative order supplant the plain and filed with CFI of Manila a petition for

explicit statutory command. prohibition, certiorari on the case and assailed

A rule is binding on the courts as the procedure its legality

fixed for its promulgation is followed and its Issue:

scope is within the statutory power granted by Whether the Agency, acting thru its officials, enjoys th

the legislature, even if the courts are not in authority to issue subpoena in its conduct of factfinding
investigations?
agreement with the policy stated therein or its
Held:
innate wisdom.
Yes.
Nothing can be clearer therefore than that the
• The life blood of the administrative process is
claim of petitioner to a commutation of his
the flow of fact. the gathering, the organization
vacation and sick leave not exceeding ten (10)
and the analysis of evidence. Investigations are
months must be upheld, inasmuch as the facts
useful for all administrative function, not only
show that the total amount sought to be paid
for rule-making, adjudication, and licensing, but
to him was precisely in accordance with the
also for prosecuting, for supervising and
controlled legal provisions. The ruling now on
directing, for determining general policy, for
review must be versed and petitioner's plea
recommending legislation, and for the purpose
granted.
no more specific than illuminating obscure ares
Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin
Agencies to find out what if anything should be done. An

Evangelista vs Jarencio, 68 SCRA 99 (1975) adminstrative agency may be authorized to

Importance of administrative investigations make investigations, not only in proceedings of

Facts: a legislative or judicial nature, but alos in

• The President of the Philippines created the proceeding whose sole purpose is to obtain

Presidential Agency on Reforms and information upon which future action of a

Government Operations (PARGO). legislative or judicial nature may be taken and

• The President vested in the Agency all the may require the attendance of witnesses in

powers of an investigating committee including proceedings of a purely investigatory nature. It

may conduct general inquiries into evils calling caused personal injury and inconvenience and

for correction, and to report findings to prays for damages.

appropriate bodies and make • After hearing, the respondents BOC in both

recommendations for actions. cases held that the services renedered by

• administrative agencies may enforce petitioners was inadequate and unsatisfactory

subpoenas issued in the course of and imposed upon petitioners in each case a

investigations, whether or not adjudication is disciplinary fine of P200.

involved, and whether or not probable cause is Issue:

shown and even before the issuance of a Whether respondent Board has no jurisdiction to

complaint. The purpose of the subpoena is to entertain and take congizance of complaints for injury

discover evidence, not to prove a pending caused by breach of contractual obligatios arising from

charge, but upon which to make one if the negligence? and quasi-delict which should be ventilated

discovered evidence so justifies. in proper courts?

• Subpoena meets the requirements for Held:

enforcement if the inquiry is a.) within the No. BOC has no jurisdiction.

authority of the agency ,b.) the demand is not • The court stated that:

too definite , c.) the information is reasonably "There can be no jurisdiction then for the BOC

relevant. imposing fines in there two petitions. The law cannot be

• There is no doubt that the fact-finding any clearer. The only power if possessed over radio

investigations being conducted by the Agency companies as noted was to fix rates. It could not take to

upon sworn statements implicating certain task a radio company for any negligence or misfeasance.

officials of the City Government of Manila in It was not vested with such authority. That it did then in

anomalous transactions fall within the Agency's these two petitions lacked the impress of validity."

sphere of authority and that the information • The functions of BOC are limited and

sought to be elicited from respondent administrative in nature and it has only

Manalastas, of which he is claimed to be in jurisdiction and power as are expressly or by

possession is reasonably relevant to the necessary implication conferred upon it by

investigations. statues.

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin • One of these powers provided by law is the
Agencies
power to issue certificate of public convenience
Radio Communications of the Philippines vs BOC
and which does not carry with it the power of
Facts:
supervision and control over matters not related
• Two complaints were filed by complainants
thereto or performance therewith in the matter
Deigo Morales and Pacifica Innocencia against
suitable to promote public interest.
RCPI for its failure to transmit to them
• It is clear that petitioner has not been charge of
telegrams informing them of the deaths of
any violations or failure to comply with the
close relatives which accordings to them
terms and conditions of its certificate of public
convenience or of any order, decision,
regulation of respondent Board.
• The proper forum for complainants to ventilate
their grievances for the proper recovery of
damages against petitioner should be in the
Courts and not in the respondent BOC.
Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin
Agencies
Ollada vs Sec of Finance
109 Phil. 1072
The Secretary of Finance expressly authorized the
non-retroactivity of regulation which amended a
previous one.
FACTS
Under Sec.334 (now Sec.232) of the National
Internal Revenue Code, all corporations,
companies, partnerships or persons required by law
to pay internal revenue taxes whose gross quarterly
sales, earnings, etc. do not exceed P5000 are
required to keep & use a simplified set of
Bookkeeping Records duly authorized by the Sec.
of Finance. Pursuant to such authority, the Sec. of
Finance promulgated Revenue Regulations No. V13 authorizing the
use by the taxpayers whose
gross quarterly sales do not exceed P5000 a
simplified set of bookkeeping records.
The Secretary amended Revenue Regulations No.
V-13 by promulgating Revenue Regulations No. V43, which requires
that simplified set of bookkeeping
records should be especially designed for each
class/kind of trade and prepared by a CPA. The new
regulation was not intended to have a retroactive
effect and, therefore, could not adversely affect
those who had already acquired an accrued right
under the old regulation.
A CPA prepared & devised his own simplified sets
of bookkeeping records under the new regulation.
He then instituted proceedings praying that
respondent financial officials be enjoined from
further accepting, authorizing, and tolerating the
public’s use of simplified sets of bookkeeping
records not prepared in accordance with the new
regulation.
ISSUE
Whether the Secretary of Finance acted within his
authority in not giving retroactive effect to Revenue
Regulations No. V-43.
HELD
Yes.
The Secretary if Finance’s Resolution that Revenue
Regulations No. V-43 was not intended to have
retroactive effect was fully within his powers and
authority and becomes part of the regulation itself.
The Resolution is not clearly unreasonable and
arbitrary, and is, thus, entitled to recognition &
respect from the Courts. No one is better qualified
to interpret the intent behind the revenue regulations
than the authority that issued them.
Granting that the subsequent permission to use old
bookkeeping forms was incompatible with the new
regulation, such incompatibility would not render the
permission illegal and void since the Secretary may,
at any time, amend or revoke any of the regulations
he issued so long as it is in consonance with the
statute. The Secretary may change or repeal any of
the regulations he issued as he may see fit.
Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin
Agencies
IN RE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
ARMANDO RAMOS, JESUS L. CARMELO, in his
capacity as Chairman of the Probe Committee, Office
of the Mayor of Manila, petitioner-appellant, vs.
ARMANDO RAMOS, respondent-appellee.
FACTS: The Mayor of Manila issued an executive order power. All that the order gives to this body is the power

creating a committee "to investigate the anomalies involving the to investigate anomalies involving certain city employees.

license inspectors and other personnel of the License Even granting that the Mayor has the implied power to

Inspection Division of the Office of the City Treasurer and of the require the appearance of witnesses before him, the rule,

License and Permits Division of this Office (of the Mayor)." He is that the Mayor cannot delegate this power to a body

named Mr. Jesus L. Carmelo as chairman of said committee. like the committee of the petitioner.

In a statement given to investigators of the Office of One who invokes this provision of the law

the Mayor, Armando Ramos, a private citizen working as a (Section 580 of the Revised Administrative Code) must

bookkeeper in the Casa de Alba, admitted having first show that he has "authority to take testimony or

misappropriated sums of money given to him by the owner of evidence" before he can apply to the courts for the

Casa de Alba for the payment of the latter's taxes and that he punishment of hostile witnesses. Such provisions are

is used to entertain employees in the City Treasurer's office. applicable to the City of Manila as these pertain to

With the information, the committee issued subpoenas to national bureaus or offices of the government.

Ramos, in connection with an administrative case against Petitioner contends that the Mayor of Manila has

Crisanta Estanislao but Ramos, refused to appear. the implied power to investigate city officials and

Claiming that Ramos' refusal tended "to impede, employees appointed by him to the end that the power

obstruct, or degrade the administrative proceedings," petitioner expressly vested in him to suspend and remove such

filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition to declare officials of employees may be justly and fairly exercised.

Armando Ramos in contempt. We agree with this proposition. But We do not agree with

The lower court held that there is no law empowering the petitioner that a delegation of such power to

committees created by municipal mayors to issue subpoenas investigation implies also a delegation of the power to

and demand that witnesses testify under oath. And to compel take testimony or evidence of witnesses whose

Ramos to confirm this statement in the administrative case appearance may be require by the compulsory process

against certain employees in the Office of the City Treasurer of subpoena.

would be to compel him to give testimony that could be used Citing 50 Am. Jur. 449, petitioner contends that

against him in a criminal case for estafa of which the owner of "the power of the investigation committee to issue

Casa de Alba was the offended party. From that decision, compulsory process to secure the attendance of

petitioner appealed to this Court. witnesses undoubtedly exists since only complimentary

Petitioner invokes Section 580 of the Revised to the power of the mayor to investigate, suspend and

Administrative Code which provides for Powers incidental to remove city officers and employees, supra, is the

taking of testimony of administrative authorities. recognized rule that where the statute grants a right, it

ISSUE: Whether the power to investigate of the also confers by implication every particular power

committee includes the power to take testimony or necessary for the exercise thereof." There is no merit in

evidence of witnesses? the argument. In the first place, the authority cited speaks

HELD: There is nothing said in the executive order of the of statutory, grant of power to a body. Here, We have

Mayor creating the committee about such a grant of seen that whatever power may be claimed by petitioner's
committee may only be traced to the power of the Mayor No leaf tobacco or

to investigate as implied from his power to suspend or manufactured tobacco shall be

remove certain city employees. There is no statutory exported from the Philippine Islands to

grant of power to investigate to petitioner's committee. the United States until it shall have

50 Am. Jur. Sec. 428, p. 450 itself admits an exception to been inspected by the Collector of

the rule invoked by the petitioner. Thus, it is stated that Internal Revenue or his duly authorized

"where the liberty and property of persons are sought to representative and found to be

be brought within the operation of a power claimed to be standard for export ...

impliedly granted by an act because necessary to its due The Collector of Internal Revenue then

execution, the case must be clearly seen to be within promulgated Administrative Order No. 35, known as

those intended to be reached." Here, no less than the "Tobacco Inspection Regulations," in which clause B of

liberty of Armando Ramos is involved in the claim of the section 6 provides:

committee to the right to cite witnesses. To be classed as standard,

The rule is that Rule 64 (Contempt) 1 of the Rules cigars must be manufactured under

of Court applies only to inferior and superior courts and sanitary conditions from good, clean,

does not comprehend contempt committed against selected tobacco, properly cured and

administrative officials or bodies seasoned, of a crop which has been

We hold, therefore, that petitioner's committee harvested at least six months, exclusively

has no power to cite witnesses to appear before it and to the product of the provinces of Cagayan,

ask for their punishment in case of refusal. Isabela, or Nueva Vizcaya. The cigars

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of First Instance must be well made, with suitable spiral

of Manila is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as wrapper and with long filler, etc.

to costs. The petitioner applied to the Collector of Internal

Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin Revenue for a certificate of origin covering a consignment
Agencies
of 10,000 machine-made cigars to San Francisco, and as
WALTER E. OLSEN & CO., INC., petitioner, vs.
the petitioner himself stated on making such application
VICENTE ALDANESE, as Insular Collector of
that the cigars sought to be exported must have been
Customs of the Philippine Islands, and W. TRINIDAD,
manufactured from short-filler tobacco which was not the
as Collector of Internal Revenue, respondents.
product of the provinces of Cagayan, Isabela, and Nueva
FACTS: Act No. 2613 entitled "an act to improve the
Vizcaya, said cigars were neither inspected nor
methods of production and the quality of tobacco in the
examined by the Collector of Internal Revenue and were
Philippine and to develop the export trade therein."
rejected because they were not long-filler and were not
Empowers the Collector of Internal Revenue to establish
manufactured from tobacco grown in one of the three
certain general and local rules respecting the
provinces.
classification, marking and parking of tobacco for
Hence, petitioner filed a motion for judgment on
domestic sale or for exportation to the United States, and,
the pleadings.
among other things, provide:
ISSUE: Whether clause B of section 6 of Administrative tobacco produced in any other province. That would

Order No. 35, known as "Tobacco Inspection amount to discrimination and class legislation, which

Regulations," is valid? even the Legislature, would not have the power to enact.”

HELD: No. The court held clause B of section 6 of the Act Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin
Agencies
to be null and void.
Philippines Interisland Shipping Association of the
By the express terms and provisions of such
Phlippines vs CA 266 SCRA 489
rules and regulations promulgated by the Collector of
Facts:
Internal Revenue, it was his duty to refuse petitioner's
On Feb 3, 1986, President Ferdinand Marcos
request, and decline the certificate or origin, because the
(hereinafter PM) issued Executive Order 10885 which
cigars tendered were not of the specified kind, and we
increased the rates of the exisiting pilotage fees
have a right to assume that he performed his official duty
previously fixed by the Philippine Ports Authority6
as he understood it. After such refusal and upon such
(PPA
grounds, it would indeed, have been a vain and useless
hereinafter). PPA refused to enforce the said EO and,
thing for the Collector of Internal Revenue to his
instead, issued Memorandum Order No 43-867
examined or inspected the cigars.
(MO
Having refused to issue the certificate of origin
hereinafter). PPA and Intervenors maintained that EO
for the reason above assigned, it is very apparent that a
1088 was merely an administrative issuance and could
request thereafter made examine or inspect the cigars
be superseded by the MO by PPA. Moreover, to consider
would also have been refused.
EO 1088 as a statute would deprive PPA of its power to
The motion for judgment on the pleadings is
fix pilotage rates as mandated under its charter.
sustained, and the writ will issue, as prayed for in the
Issue: W/N EO is constitutional
petition, without costs. So ordered.
Decision:
Note: Guys..nothing in the full text yung hinahanap ni
NO. EO is in the nature of a law. PPA’s orders were in
Atty. Guerrero na “may dating” na decision ng court. Mas
the nature of subordinate legislation, promulgated in the
inexplain pa ng court yung naging actions ng CIR based
exercise of delegated power. As such, the orders can be
sa clause B of section 6 of ng A.O. No. 35 na void nman.
amended or revised by law, as the president did by
I’ll quote na lang De Leon p. 111 of Admin Law Book:
issuing the said EO. PM was authorizd under the 1973
“The purpose and intent of the Legislature was that a
Constitution to exercise legislative power. With the same
proper standard of the quality of tobacco should be fixed
power conferred to him, he created PPA8 and as PM can
and defined, and that all of those who produce tobacco
delegate the rate fixing power to PPA, he could also
at the same standard should have equal rights and
exercise the same in specific instances without
opportunities. It was never intended that a standard
withdrawing the delegated power to PPA. EO 1088’s
should be fixed which would limit the manufacture of
legislative purpose is the rationalization of pilotage
cigars for export to certain provinces of the Islands, or
service charges, through the imposition of uniform and
that the tobacco produced in one province should be
adjusted rates for foreign and coastwise veseels in all
measured by another and different standard than the
Philippine Ports.
SC conclude that EO 1088 is a valid statute and PPA is
duty bound to comply with its provisions. PPA may
increase the rates but it may not drecease them below
those mandated by EO 1088. PPA cannot refuse to
implement EO 1088 or alter it as it did in issuing MC 43-
86.
Therefore, the policy was one of governmental regulation
of the pilotage business. By leaving the matter to the
5 Providing for uniform and modified rates for pilotage
services rendered to foreign and coastwise vessels in all
private and public ports.
6 Government entity specially charged with the financing,
management and operations of public ports throughout the
archipelago. – www.ppa.com.ph
determination of the parties, the PPA jettisoned this
policy and changed it to laissez-faire, something which
only the legislature, or whoever is vested with law-making
authority could do.
7 presumed to have taken into consideration all the f acts
Fixing pilotage fees at rates lower than those provided in
EO 1088.
8 By Issuing PD 857.
Admin Law | Case Bank Week 3 | Powers and Functions of Admin
Agencies
Interprovincial Auto Bus Co (IAB) vs CIR
Facts:
IAB9 was assessed, on the 194,406 stubs of the
receipts which did not state the value of the goods
transported, by the Tax Agent with an assessed amount
of Php 7,776.24. The assessed amount was computed
by assuming that the value of the goods covered by each
of the reciprts amounted to more than Php 5.00, and
assessed a Documentary Stamp Tax on each of the
194,406 stubs. Plaintiff demanded the refund of the
amount, and upon refusal, plaintiff filed the action
anchoring on the validity of the Regulation No. 2610 by
the Department of Finance, promulgated under the
Authority11 of Admin Code.
Issue: Is the Regulation No. 26 unconstitutional when it
created a presumption of liability to tax if the receipt fails
to state such value?
Held: NO. The regulation falls within the scope of the
administrative power of the Secretary of Finance, as
authorized in the Revised Administrative Code, because
it is essential to the strict enforcement and proper
execution of the law which it seeks to implement. Said
regulations have the force and effect of law. The
regulation impliedly required the statement of the value
of the goods in the receipts so that the collection of the
tax can be enforced. IAB failed to do and now claims the
unreasonableness of the provision as a basis for his
exemption.
“All presumptions are in favor of the correctness of tax
assessments. The good faith of tax assessors and the
validity of their actions are presumed. They will be
to which their attention was called. No presumption can
be indulged that all of the public officials of the state in
9 A common carrier engaged in transporting passengers and
freight receipts.
10 “SEC. 121. Basis of the tax and affixture of stamps.—Bills of lading
are
exempt from the documentary stamp tax imposed by paragraphs (q)
and (r)
of section 1449 of the Administrative Code when the value of the
goods
shipped is P5 or less. Unless the bill of lading states that the goods
are worth
P5 or less, it must be held that the tax is due, and internal revenue
officers
will see to it that the tax is paid in all cases where the bill of lading
does not
state that the shipment is worth P5 or less.”
“SEC. 127. ‘Chits,’ memorandum slips, and other papers not in the
usual

commercial form of bills of lading, when used by common carriers in

the

the various counties who have to do with the assessment

of property for taxation will knowingly violate the duties

imposed upon them by law.”

“As a logical outgrowth of the presumption in favor of the

validity of assessments, when such assessments are

assailed, the burden of proof is upon the complaining

party. It is incumbent upon the property owner clearly to

show that the assessment was erroneous, in order to

relieve himself from it.”

transportation of merchandise or goods for the collection of fees

therefor are

considered as bills of lading, and the orginal thereof issued or used

should

bear the documentary stamp as provided by paragraphs (q) and (r)

of section

1449 of the Administrative Code.”

11 The Department Head shall have power to promulgate, whenever

he may

see fit to do so, all rules, regulations, orders, circulars,

memorandums, and

other instructions, not contrary to law, necessary to regulate the

proper

working and harmonious and efficient administration of each and all

of the

offices and dependencies of his Department, and for the strict

enforcement

and proper execution of the laws relative to matters under the

jurisdiction

of said Department; but none of said rules or orders shall prescribe

penalties

for the violation thereof, except as expressly authorized by law. * *

*."