12/3/2019
Scire Licet
legal knowledge base

  on 8:16 AM  in Case Digests, Notes, Political Law  0
About
Privacy & Terms
Disclaimer
Search
Popular Posts
List of Case Digests
Arranged in alphabetical
order (according to last
names), for your convenience.
Note that Chinese names are
mostly written with the last
nam...
ARTICLE VII: Executive
Department
Sec. 1: President “The
executive power shall be
vested in the President of the
Philippines.” Sec. 2:
Quali cations Natural-born
citizen...
BILL OF RIGHTS: Rights of an
Accused
RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED
Before Criminal Prosecution:
(before arraignment) Right to
due process ( Sec. 14(1) )
Custodial rights ( Sec. 12 ) ...
Pages
Case Digests
Notes
Law Primers
Links
Atty. Ralph A. Sarmiento
AttyAtWork
scire-licet.blogspot.com/2008/05/administrative-agencies-and.html
Administrative Agencies and Reorganization ~ Scire Licet
Administrative Agencies and Reorganization
Administrative Agencies
De nition
(See De nition of Terms under E.O. 292)
***Q: Is Cebu City Government an agency?
A: Yes, under sec. 2(4), E.O. 292, “Agency of the Government refers to any of the various units of the
Government, including a department, bureau, of ce, instrumentality, or government-owned or
controlled corporation, or a local government or a distinct unit therein.
***Q: Differentiate department from instrumentality.
A: Both are agencies of government but occupy different places under the administrative structure.
While a department refers to an executive department created by law, an instrumentality is any
agency of the National Government that is not integrated within the departmental framework. Thus,
a department includes bureaus and the of ces under it, while instrumentality covers all other
administrative bodies, including regulatory agencies, chartered institutions and government-owned
or controlled corporations. An instrumentality is vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law,
endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying
operational autonomy, usually through a charter.
(NOTA BENE: It is legally signi cant to distinguish between the two for purposes of
ascertaining who has power of control over a particular administrative body and in order to
determine whether the creation, reorganization or abolition of the same is validly done.)
Creation, Reorganization and Abolition
HOW AN AGENCY IS CREATED:
1. by the Constitution
2. by statute
3. by authority of law
Sec. of DOTC vs. Mabalot, 378 SCRA 129 (2000)
FACTS:
The Sec. of DOTC issued to LTFRB Chairman MO 96-735, transferring the regional functions of
that of ce to DOTCCAR Regional Of ce, pending creation of a Regional LTFRO. Later, the new
Sec. of DOTC issued DO 97-1025, establishing the DOTCCAR Regional Of ce as the Regional
Of ce of the LTFRB to exercise regional functions of the LTFRB in the CAR subject to the direct
supervision and control of the LTFRB Central Of ce. Mabalot protested.
1/8
12/3/2019 Administrative Agencies and Reorganization ~ Scire Licet

Herald Digital Laws

Philippines ISSUE:
Lexoterica
W/N the MO and DO are violative of the provision of the Constitution against encroachment on
Philippine E-Legal Forum
the powers of the legislative department
Pinoy Law Student

Punzi - Semper Fidelis HELD:

The Law PH
SC upheld the validity of the issuance of the challenged orders.

In the absence of any patent or latent constitutional or statutory in rmity attending the
issuance of the challenged orders, Court upholds. The President, through his duly constituted
political agent and alter ego, may legally and validly decree the reorganization of the
Department, particularly the establishment of the DOTCCAR as the LTFRB Regional Of ce of
CAR with the concomitant transfer and performance of public functions and responsibilities
appurtenant to a regional of ce of the LTFRB.

There are three modes of establishing an administrative body: (1) Constitution; (2) Statute; and
(3) by authority of law. This case falls under the third category.

The DOTC Secretary, as alter ego of the President, is authorized by law to create and establish
the LTFRB-CAR Regional Of ce. This is anchored on the President’s “power of control” under
sec. 17, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution.

By de nition, control is “the power of an of cer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a
subordinate of cer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of
the former for that of the latter.” It includes the authority to order the doing of an act by a
subordinate or to undo such act or to assume a power directly vested in him by law.

Under sec. 20, Bk. III, E.O. 292, the Chief Executive is granted residual powers, stating that
“unless Congress provides otherwise, the President shall exercise such other powers and
functions vested in the President which are provided for under the laws xxx”

What law then gives him the power to reorganize? It is PD 1772 which amended PD 1416.
These decrees expressly grant the President of the Philippines the continuing authority to
reorganize the national government, which includes the power to group, consolidate bureaus
and agencies, to abolish of ces, to transfer functions, to create and classify functions, services
and activities and to standardize salaries and materials.

Granted that the President has the power to reorganize, was the reorganization of DOTCCAR
valid?

In this jurisdiction, reorganization is regarded as valid provided it is pursued in good faith. As a

general rule, a reorganization is carried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or
to make bureaucracy more ef cient. The reorganization in the instant case was decreed “in the
interest of service” and “for purposes of economy and more effective coOrdination of the DOTC
functions in the Cordillera Administrative Region.” It thus bear the earmarks of good faith.

Eugenio vs. CSC, 243 SCRA 196 (1995)

scire-licet.blogspot.com/2008/05/administrative-agencies-and.html 2/8
12/3/2019 Administrative Agencies and Reorganization ~ Scire Licet

FACTS:

Eugenio, the Deputy Director of Philippine Nuclear Research Institute, applied for a Career
Executive Service (CES) Eligibility and a CESO rank. But before she got the rank, the CSC passed
Resolution No. 93-459, reorganizing itself and changing the CES Board (CESB) to Of ce for
Career Executive Service of the Civil Service Commission (OCES).

ISSUE:

W/N CSC usurped legislative function of Congress by abolishing the CESB and transferring its
budget to OCES

HELD:

CESB was created by PD 1. It cannot be disputed, therefore, that as CESB was created by law, it
can only be abolished by the legislature. While CSC has the power to reorganize under Sec. 17,
Chap. 3, Subtitle A, Title I, Bk. V. of the Administrative Code of 1987, this must be read with
sec. 16, which enumerates the of ces under the control of the CSC. CESB is not one of such
of ces.

CESB was intended to be an autonomous entity, albeit administratively attached to CSC. This
essential autonomous character of the CESB is not negated by its attachment to respondent
Commission. By said attachment, CESB was not made to fall within the control of respondent
Commission. Under the Administrative Code of 1987, the purpose of attaching one functionally
inter-related government agency to another is to attain “policy and program coordination.”

De la Llana vs. Alba, 112 SCRA 294 (1982)

>

The issue in this case is whether or not B.P. 129, An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, is
unconstitutional, considering that in the time-honored principle protected and safeguarded by
the constitution the judiciary is supposed to be independent from legislative will. Does the
reorganization violate the security of tenure of justices and judges as provided for under the
Constitution?

HELD:

Nothing is better settled in our law than that the abolition of an of ce within the competence
of a legitimate body if done in good faith suffers from no in rmity. What is really involved in
this case is not the removal or separation of the judges and justices from their services. What is
important is the validity of the abolition of their of ces.

It is a well-known rule that valid abolition of of ces is neither removal nor separation of the
incumbents. Of course, if the abolition is void, the incumbent is deemed never to have ceased
to hold of ce. As well-settled as the rule that the abolition of an of ce does not amount to an
illegal removal of its incumbent is the principle that, in order to be valid, the abolition must be
made in good faith.

Removal is to be distinguished from termination by virtue of valid abolition of the of ce. There
can be no tenure to a non-existent of ce. After the abolition, there is in law no occupant. In
case of removal, there is an of ce with an occupant who would thereby lose his position. It is in

scire-licet.blogspot.com/2008/05/administrative-agencies-and.html 3/8
12/3/2019 Administrative Agencies and Reorganization ~ Scire Licet

that sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the question of any impairment of security of
tenure does not arise.

Larin vs. Executive Secretary, 280 SCRA 713 (1997)

FACTS:

Larin, a Revenue Speci c Tax Of cer under the Assistant Commissioner of the BIR, is convicted
of crimes of violation of sec. 268 (4) NIRC and sec. 3 (e) RA 3019 (grave misconduct). Acting by
authority of the president, Sr. Deputy Executive Secretary Quisumbing issued a memorandum
order, creating an Executive Committee to investigate Larin’s administrative charge. While the
investigation was going on, the President issued E.O. 132, streamlining the BIR and abolishing
the of ce of the Speci c Tax Service. Afterwards, Larin was found guilty and was subsequently
dismissed. However, in the appealed case, SC set aside the conviction of Larin

ISSUE:

W/N Larin was unlawfully removed from of ce

(1) Does the President have the power to dismiss him? Reorganize the BIR?
(2) Was reorganization valid, considering that there was no law enacted by Congress
authorizing reorganization by the Executive

HELD:

SC held that removal as a result of reorganization was done in bad faith.

Does the President have the power to dismiss him?

Larin is a presidential appointee. As such, he comes under the direct disciplining authority of
the President for “the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint.” However, Larin is a
career service of cer, therefore, he enjoys security of tenure. Under the Civil Service Decree,
career service of cers and employees who enjoy security of tenure may be removed only for any
of the causes enumerated in said law. In other words, the fact that the petitioner is a
presidential appointee does not give the appointing authority the license to remove him at will
or at his pleasure for it is an admitted fact that he is likewise a career service of cer who under
the law is the recipient of tenurial protection, thus, may only be removed for a cause and in
accordance with procedural due process.

Was the removal for a legal cause under a valid proceeding?

SC held that the removal complied with the requirements for procedural due process but that
the dismissal was not for a valid cause. The basis used in Larin’s removal is the criminal
conviction against him, but this conviction was later set aside by the Supreme Court upon
appeal. Where the very basis of the administrative case against petitioner is his conviction in
the criminal action which was later on set aside by this court upon a categorical and clear
ndings that the acts for which he was administratively held liable are not unlawful and
irregular, the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case necessarily entails the dismissal of
the administrative action against him, because in sch a case, there is no basis nor justi able
reason to maintain the administrative suit.

scire-licet.blogspot.com/2008/05/administrative-agencies-and.html 4/8
12/3/2019 Administrative Agencies and Reorganization ~ Scire Licet

Does the President have the power to reorganize the BIR?

Yes, under sec. 48 and 62 of RA 7645, sec. 20, Bk. III of EO 292 (Residual Powers), and PD 1772
which amended PD 1416. But while the President’s power to reorganize can not be denied, this
does not mean however that the reorganization itself is properly made in accordance with law.
Well-settled is the rule that reorganization is regarded as valid provided it is pursued in good
faith.

When is there reorganization made in good faith?

The general rule is that a reorganization is carried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of
economy or to make bureaucracy more ef cient. In that event no dismissal or separation
actually occurs because the position itself ceases to exist. And in that case the security of
tenure would not be a Chinese Wall. Be that as it may, if the abolition which is nothing else but
a separation or removal, is done for political reasons or purposely to defeat security of tenure,
or otherwise not in good faith, no valid abolition takes place and whatever abolition is done is
void ab initio.

What are the marks of bad faith in removal as a result of reorganization?

Sec. 2, RA 6656 enumerates the circumstances evidencing bad faith in the removal of
employees as a result of reorganization:

(1) Where there is a signi cant increase in the number of positions in the new staf ng pattern
of the department or agency concerned;
(2) Where an of ce is abolished and another performing substantially the same functions is
created;
(3) Where incumbents are replaced by those less quali ed in terms of status of appointment,
performance and merit;
(4) Where there is a reclassi cation of of ces in the department or agency concerned and the
reclassi ed of ces perform substantially the same functions as the original of ces;
(5) Where the removal violates the order of separation provided in sec. 3 hereof.

Cebu United Enterprises v. Gallo n, 106 Phil 491 (1959)

FACTS:

Cebu United Enterprises has import license to purchase over issue newspaper from the US.
However, this license expired on Dec. 16, or one day before the date of the importation of the
items. Gallo n, the collector of customs, refused to deliver the imported items on the ground
that Cebu United Enterprises was importing goods without a valid license.

ISSUE:

W/N duly executed acts of a governmental agency can have valid effects even beyond the life
span of said agency

HELD:

Although RA 650 creating the Import Control Commission (ICC) expired on July 31, it is to be

scire-licet.blogspot.com/2008/05/administrative-agencies-and.html 5/8
12/3/2019 Administrative Agencies and Reorganization ~ Scire Licet

conceded that its duly executed acts can have valid effects even beyond the life span of said
government agency. The ICC who issued the license was abolished yet, the LICENSE was
extended, the latter has still its valid effects.

Crisostomo vs. CA, 258 SCRA 134 (1996)

FACTS:

Crisostomo was appointed the President of the Philippine College of Commerce (PCC) by the
President of the Philippines. During his incumbency, two administrative charges were led
against him for illegal use of government vehicles, misappropriation of construction materials,
oppression and harassment, grave misconduct, nepotism and dishonesty before the Of ce of
the President. Likewise, he was also charged with violation of Anti-Grant and Corrupt Practices
Act with the Tanodbayan. As such, he was preventively suspended and Dr. Mateo was
designated as the of cer-in-charge in his place. Meanwhile, Pres. Marcos passed PD 1341
converting PCC into PUP with Mateo as President. Crisostomo was later acquitted and his
administrative charges were dismissed.

ISSUE:

Did PD 1314 abolish PCC?

HELD:

PD 1314 did not abolish, but only changed the PCC into what is now PUP. What took place was a
change in the academic status of the educational institution, not in its corporate life. Hence,
the change in its name, the expansion of its curriculum offerings and changes in its structure
and organization.

As a general rule, when the purpose of the lawmaking authority is to abolish the of ce and
create a new one, he says so. In the instant case, PD 1314 merely states that PCC is converted
into the PUP. In addition, the law does not state that the lands, buildings and equipment owned
by the PCC were being “transferred” to the PUP but only that they “stand transferred” to it.
“Stand transferred” simply means, for example, that lands transferred to the PCC were to be
understood as transferred to the PUP as the new name of the institution.

***Q: Who has the power to reorganize?

A: It depends. In order to determine who has the power to reorganize, it is essential to characterize
whether the body to be reorganized is a department or an instrumentality of government. Under EO
292, the President is given the power of control over all departments, bureaus and of ces under the
executive branch. Since the power of control includes the power to reorganize, then the power to
reorganize a department, a bureau or an of ce can be said to be lodged in the President. On the
other hand, an instrumentality is, as a general rule, created by statute or made pursuant to a law.
So unless the law creating such instrumentality delegates the authority to reorganize to a separate
body, the power to reorganize such is with Congress.

***Q: When is reorganization of administrative agencies valid?

A: First, determine whether the agency is a department or an instrumentality in order to determine
who has the authority to reorganize. Then, determine whether the reorganization is done in good

scire-licet.blogspot.com/2008/05/administrative-agencies-and.html 6/8
12/3/2019 Administrative Agencies and Reorganization ~ Scire Licet

faith, not in good faith, or in bad faith. Reorganization is in good faith if done for the purpose of
economy and ef ciency.

***Q: May a public of cer validly claim violation of security of tenure as a result of
abolition of of ce?
A: It depends on the validity of the abolition. Was the abolition done by someone who has authority?
To determine who has authority to abolish, bear in mind the three modes of creating an of ce: (1)
Constitution; (2) Statute; and (3) authority by law. An of ce created by the Constitution may only be
abolished by Constitutional amendment or revision, unless the Constitution itself provides for
another mode of abolition. Likewise, an of ce created by Statute, may, as a general rule, be only
abolished by Congress, unless this power is delegated. And the President may abolish an of ce if
such of ce is under his power of control and Congress has not provided for a different mode of
abolition.

So if the abolition is made by someone with authority, then was it done in good faith? Abolition is in
good faith if the purpose is for economy and ef ciency, or if it not done in bad faith, bearing in mind
the circumstances evidencing bad faith.

If done in good faith, then the abolition is valid. When there is valid abolition, there can be no
separation or removal from of ce and the affected public of cer cannot claim violation of security of
tenure for there can be no tenure to a non-existent of ce.

***Q: May an of cial of an abolished of ce claim vested right to that of ce?

A: There is no such thing as a vested right to an of ce. The only exceptions are those of ces
established by the Constitution, such as the Constitutional Commissions, etc.

***Q: In case of abolition and a new of ce is thereby created, may the incumbent of the
abolished of ce claim preference to that new of ce?
A: The concept of preference is illustrated in the next-in-rank rule. Under that rule, anyone who is
employed on a permanent basis in a position that has been previously determined to be next-in-rank
to the vacated of ce and who is quali ed is given preference to said of ce. This presupposes that
there is an old of ce which is vacated. Thus, the rule does not apply to a newly created of ce, which
necessarily entails new positions. Besides, preference only means that the old employee should be
considered rst but it does not automatically follow that they should then be automatically
reappointed.

Share This:    Facebook  Twitter  Google+  Stumble  Digg

Related Posts:

AKBAYAN vs. Aquino

G.R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008JPEPADiplomatic Negotiations are
PrivilegedExecutive Privilege, an Exception to Congress' Power of InquiryTreaty-
making … Read More

Oh Cho vs. Director of Lands

G.R. No. 48321, August 31, 1946GR: All lands are acquired from the Government,
either by purchase or by grant.EXCEPTION: Lands under private ownership… Read
More

Republic vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City

scire-licet.blogspot.com/2008/05/administrative-agencies-and.html 7/8
12/3/2019 Administrative Agencies and Reorganization ~ Scire Licet

G.R. No. 73974, May 31, 1995Regalian DoctrineBurden of Proof of private

ownership rests on plaintiffDoctrine of indefeasibility of Torrens title, exce… Read
More

Sunbeam Convenience Foods, Inc. vs. CA

G.R. No. 50464, Jan. 29, 1990FACTS:Sunbeam Convenience Foods, Inc. is the
recipient of a Sales Patent issued by the Bureau of Lands over two parcels o… Read
More

De Leon vs. Carpio

178 SCRA 457 (1989)ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: Power of "control" of the President
over all executive departmentsFACTS:Estavillo and de Leon are two NBI agent…
Read More

Newer Post Home Older Post

0 comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post
Create a Link

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Mga sumusubaybay (47) Susunod Blog Archive Labels

May 2008 (15) Bar Exams (4) Blog (15) Books (4) Case
Digests (131) Civil Law (38)
Sundin Total Pageviews Commercial Law (16) Criminal Law (21)
Hiatus (7) Labor Law (15) Law Primer (15)
644,094 Legal Ethics (1) Legal Forms (2) MCQ (1)
Miscellaneous (11) News (1) Notes (41)
Political Law (66) Private International
Law (18) Remedial Law (23) Taxation
(19) Tips (3) Torts and Damages (1)

Copyright © 2019 Scire Licet | Powered by Blogger

Design by Duan Zhiyan | Blogger Theme by NewBloggerThemes.com

scire-licet.blogspot.com/2008/05/administrative-agencies-and.html 8/8