1. HOLY SPIRIT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v.

SECRETARY MICHAEL
DEFENSOR, GR NO. 163980, July 03, 2006

FACTS:

President Ferdinand Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1826, reserving a parcel of land in
Constitution Hills, Quezon City, covering a little over 440 hectares... as a national
government site to be known as the NGC. Later, President Corazon Aquino issued
Proclamation No. 137, excluding 150 of the 440 hectares of the reserved site and
authorizing instead the disposition of the excluded portion by direct sale to the bona fide
residents therein.

In view of the rapid increase in population density in the portion excluded by Proclamation
No. 137, President Fidel Ramos issued Proclamation No. 248 authorizing the vertical
development of the excluded portion to maximize the number of families who can
effectively become beneficiaries of the government's socialized housing program. President
Arroyo signed into law R.A. No. 9207. Sec. 3. Disposition of Certain Portions of the National
Government Center Site to Bona Fide Residents. Proclamation No. 1826, Series of 1979, is
hereby amended by excluding from the coverage thereof, 184 hectares on the west side and
238 hectares on the east side of Commonwealth Avenue, and declaring the same open for
disposition to bona fide residents therein:

In accordance with Section 5 of R.A. No. 9207,[4] the Committee formulated the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9207. Petitioner Holy Spirit
Homeowners Association, Inc. (Association)
subsequently filed the petition for prohibition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Supreme court has jurisdiction in the petition for prohibition filed by
the petitioners regarding constitutionality of R.A. 9207.

HELD:

YES. The Supreme court has jurisdiction in the petition for prohibition filed by the
petitioners regarding constitutionality of R.A. 9207. However, procedural rules should be
followed following the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.

Administrative agencies possess quasi-legislative or rule-making powers and quasi-judicial

or administrative adjudicatory powers. Quasi-legislative or rule-making power is the
power to make rules and regulations which results in delegated legislation that is within
the confines of the granting statute and the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of
powers.

In questioning the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by an

administrative agency, a party need not exhaust administrative remedies before going to
court. It applies only where the act of the administrative agency concerned was performed
pursuant to its quasi-judicial function, and not when the assailed act pertained to its rule-
making or quasi-legislative power.

The assailed IRR was issued pursuant to the quasi-legislative power of the Committee
expressly authorized by R.A. No. 9207.

Where what is assailed is the validity or constitutionality of a rule or regulation issued by

the administrative agency in the performance of its quasi-legislative function, the regular
courts have jurisdiction to pass upon the same and should follow the doctrine of hierarchy
of courts.

Where the principal relief sought is to invalidate an IRR, petitioners' remedy is an ordinary
action for its nullification, an action which properly falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC.
Therefore, the instant petition for prohibition is DISMISSED based on the foregoing
procedural grounds.

2. VDA FISH BROKER vs. NLRC, G.R. No. Nos. 76142-43 December 27, 1993

On 14 May 1982, a complaint for non-payment of service incentive leave pay, emergency
cost of living allowance, thirteenth month pay, legal holiday and premium pay for rest day
and holiday was filed against VDA, and Venerando and Corazon Alonzo by Samahan ng
Nagkakaisang Batilyo.

On 26 May 1983, Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for lack of merit for having no employer-
employee relationship between VDA and the batilyos. It was ruled out that the batilyo are
paid by the results according to the number of bañ eras they have completed. Fish brokers
have no control and supervision over the batilyos. After completing their job for two or
four hours they could abandon the fish brokers and transfer to another fish broker. They
don't observe any regular working hours nor (do) the accomplish any time record.

The Labor Arbiter discarded the alleged written agreement which recognize the existence
of direct employer-employee relationship between fish brokers and batilyos because it did
not appear that VDA was a signatory therein. No appeal was taken from this decision.

Later, the two complainants again filed a complaint for damages. NLRC reversed the
decision of the previous decision of the labor arbiter. Petioner filed a petition for
prohibition of the said decision on the ground that a previous case ruling that no
employment relationship existed between the private parties constituted a bar to the
present suit.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a concept of res judicata is also applied to administrative decisions.

HELD:

YES. The concept of res judicata is also applied to administrative decisions.

It is well-established in our jurisprudence that the decisions and orders of administrative

agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have upon their finality, the
force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine of res
judicata. The rule of res judicata which forbids the reopening of a matter once judicially
determined by competent authority applies as well to the judicial and quasi-judicial acts of
public, executive or administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction as to
the judgments of courts having general judicial powers.

There obviously being grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the petition for issuance of a writ of
certiorari is granted and the assailed decision of respondent NLRC is SET ASIDE.
 3. NHA vs. Almeida, GR NO. 162784, June 22, 2007

FACTS:

Margarita and NHA executed a Contract to Sell, Margarita being the buyer. However,
Margarita died
before she was able to pay fully the property.

Francisca, the remaining child of the late Margarita Herrera, executed a Deed of Self-
Adjudication claiming that she is the only remaining relative, being the sole surviving
daughter of the deceased. She also claimed to be the exclusive legal heir of the late
Margarita Herrera despite the existence of the children of her sister Beatriz. Beatriz
predeceased Margarita.

The children of Beatriz filed for the annulment of the Deed of Self Adjudication. During trial
on the merits of the case assailing the Deed of Self-Adjudication, Francisca Herrera filed an
application with the NHA to purchase the same lots submitting therewith a copy of the
"Sinumpaang Salaysay" executed by her mother. Private respondent Almeida, as heir of
Beatriz Herrera-Mercado, protested the application. However, the property was eventually
awarded to Francisca. Private respondent Segunda Mercado-Almeida sought the
cancellation of the titles issued in favor of the heirs of Francisca.

RTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. CA reversed and held that the RTC had
jurisdiction to hear and decide the case involving "title and possession to real property
within its jurisdiction. RTC rendered a Decision setting aside the resolution of the NHA.

ISSUE:

Whether or not had NHA acted grave abuse of discretion when they assigned the right to
buy the property to Francisca upon the death of Margarita.

upon her death.

HELD:

YES. NHA had acted grave abuse of discretion when they assigned the right to buy the
property to Francisca upon the death of Margarita. When the petitioner received the
"Sinumpaang Salaysay," it should have noted that the effectivity of the said document
commences at the time of death of the author of the instrument; in her words "sakaling
ako'y bawian na ng Dios ng aking buhay…" Hence, in such period, all the interests of the
person should cease to be hers and shall be in the possession of her estate until they are
transferred to her heirs by virtue of Article 774 of the Civil Code.

The NHA gave due course to the application made by Francisca Herrera without
considering that the initial applicant's death would transfer all her property, rights and
obligations to the estate including whatever interest she has or may have had over the
disputed properties. To the extent of the interest that the original owner had over the
property, the same should go to her estate. Margarita Herrera had an interest in the
property and that interest should go to her estate upon her demise so as to be able to
properly distribute them later to her heirs—in accordance with a will or by operation of
law.

The Decision which rendered the deed therein null and void should have alerted the NHA
that there are other heirs to the interests and properties of the decedent who may claim the
property after a testate or intestate proceeding is concluded. NHA therefore acted
arbitrarily in the award of the lots.

4. NASIPIT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 54424 August 31, 1989

FACTS:

Private respondent Juanito Collado was employed by petitioner as a security guard. He was

implicated in the theft and was thereafter placed under preventive suspension. NALCO filed
a petition (application) for clearance to dismiss Collado with the RTC. Collado filed an
opposition to said application for clearance to dismiss.  The case was set for hearing the
following day, but Collado, despite notice, failed to appear.  Hence, NALCO was allowed to
present evidence ex-parte. The application for clearance to dismiss was approved.
Collado filed a motion for the reconsideration of said order on the ground that he was not
given an opportunity to rebut the false findings or adduce evidence in his favor.  He further
denied participation in the theft. The case against her was subsequently dismissed.
The Acting Secretary of Labor issued an order affirming the order of Officer-in-Charge
granting petitioner's application for clearance to dismiss Collado. Instead of resorting to
this Court on a petition for certiorari, Collado filed a complaint before the Butuan District
Labor Office, for unjust dismissal and reinstatement with backwages and benefits. Without
going to specifics, Collado averred therein that his termination from employment "was
unfounded, unjust and illegal, based as it was on uncorroborated and malicious suspicion,
insinuation and hearsay, and characterized by harassment."
NALCO filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  It alleged that in view of Acting
Secretary's aforesaid order, Collado did not have any sufficient cause of action and
therefore his complaint was a nuisance and it becomes final and executory, the issue of
illegal dismissal had also become res judicata.
Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ordering NALCO to reinstate Collado to his former
position without backwages and without loss of seniority rights. Both parties appealed to
the NLRC. It rendered a decision modifying the Executive Labor Arbiter's decision by
ordering Collado's reinstatement to his former position with two (2)
years backwages without qualification and loss of seniority rights.
NALCO seeks to annul NLRC decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not NLRC violated the principle of res judicata.

HELD:

NO. NLRC did not violate the principle of res judicata.

The principle of res judicata may not be invoked in labor relations proceedings considering
that Section 5, Rule XIII, Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code
provides that such proceedings are "non-litigious and summary in nature without regard to
legal technicalities obtaining in courts of law. The doctrine of res judicata applies only to
judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of administrative powers.
However, the sensitivity of Collado's job as a security guard vis-a-vis the cause of his
dismissal cost him his right to be rehired to the same position. Reinstatement is not proper
where termination of employment was due to breach of trust and confidence NLRC
decision reversed
In this case, petitioner supported its application for clearance to
terminate Collado's employment with sworn statements implicating him in the theft. Such
sworn statements are sufficient to warrant the dismissal.  On the other hand, the dropping
of the qualified theft charges against Collado is not binding upon a labor tribunal.
Thus, the decision of the NLRC is hereby reversed and set aside.  Juanito Collado's dismissal
from employment is hereby declared valid.  

5. PHILIPPINE INTERISLAND SHIPPING ASSOCIATION OF PHILIPPINES v. CA, GR

No. 100481, January 22, 1997

FACTS:

President Marcos, responding to the clamor of harbor pilots for an increase in pilotage
rates, issued Executive Order No. 1088, PROVIDING FOR UNIFORM AND MODIFIED RATES
FOR PILOTAGE SERVICES RENDERED TO FOREIGN AND COASTWISE VESSELS IN ALL
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PORTS. The executive order increased substantially the rates of the
existing pilotage fees previously fixed by the PPA.

However, the PPA refused to enforce the executive order on the ground that it had been
drawn hastily and without prior consultation; that its enforcement would create disorder
in the ports as the operators and owners of the maritime vessels had expressed opposition
to its implementation; and that the increase in pilotage, as mandated by it, was exorbitant
and detrimental to port operations.

Private respondent United Harbor Pilots' Association of the Philippines, Inc. (UHPAP), an
umbrella organization of various groups rendering pilotage service in different ports of the
Philippines, then announced its intention to implement E.O. No. 1088 effective November
16, 1986. Consequently, the UHPAP filed on January 7, 1987 a complaint for injunction with
the RTC. While the case was pending, the PPA issued AO No. 02-88, entitled
IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES ON OPEN PILOTAGE SERVICE. The PPA announced in its
order that it was leaving to the contracting parties, i.e., the shipping lines and the pilots,
the... fixing of mutually acceptable rates for pilotage services, thus abandoning the rates
fixed by it (PPA) under Memorandum Circular No. 43-86, as well as those provided in E.O.
No. 1088.

The PPA then moved to dismiss the case, contending that the issuance of its order had
rendered the case moot and academic and that consequently E.O. No. 1088 had ceased to
be effective.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the fixing of rates is essentially a legislative power and that Executive
Order No. 1088 is Valid.

HELD:

YES. The fixing of rates is essentially a legislative power and that Executive Order No. 1088
is Valid.

President Marcos was authorized under Amendment No. 6 of the 1973 Constitution to
exercise legislative power, just as he was under the original 1973. Thus, E.O. No. 1088 is
valid. Pursuant to P.D. NO. 857 which created the PPA, President Marcos endowed PPA
with the power to regulate pilotage service in Philippine ports. Although the power to fix
rates for pilotage had been delegated to the PPA, it became necessary to rationalize the
rates of charges fixed... by it through the imposition of uniform rates.

As the President could delegate the ratemaking power to the PPA, so could he exercise it in
specific instances without thereby withdrawing the power vested by P.D. No. 857, Section
20(a) in the PPA "to impose, fix, prescribe, increase or decrease such rates, charges or fees...
for the services rendered by the Authority or by any private organization within a Port
District."

Thus, E.O. No. 1088 is a valid statute and that the PPA is duty bound to comply with its
provisions. The PPA may increase the rates but it may not decrease them below those
mandated by E.O. No. 1088.