Admin Digest

7/21/2019 Admin Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/admin-digest-56ddca8804a58 1/20

CHAPTER II

THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-DOLLAR SALTING TASK

FORCE vs COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:On March 12, 1985, State Prosecutor Jose B. Rosales,who is assigned with the Presidential Anti ollarSalting !as" #orce, issued search warrants $os. 15%,15&, 158, 159, 1%' and 1%1 against the (etitioners)ara*+l *(ort-/(ort 0o., nc., P B nter(rises 0o.,nc., Phili((ine eterans 0or(oration, Phili((ineeterans e3elo(*ent 0or(oration, Phili((ine0onstruction e3elo(*ent 0or(oration, Phili((ine4auan ndustries 0or(oration, nter-trade e3elo(*entAl3in A6uino7, A*elili . Mala6uio" nter(rises and Jai*e P. 4uc*an nter(rises. !he a((lication or theissuance o said search warrants was +led :; Att;.$a(oleon <at*a;tan o the Bureau o 0usto*s who isa de(uti=ed *e*:er o the PAS !as" #orce. Attachedto the said a((lication is the a>da3it o Jose+n M.0astro who is an o(erati3e and in3estigator o thePAS !as" #orce. Said Jose+n M. 0astro is li"ewise thesole de(onent in the (ur(orted de(osition to su((ortthe a((lication or the issuance o the si/ %7 searchwarrants in3ol3ed in this case. !he a((lication +led :;

Att;. <at*a;tan, the a>da3it and de(osition o Jose+nM. 0astro are all dated March 12, 1985. Shortl;thereater, the (ri3ate res(ondent the (etitioner7went to the Regional !rial 0ourt on a (etition to en?ointhe i*(le*entation o the search warrants in 6uestion.On A(ril 1%, 1985, the lower court issued the +rst o itschallenged Orders, and held@ R#OR, in 3iew o all the oregoing, the 0ourt here:; declares Searcharrant $os. 15%, 15&, 158, 159, 1%', and 1%1 to :enull and 3oid. Accordingl;, the res(ondents are here:;

ordered to return and surrender i**ediatel; all the(ersonal (ro(erties and docu*ents sei=ed :; the*ro* the (etitioners :; 3irtue o the aore*entionedsearch warrants. On August 21, 1985, the trial courtdenied reconsideration. On A(ril C, 198%, the

Presidential Anti-ollar Salting !as" #orce went to theres(ondent 0ourt o A((eals to contest, on certiorari,the twin Orders o the lower court. n ruling initiall; orthe !as" #orce, the A((ellate 0ourt held@ erein(etitioner is a s(ecial 6uasi-?udicial :od; with e/(ress(owers enu*erated under P 19D% to (rosecuteoreign e/change 3iolations de+ned and (unishedunder P.. $o. 188D. !he (etitioner, in e/ercising its6uasi-?udicial (owers, ran"s with the Regional !rial0ourts, and the latter in the case at :ar had no ?urisdiction to declare the search warrants in 6uestionnull and 3oid. Besides as correctl; (ointed out :; theAssistant Solicitor <eneral the decision o thePresidential Anti-ollar Salting !as" #orce is a((eala:leto the O>ce o the President. On $o3e*:er 12, 198%,)ara*+l *(ort-/(ort 0o., nc. sought areconsideration, on the 6uestion (ri*aril; o whetheror not the Presidential Anti-ollar Salting !as" #orce isEsuch other res(onsi:le o>cerF countenanced :; the19&D 0onstitution to issue warrants o search andsei=ure. !he 0ourt o A((eals, on )ara*+lFs *otion,

re3ersed itsel and issued its Resolution, datedSe(te*:er 198&, and su:se6uentl;, its Resolution,dated Ma; 2', 1988, den;ing the (etitionerFs *otionor reconsideration. n su:*itting that it is a 6uasi- ?udicial entit;, the (etitioner states that it is endowedwith Ee/(ress (owers and unctions under P $o.19D%, to (rosecute oreign e/change 3iolations asde+ned and (unished under P $o. 188D.E EB; the3er; nature o its e/(ress (owers as conerred :; thelaws,E so it is contended, Ewhich are decidedl; 6uasi-



?udicial or discretionar; unction, such as to conduct(reli*inar; in3estigation on the charges o oreigne/change 3iolations, issue search warrants or warrantso arrest, hold de(arture orders, a*ong others, andde(ending u(on the e3idence (resented, to dis*iss

the charges or to +le the corres(onding inor*ation incourt o /ecuti3e Order $o. 9DC, P $o. 19D% and its*(le*enting Rules and Regulations eGecti3e August2%, 198C, (etitioner e/ercises 6uasi-?udicial (ower orthe (ower o ad?udication .E !he 0ourt o A((eals, in itsResolution now assailed, was o the o(inion that Ethegrant o 6uasi-?udicial (owers to (etitioner did notdi*inish the regular courtsF ?udicial (ower o inter(retation. !he right to inter(ret a law and, i necessar; to declare one unconstitutional, e/clusi3el;(ertains to the ?udiciar;. n assu*ing this unction,courts do not (roceed on the theor; that the ?udiciar;is su(erior to the two other coordinate :ranches o thego3ern*ent, :ut solel; on the theor; that the; arere6uired to declare the law in e3er; case which co*e:eore the*.E n its (etition to this 0ourt, the(etitioner alleges that in so issuing the Resolutionsa:o3e-*entioned, the res(ondent 0ourt o A((ealsEco**itted gra3e a:use o discretion andHor acted ine/cess o its a((ellate ?urisdiction,E

ISSUE:hether !he Presidential Anti-ollar Salting !as" #orceis a 6uasi-?udicial :od;, and one coe6ual in ran" andstanding with the Regional !rial 0ourt, and accordingl;,:e;ond the latterFs ?urisdiction

HELD:$o. !his 0ourt +nds the A((ellate 0ourt to :e in error,since what the (etitioner (uts to 6uestion is theRegional !rial 0ourtFs act o assu*ing ?urisdiction o3er

the (ri3ate res(ondentFs (etition :elow and itssu:se6uent counter*and o the Presidential Anti-ollar Salting !as" #orceFs orders o search andsei=ure, or the reason that the (residential :od;, asan entit; allegedl;7 coordinate and co-e6ual with the

Regional !rial 0ourt, was is7 not 3ested with such a ?urisdiction. An e/a*ination o the Presidential Antiollar Salting !as" #orceFs (etition shows indeed itsrecognition o ?udicial re3iew o the acts o <o3ern*ent7 as a :asic (ri3ilege o the courts. tso:?ection, (recisel;, is whether it is the Regional !rial0ourt, or the su(erior courts, that *a; underta"e sucha re3iew. As we ha3e o:ser3ed, the 6uestion iswhether or not the Presidential Anti-ollar Salting !as"#orce is, in the +rst (lace, a 6uasi-?udicial :od;, andone whose decisions *a; not :e challenged :eore theregular courts, other than the higher tri:unals, the0ourt o A((eals and this 0ourt. A 6uasi-?udicial :od;has :een de+ned as Ean organ o go3ern*ent otherthan a court o law and other than a legislature, whichaGects the rights o (ri3ate (arties through eitherad?udication or rule *a"ing.E As *a; :e seen, it is the:asic unction o these :odies to ad?udicate clai*sandHor to deter*ine rights, and unless their decisionsare seasona:l; a((ealed to the (ro(er re3iewingauthorities, the sa*e attain +nalit; and :eco*e

e/ecutor;. A (erusal o the Presidential Anti-ollarSalting !as" #orceFs organic act, Presidential ecree$o. 19D%, as a*ended :; Presidential ecree $o.2''2, con3inces the 0ourt that the !as" #orce was not*eant to e/ercise 6uasi-?udicial unctions, that is, totr; and decide clai*s and e/ecute its ?udg*ents. Asthe PresidentFs ar* called u(on to co*:at the 3ice o Edollar saltingE or the :lac"-*ar"eting and salting o oreign e/change, it is tas"ed alone :; the ecree tohandle the (rosecution o such acti3ities, :ut nothing



*ore. !he 0ourt sees nothing in the (ro3isions o Presidential ecree $o. 19D% e/ce(t with res(ect tothe !as" #orceFs (owers to issue search warrants7 thatwill re3eal a legislati3e intend*ent to coner it with6uasi-?udicial res(onsi:ilities relati3e to oGenses

(unished :; Presidential ecree $o. 188D. tsunderta"ing, as we said, is si*(l;, to deter*inewhether or not (ro:a:le cause e/ists to warrant the+ling o charges with the (ro(er court, *eaning to sa;,to conduct an in6uir; (reli*inar; to a ?udicial recourse,and to reco**end action Eo a((ro(riate authoritiesE.t is not unli"e a +scalFs o>ce that conducts a(reli*inar; in3estigation to deter*ine whether or not(ri*a acie e3idence e/ists to ?usti; haling theres(ondent to court, and ;et, while it *a"es thatdeter*ination, it cannot :e said to :e acting as a6uasi-court. #or it is the courts, ulti*atel;, that (ass ?udg*ent on the accused, not the +scal. thePresidential Anti-ollar Salting !as" #orce is not,hence, a 6uasi-?udicial :od;, it cannot :e said to :e co-e6ual or coordinate with the Regional !rial 0ourt. !hereis nothing in its ena:ling statutes that wouldde*onstrate its standing at (ar with the said court. nthat res(ect, we do not +nd error in the res(ondent0ourt o A((ealFs resolution sustaining the assu*(tiono ?urisdiction :; the court a 6uo.

RATIO:A 6uasi-?udicial :od; has :een de+ned as Ean organ o go3ern*ent other than a court o law and other than alegislature, which aGects the rights o (ri3ate (artiesthrough either ad?udication or rule *a"ing.

THE UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN HILL,INC., vs. COSLAP

FACTS:o*inican ills, or*erl; registered as i(lo*at illsin Baguio 0it;, was *ortgaged to the nited 0oconutPlanters Ban" 0PB7. t was e3entuall; oreclosedand ac6uired later on :; the said :an" as the highest

:idder. On 11 A(ril 198D, through its Presidentduardo 0o?uangco Jr., the su:?ect (ro(ert; wasdonated to the Re(u:lic o the Phili((ines. !he deedo donation sti(ulated that o*inican ills would :eutili=ed or the E(riorit; (rogra*s, (ro?ects, acti3ities inhu*an settle*ents and econo*ic de3elo(*ent andgo3ern*ental (ur(osesE o the Ministr; o u*anSettle*ents. On ece*:er 12, 198%, then President0ora=on A6uino issued O 85 a:olishing the Ministr; o u*an Settle*ents. All agencies under the itssu(er3ision as well as all its assets, (rogra*s and(ro?ects, were transerred to the PresidentialManage*ent StaG PMS7. On 18 Octo:er 1988, nitedo*inican ills7 su:*itted its a((lication :eore thePMS to ac6uire a (ortion o the o*inican ills(ro(ert;. n a MOA, PMS and nited agreed that thelatter *a; (urchase a (ortion o the said (ro(ert; ro*OM $SRA$0 <ARA$!I 0ORPORA!O, acting asoriginator, on a selling (rice o P&5.'' (er s6uare*eter.

!hus, on June 12, 1991, <0 sold 2.C8 hectares o the(ro(ert; to $!. !he deed o conditional sale(ro3ided that ten 1'7 (er cent o the (urchase (ricewould :e (aid u(on signing, with the :alance to :ea*orti=ed within one ;ear ro* its date o e/ecution.Ater $! *ade its +nal (a;*ent on Januar; D1,1992, <0 e/ecuted a eed o A:solute Sale dated Jul; 1, 1992.



Petitioner alleges that so*eti*e in 199D, (ri3ateres(ondents entered the o*inican ills (ro(ert;allocated to $! and constructed houses thereon.Petitioner was a:le to secure a de*olition order ro*the cit; *a;or. na:le to sto( the ra=ing o their

houses, (ri3ate res(ondents, under the na*eOM$0A$ 44 BA<O RS$!S OM4SSASSO0A!O$ ASSO0A!O$, or :re3it;7 +led anaction or in?unction :eore R!0 Baguio 0it;. Pri3ateres(ondents were a:le to o:tain a te*(orar;restraining order :ut their (ra;er or a writ o (reli*inar; in?unction was later denied.

!he ASSO0A!O$ +led a se(arate ci3il case orda*ages, in?unction and annul*ent o the said MOA.t was later on dis*issed u(on *otion o nited. !hesaid Order o dis*issal is currentl; on a((eal with the0ourt o A((eals.

!he de*olition order was su:se6uentl; i*(le*ented:; the O>ce o the 0it; Ma;or and the 0it; ngineerFsO>ce o Baguio 0it;. owe3er, (etitioner a3ers that(ri3ate res(ondents returned and reconstructed thede*olished structures.

!o orestall the re-i*(le*entation o the de*olitionorder, (ri3ate res(ondents +led a (etition orannul*ent o contracts with (ra;er or a te*(orar;restraining order :eore the 0o**ission on theSettle*ent o 4and Pro:le*s 0OS4AP7 against(etitioner, <0, PMS, the 0it; ngineerFs O>ce, the0it; Ma;or, as well as the Register o eeds o Baguio0it;. On the 3er; sa*e da;, (u:lic res(ondent 0OS4APissued the contested order re6uiring the (arties to*aintain the status quo. ithout +ling a *otion orreconsideration ro* the aoresaid status quo order,

(etitioner +led the instant (etition 6uestioning the ?urisdiction o the 0OS4AP.

ISSUE@hether 0OS4AP is e*(owered to hear and tr; a

(etition or annul*ent o contracts with (ra;er or a !RO and to issue a status 6uo order and conduct ahearing thereo

HELD: 0OS4AP is not ?usti+ed in assu*ing ?urisdiction o3erthe contro3ers;. t discharges 6uasi-?udicial unctions@

EKuasi-?udicial unctionE is a ter* which a((lies to theactions, discretion, etc. o (u:lic ad*inistrati3e o>cersor :odies, who are re6uired to in3estigate acts, orascertain the e/istence o acts, hold hearings, anddraw conclusions ro* the*, as a :asis or their o>cialaction and to e/ercise discretion o a ?udicial nature.E

owe3er, it does not de(art ro* its :asic nature as anad*inistrati3e agenc;, al:eit one that e/ercises 6uasi- ?udicial unctions. Still, ad*inistrati3e agencies are notconsidered courtsL the; are neither (art o the ?udicials;ste* nor are the; dee*ed ?udicial tri:unals. !hedoctrine o se(aration o (owers o:ser3ed in ours;ste* o go3ern*ent re(oses the three D7 great(owers into its three D7 :ranches the legislati3e,the e/ecuti3e, and the ?udiciar; each de(art*ent:eing co-e6ual and coordinate, and su(re*e in its owns(here. Accordingl;, the e/ecuti3e de(art*ent *a;not, :; its own +at, i*(ose the ?udg*ent o one o itsown agencies, u(on the ?udiciar;. ndeed, under thee/(anded ?urisdiction o the Su(re*e 0ourt, it ise*(owered Eto deter*ine whether or not there has:een gra3e a:use o discretion a*ounting to lac" o or



e/cess o ?urisdiction on the (art o an; :ranch orinstru*entalit; o the <o3ern*ent.E

LEYSON vs. OMBUDSMAN, et. al.

FACTS: n 199% nternational !owage and !rans(ort 0or(.!!07, a do*estic cor(oration engaged in shi((ing:usiness, entered into a 1 ;r. contract with 4egas(i Oil0o*(an;, nc. 4<ASP O47, <rane/(ortManuacturing 0or(. <RA$NPOR!7 and nited0oconut 0he*icals, nc. $! 0O0O$!7,co*(rising the 0oconut ndustr; n3est*ent #und0#7 co*(anies or the trans(ort o coconut oil in :ul"through M! !ransasia. !he *a?orit; o shareholdingso these co*(anies are owned :; the nited 0oconutPlanters Ban" 0PB7 as ad*inistrator o 0#. nderthe contract, D *onth ad3ance notice would :e gi3ento ter*inate the contract. owe3er, the 0# with theirnew (resident !orral:a ter*inated the contract withoutsuch ad3ance notice and engaged another 3essel, M!Marilag.4e;son, /. ice Pres. o !!0 +led with the O>ce o the O*:uds*an against !orral:a. n anotherco*(laint, (etitioner charged Anti(orda as 0hair*ano 0PB and 0# Oil Mills and !orral:a with 3iolation o the Anti- <rat and 0orru(t Practices Act. !heO*:uds*an dis*issed the co*(laint +nding that thecase is a si*(le :reach o contract and that theentities in3ol3ed are (ri3ate cor(orations o3er which ithas no ?urisdiction. Motion or reconsideration wasdenied. Petitioner raises the issue to the 0ourt. e

su:*its that :ased on Phili((ine 0oconut Producers#ederation nc. 0O0O#7 3s P0<< and Re(u:lic 3s.Sandigan:a;an, the 0ourt has declared that thecoconut le3; unds are (u:lic unds, then cor(orationsor*ed and organi=ed ro* those unds or whose

controlling stoc"s are ro* those unds should :eregarded as go3ern*ent owned andHor controlledcor(orations. As in the (resent case, since the undingor controlling interest o the co*(anies :eing headed:; (ri3ate res(ondents was gi3en or owned :; the 0#as shown in the certi+cation o their 0or(orateSecretar;, it ollows that the; are go3ern*ent ownedandHor controlled cor(orations. 0orollaril;, (etitionerasserts that res(ondents Anti(orda and !orral:a are(u:lic o>cers su:?ect to the ?urisdiction o theO*:uds*an. Pri3ate res(ondents counter that the 0#co*(anies were dul; organi=ed under the 0or(oration0ode and that their stoc"holders are (ri3ateindi3iduals and entities.

ISSUE: hether or not the 0# co*(anies are (u:liccor(oration.

HELD: !he 0ourt ound in a3or o the res(ondents. !he ?uris(rudential rules in3o"ed :; (etitioner areinco*(lete without resorting to the de+nition o go3ern*ent owned or controlled cor(orationcontained in (ar. 1D, Sec. 2 ntroductor; Pro3isions o the Ad*inistrati3e 0ode o 198&. t *entions Dre6uisites 17 an; agenc; organi=ed as a stoc" or non-stoc" cor(. 27 it is 3ested with unctions relating to(u:lic needs whether go3ern*ental or (ro(rietar; innature D7 owned :; the <o3ern*ent directl; orthrough its instru*entalities either wholl; or in case o



stoc" cor(. at least 51Q o its ca(ital stoc".n the (resent case, 0PB owns CC.1Q o 4egas(i Oil,which is :elow 51Q and re*o3es it ro* the de+nitiono go3ern*ent, owned or controlled cor(. 0PB owns91.2CQ o <RA$NPOR! and 92.85Q o nited

0oconut. owe3er, there is no showing that :oth were3ested with unctions relating to (u:lic needs whethergo3ern*ental or (ro(rietar; in nature. !he 0#co*(anies are (ri3ate cor(orations and not within thesco(e o the ?urisdiction o the O>ce o theO*:uds*an.

MALAGA vs. PENACHOS

FACTS: !he loilo State 0ollege o #isheries S0O#7 through itsPre-6uali+cations, Bids and Awards 0o**ittee PBA07caused the (u:lication in the $o3e*:er 25, 2% and 28,1988 issues o the estern isa;as ail; an n3itationto Bid or the construction o a Micro 4a:orator;Building at S0O#. !he notice announced that the lastda; or the su:*ission o (re-6uali+cationre6uire*ents was on ece*:er 2, 1988, and that the:ids would :e recei3ed and o(ened on ece*:er 12,1988 at D oFcloc" in the aternoon. Petitioners Malagaand $a?arro, doing :usiness under the na*e o B0onstruction and Best Built 0onstruction, res(ecti3el;,su:*itted their (re-6uali+cation docu*ents at twooFcloc" in the aternoon o ece*:er 2, 1988.Petitioner Occeana su:*itted his own PR-01 onece*:er 5, 1988. All three o the* were not allowedto (artici(ate in the :idding as their docu*ents wereconsidered late.

On ece*:er 12, 1988, the (etitioners +led aco*(laint with the loilo R!0 against the o>cers o

PBA0 or their reusal without ?ust cause to acce(tthe* resulting to their non-inclusion in the list o (re-6uali+ed :idders. !he; sought to the resetting o theece*:er 12, 1988 :idding and the acce(tance o their docu*ents. !he; also as"ed that i the :idding

had alread; :een conducted, the deendants :edirected not to award the (ro?ect (ending resolution o their co*(laint. On the sa*e date, Judge 4e:a6uinissued a restraining order (rohi:iting PBA0 ro*conducting the :idding and award the (ro?ect. !hedeendants +led a *otion to lit the restraining orderon the ground that the court is (rohi:ited ro* issuingsuch order, (reli*inar; in?unction and (reli*inar;*andator; in?unction in go3ern*ent inrastructure(ro?ect under Sec. 1 o P.. 1818. !he; also contendedthat the (reli*inar; in?unction had :eco*e *oot andacade*ic as it was ser3ed ater the :idding had :eenawarded and closed.

On Januar; 2, 1989, the trial court lited the restrainingorder and denied the (etition or (reli*inar;in?unction. t declared that the :uilding sought to :econstructed at the S0O# was an inrastructure (ro?ecto the go3ern*ent alling within the co3erage o thesu:?ect law.

ISSUE: hether or not S0O# is a go3ern*ent instru*entalit;su:?ect to the (ro3isions o P 1818

HELD: !he 198& Ad*inistrati3e 0ode de+nes a go3ern*entinstru*entalit; as ollows@nstru*entalit; reers to an; agenc; o the $ational<o3ern*ent, not integrated within the de(art*entra*ewor", 3ested with s(ecial unctions or ?urisdiction



:; law, endowed with so*e i not all cor(orate (owers,ad*inistering s(ecial unds, and en?o;ing o(erationalautono*;, usuall; through a charter. !his ter*includes regulator; agencies, chartered institutions,and go3ern*ent-owned or controlled cor(orations.

!he sa*e 0ode descri:es a chartered institution thus@Ca!te!e" #$st#t%t#&$ - reers to an; agenc;organi=ed or o(erating under a s(ecial charter, and3ested :; law with unctions relating to s(eci+cconstitutional (olicies or o:?ecti3es. !his ter* includesthe state uni3ersities and colleges, and the *onetar;authorit; o the state. t is clear ro* the a:o3ede+nitions that S0O# is a chartered institution and isthereore co3ered :; P.. 1818.

!here are also indications in its charter that S0O# is ago3ern*ent instru*entalit;. #irst, it was created in(ursuance o the integrated +sheries de3elo(*ent(olic; o the State, a (riorit; (rogra* o thego3ern*ent to eGect the socio-econo*ic lie o thenation. Second, the !reasurer o the Re(u:lic o thePhili((ines shall also :e the e/-o>cio !reasurer o thestate college with its accounts and e/(enses to :eaudited :; the 0o**ission on Audit or its dul;authori=ed re(resentati3e. !hird, heads o :ureaus ando>ces o the $ational <o3ern*ent are authori=ed toloan or transer to it, u(on re6uest o the (resident o the state college, such a((aratus, e6ui(*ent, orsu((lies and e3en the ser3ices o such e*(lo;ees ascan :e s(ared without serious detri*ent to (u:licser3ice. 4astl;, an additional a*ount o P1.5M had:een a((ro(riated out o the unds o the $ational !reasur; and it was also decreed in its charter that theunds and *aintenance o the state college would

henceorth :e included in the <eneral A((ro(riations4aw.

$e3ertheless, it does not auto*aticall; ollow thatS0O# is co3ered :; the (rohi:ition in the said decree

as there are irregularities (resent surrounding thetransaction that ?usti+ed the in?unction issued asregards to the :idding and the award o the (ro?ect.

BE'A SR. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: #idencio Be?a Sr. an e*(lo;ee o Phili((ine (ortsauthorit;, hired as Arrastre su(er3isor in 19&5. andlater on a((ointed as ter*inal su(er3isor in 1988. OnOcto:er 21, 1988, the <eneral Manager, Rogelio A.a;an +led ad*inistrati3e case against Be?a Sr. andillalu= or gra3e dishonest;. <ra3e *isconduct willul3iolation o reasona:le o>ce rules and regulations andconduct (re?udicial to the :est interest o the ser3ice.0onse6uentl; the; were (re3enti3el; sus(ended orthe charges. Ater (reli*inar; in3estigation conducted:; the district attorne; or region N, ad*inistrati3ecase no. 11-'C-88 was considered closed or lac" o *erit.

On ece*:er 1D, 1988 another ad*inistrati3e casewas +led against Be?a :; the PPA *anager also ordishonest; gra3e *isconduct 3iolation o o>ce rulesand regulations, conduct (re?udicial to the :estinterest o the ser3ice and or :eing notoriousl;undesira:le. Be?a was also (laced under (re3enti3esus(ension (ursuant to sec. C12 o P $o. 8'&. !hecase was redoc"eted as ad*inistrati3e case n o. PPA-AAB-1-'C9-89 and thereater, the PPA indorsed it tothe AAB or a((ro(riate action. !he AAB (roceeded to



hear the case and ga3e Be?a an o((ortunit; to (resente3idence. owe3er, on #e:ruar; 2', 1989, Be?a +led(etition or certiorari with (reli*inar; in?unction :eorethe Regional !rial 0ourt o Misa*is Oriental. !wo da;slater, he +led with the ABB a *aniestation and *otion

to sus(end the hearing o ad*inistrati3e case no. PPA-AAB-1-'C9-89 on account o the (endenc; o thecertiorari (roceeding :eore the court. AAB denied the*otion and continued with the hearing o thead*inistrati3e case. !hereater, Be?a *o3ed or thedis*issal o the certiorari case and (roceeded to +le:eore the 0ourt or a (etition or certiorari with(reli*inar; in?unction andHor te*(orar; restrainingorder.

ISSUE: hether or not the Ad*inistrati3e Action Board o O!0 has ?urisdiction o3er ad*inistrati3e casesin3ol3ing (ersonnel :elow the ran" o Assistant<eneral Manager o the Phili((ine Ports Authorit;, anattached agenc; o O!0.

HELD: !he PPA <eneral Manager is the disci(lining authorit;who *a;, :; hi*sel and without the a((ro3al o thePPA Board o irectors, su:?ect a res(ondent in anad*inistrati3e case to (re3enti3e sus(ension. isdisci(lining (owers are sanctioned not onl; :; Sec.8 o P no. 85& :ut also :; Sec. D& o P no. 8'& grantingthe heads o agencies the Jurisdiction to in3estigateand decide *atters in3ol3ing disci(linar; actionsagainst o>cers and e*(lo;ees in the PPA. ithres(ect to the issue, the 0ourt 6uali+edl; rules in a3oro the (etitioner. !he PPA was created through P no.5'5 dated Jul; 19&C. nder the 4aw, the cor(orate(owers o the PPA were 3ested in a go3erning Board o

irectors "nown as the Phili((ine Ports Authorit;0ouncil.Sec. 5i7 o the sa*e decree ga3e the council the(ower to a((oint, disci(line and re*o3e, anddeter*ine the co*(osition o the technical staG o the

authorit; and other (ersonnel. Onece*:er 2D, 19&5, P no. 5'5 was su:stituted :; Pno. 85& sec. Ca7 thereo created the Phili((ine PortsAuthorit; which would :e attached to the thene(art*ent o Pu:lic or"s, !rans(ortation and0o**unication. hen /ecuti3e order no. 125 dated Januar; D', 198& reorgani=ing the Ministr; o !rans(ortation and 0o**unication was issued, thePPA retained its attached status. Ad*inistrati3e 0odeo 198& classi+ed PPA as an attached agenc; to theO!0. Boo" o the Ad*inistrati3e 0ode o 198&, theother two :eing su(er3ision and control andad*inistrati3e su(er3ision, Attach*ent is de+ned asthe lateral relationshi( :etween the de(art*ent or itse6ui3alent and the attached agenc; or cor(oration or(ur(oses o (olic; and (rogra* coordination. Anattached agenc; has a larger *easure o inde(endence ro* the e(art*ent to which it isattached than one which is under de(art*entalsu(er3ision and control or ad*inistrati3e su(er3ision. !his is :orne out :; the lateral relationshi( :etweenthe e(art*ent and the attached agenc;. !heattach*ent is *erel; or (olic; and (rogra*coordination. ith res(ect to ad*inistrati3e *atters,the inde(endence o an attached agenc; ro* thede(art*ent control and su(er3ision is urther*orereinorced :; the act that e3en an agenc; under ae(art*ents ad*inistrati3e su(er3ision is ree ro*e(art*ental intererence with res(ect toa((oint*ents and other (ersonnel actions inaccordance with the decentrali=ation o (ersonnel



unctions under the ad*inistrati3e 0ode o 198&. !he4aw i*(liedl; grants the general Manager with thea((ro3al o the PPA :oard o irectors the (ower toin3estigate its (ersonnel :elow the ran" o AssistantManager who *a; :e charged with an ad*inistrati3e

oGense. uring such in3estigation, the PPA <eneralManager, *a; su:?ect the e*(lo;ee concerned to(re3enti3e sus(ension. !he in3estigation should :econducted in accordance with the (rocedure set out inSec. D8 o P no. 8'&. !he ecision o the 0ourt o A((eal is A##RM as so ar as it u(holds the (owero the PPA <eneral Manager to su:?ect (etitioner to(re3enti3e sus(ension and RRS insoar as it3alidates the ?urisdiction o the O!0 andHor the AABto act on ad*inistrati3e case no. PPA AAB-1-'C9-89. !he AAB decision in said cased is here:; declared

$44 and O and the case is RMA$ to the PPAwhose <eneral Manager shall conduct with dis(atch itsrein3estigation.

BLA(UERA vs. ALCALA

FACTS: On #e:. 21, 1992, then Pres. A6uino issued AO 2%8which granted each o>cial and e*(lo;ee o thego3ern*ent the (roducti3it; incenti3e :ene+ts in a*a/i*u* a*ount e6ui3alent to D'Q o thee*(lo;ees one *onth :asic salar; :ut which a*ountnot :e less than P2, '''.''. Said AO (ro3ided that the(roducti3it; incenti3e :ene+ts shall :e granted onl;or the ;ear 1991. Accordingl;, all heads o agencies,including go3ern*ent :oards o go3ern*ent-owned orcontrolled cor(orations and +nancial institutions, arestrictl; (rohi:ited ro* granting (roducti3it; incenti3e:ene+ts or the ;ear 1992 and uture ;ears (ending

the result o a co*(rehensi3e stud; :eing underta"en:; the O>ce o the Pres.

!he (etitioners, who are o>cials and e*(lo;ees o se3eral go3ern*ent de(art*ents and agencies, were

(aid incenti3e :ene+ts or the ;ear 1992. !hen, on Jan.19, 199D, then Pres. Ra*os issued AO 29 authori=ingthe grant o (roducti3it; incenti3e :ene+ts or the ;ear1992 in the *a/i*u* a*ount o P1,'''.'' andreiterating the (rohi:ition under Sec. & o AO 2%8,en?oining the grant o (roducti3it; incenti3e :ene+tswithout (rior a((ro3al o the President. Sec. C o AO 29directed all de(art*ents, o>ces and agencies whichauthori=ed (a;*ent o (roducti3it; incenti3e :onus orthe ;ear 1992 in e/cess o P1, '''.'' to i**ediatel;cause the reund o the e/cess. n co*(liance

therewith, the heads o the de(art*ents or agencies o the go3ern*ent concerned caused the deduction ro*(etitioners salaries or allowances o the a*ountsneeded to co3er the alleged o3er(a;*ents.

ISSUE:hether or not AO 29 and AO 2%8 were issued in the3alid e/ercise o (residential control o3er the e/ecuti3ede(art*ents

HELD: !he Pres. is the head o the go3ern*ent.<o3ern*ental (ower and authorit; are e/ercised andi*(le*ented through hi*. is (ower includes thecontrol o e/ecuti3e de(art*ents as (ro3ided underSec. 1&, Art. o the 0onstitution.

0ontrol *eans the (ower o an o>cer to alter or*odi; or set aside what a su:ordinate o>cer haddone in the (eror*ance o his duties and to su:stitute



the ?udg*ent o the or*er or that o the latter. !hePres. can, :; 3irtue o his (ower o control, re3iew,*odi;, alter or nulli; an; action or decision o hissu:ordinate in the e/ecuti3e de(art*ents, :ureau oro>ces under hi*.

hen the Pres. issued AO 29 li*iting the a*ount o incenti3e :ene+ts, en?oining heads o go3ern*entagencies ro* granting incenti3e :ene+ts withouta((ro3al ro* hi* and directing the reund o thee/cess o3er the (rescri:ed a*ount, the Pres. was ?uste/ercising his (ower o control o3er e/ecuti3ede(art*ents.

!he Pres. issued su:?ect AOs to regulate the grant o (roducti3it; incenti3e :ene+ts and to (re3ent

discontent, dissatisaction and de*orali=ation a*onggo3ern*ent (ersonnel :; co**itting li*itedresources o go3ern*ent or the e6ual (a;*ent o incenti3es and awards. !he Pres. was onl; e/ercisinghis (ower o control :; *odi;ing the acts o the headso the go3ern*ent agencies who granted incenti3e:ene+ts to their e*(lo;ees without a((ro(riateclearance ro* the O>ce o the Pres., there:;resulting in the une3en distri:ution o go3ern*entresources. !he Presidents dut; to e/ecute the law is o constitutional origin. So, too, is his control o e/ecuti3ede(art*ents.

DE LA LLANA vs MANUEL ALBA

FACTS:n 1981, Batas Pa*:ansa Blg. 129, entitled An ActReorgani=ing the Judiciar;, A((ro(riating #unds !hereor and or Other Pur(oses, was (assed.<ual:erto e la 4lana, a ?udge in Olonga(o, was

assailing its 3alidit; :ecause, +rst o all, he would :eone o the ?udges that would :e re*o3ed :ecause o the reorgani=ation and second, he said such law wouldcontra3ene the constitutional (ro3ision which (ro3idesthe securit; o tenure o ?udges o the courts. e

a3erred that onl; the Su(re*e 0ourt can re*o3e ?udges $O! the 0ongress.

ISSUE: hether or not a ?udge li"e Judge e 4a 4lana can :e3alidl; re*o3ed :; the legislature :; such statute BP1297.

HELD: Ies. !he S0 ruled the ollowing wa;@ Moreo3er, this0ourt is e*(owered to disci(line ?udges o inerior

courts and, :; a 3ote o at least eight *e*:ers, ordertheir dis*issal. !hus it (ossesses the co*(etence tore*o3e ?udges. nder the Judiciar; Act, it was thePresident who was 3ested with such (ower. Re*o3alis, o course, to :e distinguished ro* ter*ination :;3irtue o the a:olition o the o>ce. !here can :e notenure to a non-e/istent o>ce. Ater the a:olition,there is in law no occu(ant. n case o re*o3al, there isan o>ce with an occu(ant who would there:; lose his(osition. t is in that sense that ro* the stand(oint o strict law, the 6uestion o an; i*(air*ent o securit;o tenure does not arise. $onetheless, or theincu*:ents o inerior courts a:olished, the eGect isone o se(aration. As to its eGect, no distinction e/ists:etween re*o3al and the a:olition o the o>ce.Realisticall;, it is de3oid o signi+cance. e ceases to:e a *e*:er o the ?udiciar;. n the i*(le*entation o the assailed legislation, thereore, it would :e inaccordance with acce(ted (rinci(les o constitutionalconstruction that as ar as incu*:ent ?ustices and



?udges are concerned, this 0ourt :e consulted and thatits 3iew :e accorded the ullest consideration. $o earneed :e entertained that there is a ailure to accordres(ect to the :asic (rinci(le that this 0ourt does notrender ad3isor; o(inions. $o 6uestion o law is

in3ol3ed. such were the case, certainl; this 0ourtcould not ha3e its sa; (rior to the action ta"en :;either o the two de(art*ents. 3en then, it could doso :ut onl; :; wa; o deciding a case where the*atter has :een (ut in issue. $either is there an;intrusion into who shall :e a((ointed to the 3acant(ositions created :; the reorgani=ation. !hat re*ainsin the hands o the /ecuti3e to who* it (ro(erl;:elongs. !here is no de(arture thereore ro* the triedand tested wa;s o ?udicial (ower. Rather what issought to :e achie3ed :; this li:eral inter(retation is

to (reclude an; (lausi:ilit; to the charge that in thee/ercise o the conceded (ower o reorgani=ing theinerior courts, the (ower o re*o3al o the (resentincu*:ents 3ested in this !ri:unal is ignored ordisregarded. !he challenged Act would thus :e reero* an; unconstitutional taint, e3en one not readil;discerni:le e/ce(t to those (redis(osed to 3iew it withdistrust. Moreo3er, such a construction would :e inaccordance with the :asic (rinci(le that in the choiceo alternati3es :etween one which would sa3e andanother which would in3alidate a statute, the or*er isto :e (reerred.

IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY vs COURT OFAPPEALS

FACTS:Petitioner ron and Steel Authorit; SA7 was created :;Presidential ecree $o. 2&2 dated August 9, 19&D inorder, to de3elo( and (ro*ote the iron and steel

industr; in the Phili((ines. P.. $o. 2&2 initiall;created (etitioner SA or a ter* o 5 ;ears, and whenSA s original ter* e/(ired on Octo:er 1', 19&8, itster* was e/tended or another 1' ;ears. !he $ationalSteel 0or(oration $S07 then a wholl; owned

su:sidiar; o the $ational e3elo(*ent 0or(oration,which is itsel an entit; wholl;, owned :; the $ational<o3ern*ent, e*:ar"ed on an e/(ansion (rogra*e*:racing, a*ong other things, the construction o anintegrated steel *ill in ligan 0it;. Pursuant to thee/(ansion (rogra* o the $S0, Procla*ation $o. 22D9was issued :; the President o the Phili((ines on$o3e*:er 1%, 1982 withdrawing ro* sale orsettle*ent a large tract o (u:lic land located in ligan0it; and reser3ing that land or the use and i**ediateoccu(anc; o $S0s. Since certain (ortions o the (u:lic

land su:?ect *atter o Procla*ation $o. 22D9 wereoccu(ied :; a non-o(erational che*ical ertili=er (lantowned :; (ri3ate res(ondent Maria 0ristina #ertili=er0or(oration M0#07, 4O $o. 12&&, also dated1%$o3e*:er 1982, was issued directing the $S0 toTnegotiate with the owners o M0#0, or and on :ehal o the <o3ern*ent, or the co*(ensation o M0#0 s(resent occu(anc; rights on the su:?ect land. 4O$o. 12&& also directed that should $S0 and (ri3ateres(ondent M0#0 ail to reach an agree*ent within a(eriod o %' da;s ro* the date o the 4O, (etitionerSA was to e/ercise its (ower o e*inent do*ain underP.. $o. 2&2 and to initiate e/(ro(riation (roceedingsin res(ect o occu(anc; rights o (ri3ate res(ondentM0#0 relating to the su:?ect (u:lic land as well as the(lant itsel and related acilities and to cede the sa*eto the $S0. $egotiations :etween $S0 and (ri3ateres(ondent M0#0 did ail.

ISSUE:



hether or not the Re(u:lic o the Phili((ines isentitled to :e su:stituted or SA in 3iew o thee/(iration o SAFs ter*.

HELD:0learl;, SA was 3ested with so*e o the (owers orattri:utes nor*all; associated with ?uridical(ersonalit; :ut did not (ossess general orco*(rehensi3e ?uridical (ersonalit; se(arate anddistinct ro* that o the <o3ern*ent. !he SA in acta((ears to the 0ourt to :e a non-incor(orated agenc;or instru*entalit; o the <o3ern*ent o the Re(u:lico the Phili((ines. SA *a; thus :e (ro(erl; regardedas an agent or delegate o the Re(u:lic o thePhili((ines. hen the statutor; ter* o a non-

incor(orated agenc; e/(ires, the (owers, duties andunctions as well as the assets and lia:ilities o thatagenc; re3ert :ac" to, and are re-assu*ed :;, theRe(u:lic o the Phili((ines, in the a:sence o s(ecial(ro3isions o law s(eci;ing so*e other dis(ositionthereo such as, e.g., de3olution or trans*ission o such (owers, duties, unctions, etc. to so*e otheridenti+ed successor agenc; or instru*entalit; o theRe(u:lic o the Phili((ines. hen the e/(iring agenc;is an incor(orated one, the conse6uences o suche/(ir; *ust :e loo"ed or in the charter o that agenc;and, :; wa; o su((le*entation, in the (ro3isions o the 0or(oration 0ode. Since, in the instant case, SA isa non-incor(orated agenc; or instru*entalit; o theRe(u:lic, its (owers, duties, unctions, assets andlia:ilities are (ro(erl; regarded as olded :ac" into the<o3ern*ent o the Re(u:lic o the Phili((ines andhence assu*ed once again :; the Re(u:lic, no s(ecialstatutor; (ro3ision ha3ing :een shown to ha3e*andated succession thereto :; so*e other entit; or

agenc; o the Re(u:lic. n the instant case, SAinstituted the e/(ro(riation (roceedings in its ca(acit;as an agent or delegate or re(resentati3e o theRe(u:lic o the Phili((ines (ursuant to its authorit;under P.. $o. 2&2.#ro* the oregoing (re*ises, it

ollows that the Re(u:lic o the Phili((ines is entitledto :e su:stituted in the e/(ro(riation (roceedings as(art;-(laintiG in lieu o SA, the statutor; ter* o SAha3ing e/(ired. Put a little diGerentl;, the e/(iration o SAFs statutor; ter* did not :; itsel re6uire or ?usti;the dis*issal o the e*inent do*ain (roceedings

CHA)E* vs. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY +NHA

FACTS:#or*er Solicitor <eneral #ran" 0ha3e= +les a caseagainst BA or (rohi:ition to en?oin the $A ro*i*(le*enting the Joint enture Agree*ent JA7entered into :; $A with R- Builders or therecla*ation and de3elo(*ent o the S*o"e; Mountainarea in !ondo. 0ha3e= i*(utes certain constitutionalin+r*ities against the JA, or instance that the $Ahad no authorit; to order recla*ation, the $Rsa((ro3al was not secured, etc. 0ha3e= also +led orManda*us or the disclosure o (a(ers and docu*entsrelated to the (ro?ect.

ISSUE:hether or not (rohi:ition is (ro(er

HELD:$o. t was not shown that the $A e/ercises 6uasi- ?udicial or ?udicial unctions relation to the (ro?ect. t



*ust :e noted that under the RO0, a*ong the entities*entioned are 6uasi-?udicial or ?udicial agencies.

t was not shown that there is no (lain, ade6uate ors(eed; re*ed; in the ordinar; course o law. t

a((ears that 0ha3e= could ha3e +led ad*inistrati3ere*edies against the $A.

4astl;, (rohi:ition does not lie against acts which arealread; ait acco*(li. $ote that the (ro?ect has alread;:een (artiall; co*(leted

octrine@ !here *ust :e a law or (residential(rocla*ation o>ciall; classi;ing these reclai*edlands as aliena:le or dis(osa:le and o(en to

dis(osition or concession.

#acts@ Petitioner #rancisco 0ha3e= in his ca(acit; asta/(a;er see"s to declare null and 3oid the Jointenture Agree*ent JA7 :etween the $A and R-Builders nc RB7 or :eing unconstitutional andin3alid, and to en?oin res(ondents (articularl;res(ondent $A ro* i*(le*enting andHor enorcingthe said (ro?ect and other agree*ents related thereto.On March 1, 1988, then President 0ora=on 0. A6uinoissued Me*orandu* Order $o. 1%1 MO 1%17a((ro3ing and directing the i*(le*entation o the0o*(rehensi3e and ntegrated Metro(olitan Manilaaste Manage*ent Plan. S(eci+call;, res(ondent $Awas ordered to conduct easi:ilit; studies andde3elo( low-cost housing (ro?ects at the du*(site anda:sor: sca3engers in $A resettle*entHlow-costhousing (ro?ects.Pursuant to MO 1%1-A, $A (re(ared the easi:ilit;studies which resulted in the or*ulation o the

S*o"e; Mountain e3elo(*ent Plan and Recla*ationo the Area Across R-1' or the S*o"e; Mountaine3elo(*ent and Recla*ation Pro?ect SMRP7.SMRP ai*ed to con3ert the S*o"e; Mountaindu*(site into a ha:ita:le housing (ro?ect, inclusi3e o

the recla*ation o the area across R-1', ad?acent tothe S*o"e; Mountain as the ena:ling co*(onent o the (ro?ect. Once +nali=ed, the Plan was su:*itted toPresident A6uino or her a((ro3al. !hereater,President A6uino (roclai*ed MO C15, a((ro3ing anddirecting the i*(le*entation o the SMRP through a(ri3ate sector ?oint 3enture. Said MO sti(ulated thatthe land area co3ered :; the S*o"e; Mountaindu*(site is con3e;ed to the $A as well as the area to:e reclai*ed across R-1'. n the sa*e MO C15,President A6uino created an /ecuti3e 0o**ittee

N0OM7 to o3ersee the i*(le*entation o the Planand an inter-agenc; technical co**ittee !00OM7was created co*(osed o the technical re(resentati3eso the N0OM. Based on the e3aluation o the (re-6uali+cation docu*ents, the N0OM declared the$ew San Jose Builders, nc. and RB as to( twocontractors. !hereater, !00OM su:*itted itsreco**endation to the N0OM to a((ro3e the RB(ro(osal which garnered the highest score.

On Octo:er &, 1992, President Ra*os authori=ed $Ato enter into a JA with RB. Aterwards, PresidentRa*os issued Procla*ation $o. C%5 increasing the(ro(osed area or recla*ation across R-1' ro* C'hectares to &9 hectares. On Se(te*:er 1, 199C,(ursuant to Procla*ation $o. D9, the $R issuedS(ecial Patent $o. D591 con3e;ing in a3or o $A anarea o 211,9&5 s6uare *eters co3ering the S*o"e;Mountain u*(site. !he land recla*ation wasco*(leted in August 199%. So*eti*e later in 199%,



(ursuant li"ewise to Procla*ation $o. D9, the $Rissued S(ecial Patent $o. D598 con3e;ing in a3or o $A an additional D9',''' s6uare *eter area. Aterso*e ti*e, the JA was ter*inated. RB de*anded the(a;*ent o ?ust co*(ensation or all acco*(lish*ents

and costs incurred in de3elo(ing the SMRP (lus areasona:le rate o return. n a Me*orandu* o Agree*ent MOA7 e/ecuted :; $A and RB, :oth(arties agreed to ter*inate the JA and othersu:se6uent agree*ents, which sti(ulated, a*ongothers, that un(aid :alance *a; :e (aid in cash,:onds or through the con3e;ance o (ro(erties or an;co*:ination thereo.

CHAPTER III

LAGUNA LAKE DE)ELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs.COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: !he 4aguna 4a"e e3elo(*ent Authorit; 44A7 wascreated through RA $o. C85' in order to e/ecute the(olic; towards en3iron*ental (rotection andsustaina:le de3elo(*ent so as to accelerate thede3elo(*ent and :alanced growth o the 4aguna 4a"earea and the surrounding (ro3inces and towns.P $o. 81D a*ended certain sections o RA C85' sincewater 6ualit; studies ha3e shown that the la"e willdeteriorate urther i ste(s are not ta"en to chec" thesa*e. O 92& urther de+ned and enlarged theunctions and (owers o the 44A and enu*erated thetowns, cities and (ro3inces enco*(assed :; the ter*4aguna de Ba; Region. (on i*(le*entation o RA&1%' 4ocal <o3ern*ent 0ode o 19917, the*unici(alities assu*ed e/clusi3e ?urisdiction authorit; to issue +shing (ri3ileges within their*unici(al waters since Sec.1C9 thereo (ro3ides@

Munici(al cor(orations shall ha3e the authorit; togrant +sher; (ri3ileges in the *unici(al waters andi*(ose rental ees or charges thereoreU Big +sh(eno(erators too" ad3antage o the occasion to esta:lish+sh(ens +sh cages to the consternation o the 44A.

!he i*(le*entation o se(arate inde(endent (oliciesin +sh cages +sh (en o(eration and theindiscri*inate grant o +sh(en (er*its :; thela"eshore *unici(alities ha3e saturated the la"e with+sh(ens, there:; aggra3ating the currenten3iron*ental (ro:le*s and ecological stress o 4aguna 4a"e. !he 44A then ser3ed notice to the general (u:lic that17 +sh(ens, cages other a6ua-culture structuresunregistered with the 44A as o March D1, 199D aredeclared illegalL 27 those declared illegal shall :e

su:?ect to de*olition :; the Presidential !as" #orce orllegal #ish(en and llegal #ishingL and D7 owners o those declared illegal shall :e cri*inall; charged with3iolation o Sec.D9-A o RA C85' as a*ended :; P81D. A *onth later, the 44A sent notices ad3ising theowners o the illegall; constructed +sh(ens, +shcagesand other a6ua-culture structures ad3ising the* todis*antle their res(ecti3e structures otherwisede*olition shall :e eGected.

ISSUES:1.hich agenc; o the go3ern*ent the 44A or thetowns and *unici(alities co*(rising the region should e/ercise ?urisdiction o3er the 4aguna la"e andits en3irons insoar as the issuance o (er*its or+sher; (ri3ileges is concerned2. hether the 44A is a 6uasi-?udicial agenc;



HELD:1. Sec.C"7 o the charter o the 44A, RA C85', the(ro3isions o P 81D,and Sec.2 o O $o.92&,s(eci+call; (ro3ide that the 44A shall ha3e e/clusi3e ?urisdiction to issue (er*its or the use o all surace

water or an; (ro?ects or acti3ities in or aGecting thesaid region. On the other hand, RA &1%' has grantedto the *unici(alities the e/clusi3e authorit; to grant+sher; (ri3ileges on *unici(al waters. !he (ro3isionso RA &1%' do not necessaril; re(eal the laws creatingthe 44A and granting the latter water rights authorit;o3er 4aguna de Ba; and the la"e region.

here there is a conVict :etween a general law and as(ecial statute, latter should (re3ail since it e3incesthe legislati3e intent *ore clearl; than the general

statute.The special law is to be taken as an exceptionto the general law in the absence of specialcircumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. *(liedre(eals are not a3ored and, as *uch as (ossi:le,eGect *ust :e gi3en to all enact*ents o thelegislature. A s(ecial law cannot :e re(ealed, a*endedor altered :; a su:se6uent general law :; *erei*(lication.

The power of LGUs to issue shing privileges wasgranted for revenue purposes. On the other hand, the(ower o the 44A to grant (er*its or +sh(ens, +shcages, and other a6ua-culture structures is or the(ur(ose o eGecti3el; regulating *onitoringacti3ities in the 4aguna de Ba; region and or la"econtrol and *anage*ent. t (arta"es o the nature o (olice (ower which is the *ost (er3asi3e, leastli*ita:le and *ost de*anding o all state(owers including the (ower o ta/ation.Accordingl;, the charter of the LL! which embodies a

valid exercise of police power should prevail over theLG" of #$$# on matters a%ecting Laguna de &ay .

2. !he 44A has e/(ress (owers as a regulator; and6uasi-?udicial :od; in res(ect to (ollution cases with

authorit; to issue a cease and desist order and on*atters aGecting the construction o illegal +sh(ens,+sh cages and other a6ua-culture structures in 4agunade Ba;.

Sec.1C9 o RA &1%' has not re(ealed the (ro3isions o the charter o the 44A, RA C85', as a*ended. !hus, the LL! has the exclusive 'urisdiction to issue permits for en'oyment of shery privileges in Lagunade &ay to the exclusion of municipalities situatedthereinand the authority to exercise such powers as

are by its charter vested on it .

RI*AL EMPIRE INSURANCE vs NLRCFACTS:n August 19&&, herein res(ondent Rogelio R. 0oriawas hired :; herein (etitioner Ri=al *(ire nsurance<rou( as a casual e*(lo;ee with a salar; o P1'.'' ada;. On Januar; 1, 19&8, he was *ade a regulare*(lo;ee, ha3ing :een a((ointed as cler"-t;(ist, witha *onthl; salar; o PD''.''. Being a (er*anente*(lo;ee, he was urnished a co(; o (etitioner0o*(an;s <eneral nor*ation, O>ce Beha3ior andOther Rules and Regulations. n the sa*e ;ear,without change in his (osition-designation he wastranserred to the 0lai*s e(art*ent and his salar;was increased to PC5'.'' a *onth. n 198', he wastranserred to the nderwriting e(art*ent and hissalar; was increased to P58'.'' a *onth (lus cost o li3ing allowance, until he was transerred to the #iree(art*ent as +ling cler". n Jul; 198D, he was *ade



an ins(ector o the #ire i3ision with a *onthl; salar;o P%85.'' (lus allowances and other :ene+ts.

On Octo:er 15, 198D, (ri3ate res(ondent Rogelio R.0oria was dis*issed ro* wor", allegedl;, on the

grounds o tardiness and une/cused a:sences.Accordingl;, he +led a co*(laint with the Ministr; o 4a:or and *(lo;*ent MO47, and in a ecisiondated March 1C, 1985 Record, ((. 8'-8&7, 4a:orAr:iter !eodorico 4. Rui= reinstated hi* to his (ositionwith :ac" wages. Petitioner +led an a((eal with the$4R0 :ut, in a Resolution dated $o3e*:er 15, 1985,the a((eal was dis*issed on the ground that the sa*ehad :een +led out o ti*e. ence, the instant (etition.

ISSUE:

hether or not $4R0 co**itted a gra3e a:use o discretion a*ounting to lac" o ?urisdiction indis*issing (etitioners a((eal on a technicalit;.

HELD:Rule o the Re3ised Rules o the $ational 4a:orRelations 0o**ission on a((eal, (ro3ides@

()"T*+, #. -a !ppeal. / ecision or orders of a labor !rbiter shall be nal and executory unless appealed tothe "ommission by any or both of the parties withinten -#0 calendar days from receipt of notice thereof.

()"T*+, 1. ,o extension of period. / ,o motion or request for extension of the period within which to perfect an appeal shall be entertained.

!he record shows that the e*(lo;er (etitioner herein7recei3ed a co(; o the decision o the 4a:or Ar:iter onA(ril 1, 1985. t +led a Motion or /tension o !i*e to

#ile Me*orandu* o A((eal on A(ril 11, 1985 and +ledthe Me*orandu* o A((eal on A(ril 22, 1985.Pursuant to the no e/tension (olic; o the $4R0,aoresaid *otion or e/tension o ti*e was denied inits resolution dated $o3e*:er 15, 1985 and the

a((eal was dis*issed or ha3ing :een +led out o ti*e.

!he Re3ised Rules o the $ational 4a:or Relations0o**ission are clear and e/(licit and lea3e no roo*or inter(retation. Moreo3er, it is an ele*entar; rule inad*inistration law that ad*inistrati3e regulations and(olicies enacted :; ad*inistrati3e :odies to inter(retthe law which the; are entrusted to enorce, ha3e theorce o law, and are entitled to great res(ect s(anol3s Phil. eterans Ad*inistration, 1D& S0RA D1CW1985X7.

nder the a:o3e-6uoted (ro3isions o the Re3ised$4R0 Rules, the decision a((ealed ro* in this casehas :eco*e +nal and e/ecutor; and can no longer :esu:?ect to a((eal.

3en on the *erits, the ruling o the 4a:or Ar:itera((ears to :e correctL the consistent (ro*otions inran" and salar; o the (ri3ate res(ondent indicate he*ust ha3e :een a highl; e>cient wor"er, who should:e retained des(ite occasional la(ses in (unctualit;and attendance. Perection cannot ater all :ede*anded. hereore, this (etition is SMSS. SOORR.

TIO vs. )IDEOGRAMFACTS:alentino !io is a 3ideogra* o(erator who assailed theconstitutionalit; o P 198& entitled An Act 0reatingthe ideogra* Regulator; Board with :road (owers to



regulate and su(er3ise the 3ideogra* industr;. !he Pwas also reinorced :; P199C which a*ended the$ational nternal Re3enue 0ode. !he a*end*ent(ro3ides that there shall :e collected on each(rocessed 3ideo-ta(e cassette, read; or (la;:ac",

regardless o length, an annual ta/ o +3e (esosLPro3ided, !hat locall; *anuactured or i*(orted :lan"3ideo ta(es shall :e su:?ect to sales ta/. !he said lawwas :rought a:out :; the need to regulate the sale o 3ideogra*s as it has ad3erse eGects to the *o3ieindustr;. !he (rolieration o 3ideogra*s hassigni+cantl; lessen the re3enue :eing ac6uired ro*the *o3ie industr;, and that such loss *a; :ereco3ered i 3ideogra*s are to :e ta/ed. !io counteredthat there is no actual nor legal :asis or the e/ercise:; the President o the 3ast (owers conerred u(on

hi* :; the A*end*ent and that there is an unduedelegation o legislati3e (ower to the President.

ISSUE:hether or not there is an undue delegation o (ower.

HELD:t cannot :e successull; argued that the P containsan undue delegation o legislati3e (ower. !he grant inSec 11 o the P o authorit; to the Board to Esolicitthe direct assistance o other agencies and units o thego3ern*ent and de(uti=e, or a +/ed and li*ited(eriod, the heads or (ersonnel o such agencies andunits to (eror* enorce*ent unctions or the BoardEis not a delegation o the (ower to legislate :ut *erel;a coner*ent o authorit; or discretion as to itse/ecution, enorce*ent, and i*(le*entation. E!hetrue distinction is :etween the delegation o (ower to*a"e the law, which necessaril; in3ol3es discretion asto what it shall :e, and conerring authorit; or

discretion as to its e/ecution to :e e/ercised under andin (ursuance o the law. !he +rst cannot :e doneL tothe latter, no 3alid o:?ection can :e *ade.E Besides, inthe 3er; language o the decree, the authorit; o theBoard to solicit such assistance is or a E+/ed and

li*ited (eriodE with the de(uti=ed agencies concerned:eing Esu:?ect to the direction and control o theBoard.E !hat the grant o such authorit; *ight :e thesource o grat and corru(tion would not stig*ati=e theP as unconstitutional. Should the e3entualit; occur,the aggrie3ed (arties will not :e without ade6uatere*ed; in law.

PEOPLE vs. MACERENFACTS: !his is a case in3ol3ing the 3alidit; o a 19%&

regulation, (enali=ing electro +shing in resh water+sheries, (ro*ulgated :; the Secretar; o Agricultureand $atural Resources and the 0o**issioner o #isheries under the old #isheries 4aw. On March &,19%9 Jose Buena3entura, <odoredo Re;es, Ben?a*inRe;es, $a=ario A6uino and 0arlito del Rosario werecharged :; a 0onsta:ular; in3estigator in the*unici(al court o Sta. 0ru=, 4aguna with ha3ing3iolated #isheries Ad*inistrati3e Order $o. 8C-1.t wasalleged in the co*(laint that the +3e accused in the*orning o March 1, 19%9 resorted to electro +shing inthe waters o Barrio San Pa:lo $orte, Sta. 0ru=. (on*otion o the accused, the *unici(al court 6uashedthe co*(laint. !he (rosecution a((ealed. !he 0ourt o #irst nstance o 4aguna a>r*ed the order o dis*issal. !he lower court held that electro +shingcannot :e (enali=e :ecause electric current is not ano:no/ious or (oisonous su:stance as conte*(lated inSection 11 o the #isheries 4aw and that it is not asu:stance at all :ut a or* o energ; conducted or



trans*itted :; su:stances. !he lower court urtherheld that, since the law does not clearl; (rohi:itelectro +shing, the e/ecuti3e and ?udicial de(art*entscannot consider it unlawul. t is noteworth; that the#isheries 4aw does not e/(ressl; (unish .electro

+shing. $otwithstanding the silence o the law, theSecretar; o Agriculture and $atural Resources, u(onthe reco**endation o the 0o**issioner o #isheries,(ro*ulgated #isheries Ad*inistrati3e Order $o. 8C,(rohi:iting electro +shing in all Phili((ine waters. On June 28, 19%& the Secretar; o Agriculture and $aturalResources, u(on the reco**endation o the #isheries0o**ission, issued #isheries Ad*inistrati3e Order $o.8C-1, a*ending section 2 o Ad*inistrati3e Order $o.8C, :; restricting the :an against electro +shing toresh water +sheries.

ISSUE:hether or not the Secretar; o Agriculture and$atural Resources and the 0o**issioner o #isheriese/ceeded their authorit; in issuing the #isheriesAd*inistrati3e Orders $os. 8C and 8C-1.

HELD: !he 0ourt ruled in the a>r*ati3e. !he Secretar; o Agriculture and $atural Resources and the0o**issioner o #isheries e/ceeded their authorit; inissuing #isheries Ad*inistrati3e Orders $os. 8C and 8C-1 and that those orders are not warranted under the#isheries 0o**ission, Re(u:lic Act $o. D512. !hereason is that the #isheries 4aw does not e/(ressl;(rohi:it electro +shing. As electro +shing is not :annedunder that law, the Secretar; o Agriculture and$atural Resources and the 0o**issioner o #isheries

are (owerless to (enali=e it. n other words,Ad*inistrati3e Orders $os. 8C and 8C-1, in (enali=ingelectro +shing, are de3oid o an; legal :asis. !hat law(unishes 17 the use o o:no/ious or (oisonoussu:stance, or e/(losi3e in +shingL 27 unlawul +shing

in dee(-sea +sheriesL D7 unlawul ta"ing o *arine*olusca, C7 illegal ta"ing o s(ongesL 57 ailure o licensed +sher*en to re(ort the "ind and 6uantit; o +sh caught, and %7 other 3iolations. $owhere in thatlaw is electro +shing s(eci+call; (unished.Ad*inistrati3e regulations ado(ted under legislati3eauthorit; :; a (articular de(art*ent *ust :e inhar*on; with the (ro3isions o the law, and should :eor the sole (ur(ose o carr;ing into eGect its general(ro3isions. !he rule-*a"ing (ower *ust :e con+ned todetails or regulating the *ode or (roceeding to carr;

into eGect the law as it has :een enacted. !he (owercannot :e e/tended to a*ending or e/(anding thestatutor; re6uire*ents or to e*:race *atters notco3ered :; the statute. Rules that su:3ert the statutecannot :e sanctioned. !hus, the law*a"ing :od;cannot delegate to an e/ecuti3e o>cial the (ower todeclare what acts should constitute an oGense. t canauthori=e the issuance o regulations and thei*(osition o the (enalt; (ro3ided or in the law itsel.

BOIE-TAKEDA CHEMICALS, INC. vs. DE LA SERNAFats: P.. $o. 851 (ro3ides or the !hirteen-Month Pa; 4aw.nder Sec. 1 o said law, all e*(lo;ers are re6uired to(a; all their e*(lo;ees recei3ing :asic salar; o not*ore than P 1,'''.'' a *onth, regardless o thenature o the e*(lo;*ent, and such should :e (aid onece*:er 2C o e3er; ;ear. !he Rules andRegulations *(le*enting P.. 851 contained(ro3isions de+ning 1D-*onth (a; and :asic salar;



and the e*(lo;ers e/e*(ted ro* gi3ing it and towho* it is *ade a((lica:le. Su((le*entar; Rules andRegulations *(le*enting P.. 851 were su:se6uentl;issued :; Minister O(le which inter alia set ite*s o co*(ensation not included in the co*(utation o 1D-

*onth (a;. o3erti*e (a;, earnings and otherre*unerations which are not (art o :asic salar; shallnot :e included in the co*(utation o 1D-*onth (a;7.Pres. 0ora=on A6uino (ro*ulgated on August 1D, 1985M.O. $o. 28, containing a single (ro3ision that *odi+esP.. 851 :; re*o3ing the salar; ceiling o P 1,'''.'' a*onth. More than a ;ear later, Re3ised <uidelines onthe *(le*entation o the 1D-*onth (a; law was(ro*ulgated :; the then 4a:or Secretar; #ran"linrilon, a*ong other things, de+ned (articularl; whatre*unerati3e ite*s were and were not included in the

conce(t o 1D-*onth (a;, and s(eci+call; dealt withe*(lo;ees who are (aid a +/ed or guaranteed wage(lus co**ission or co**issions were included in theco*(utation o 1Dth *onth (a;7A routine ins(ection was conducted in the (re*ises o (etitioner. #inding that (etitioner had not :eenincluding the co**issions earned :; its *edicalre(resentati3es in the co*(utation o their 1-*onth(a;, a $otice o ns(ection Result was ser3ed on(etitioner to eGect restitution or correction o theunder(a;*ent o 1D-*onth (a; or the ;ears, 198% to

1988 o Medical re(resentati3es. Petitioner wrote the4a:or e(art*ent contesting the $otice o ns(ectionResults, and e/(ressing the 3iew that the co**ission(aid to its *edical re(resentati3es are not to :eincluded in the co*(utation o the 1D-*oth (a; sincethe law and its i*(le*enting rules s(ea" o R<4ARor BAS0 salar; and thereore e/clude allre*unerations which are not (art o the R<4ARsalar;. Regional ir. 4una Pie=as issued an order or the

(a;*ent o under(aid 1D-*onth (a; or the ;ears198%, 198& and 1988. A *otion or reconsiderationwas +led and the then Acting la:or Secretar; ionisiode la Serna a>r*ed the order with *odi+cation thatthe sales co**ission earned o *edical

re(resentati3es :eore August 1D, 1989 eGecti3it;date o MO 28 and its i*(le*enting guidelines7 shall:e e/cluded in the co*(utation o the 1D-*onth (a;.Si*ilar routine ins(ection was conducted in the(re*ises o Phil. #u?i Nero/ where it was ound therewas under(a;*ent o 1Dth *onth (a; sinceco**issions were not included. n their al*ostidenticall;-worded (etitioner, (etitioners, throughco**on counsel, attri:ute gra3e a:use o discretionto res(ondent la:or o>cials*on. ionisio dela Sernaand ndersecretar; 0resenciano B. !ra?ano.

ISSUE: hether co**issions are included in the co*(utationo 1D-*onth (a;

HELD:$O. 0ontrar; to res(ondents contention, M.O $o. 28did not re(eal, su(ersede or a:rogate P.. 851. As *a;:e gleaned ro* the language o MO $o. 28, it *erel;*odi+ed Section 1 o the decree :; re*o3ing the P1,'''.'' salar; ceiling. !he conce(t o 1Dth Month (a;

as en3isioned, de+ned and i*(le*ented under P..851 re*ained unaltered, and while entitle*ent to said:ene+t was no longer li*ited to e*(lo;ees recei3ing a*onthl; :asic salar; o not *ore than P 1,'''.'' said:ene+t was, and still is, to :e co*(uted on the :asicsalar; o the e*(lo;ee-reci(ient as (ro3ided underP.. 851. !hus, the inter(retation gi3en to the ter*:asic salar; was de+ned in P 851 a((lies e6uall; to:asic salar; under M.O. $o. 28. !he ter* :asic



salar; is to :e understood in its co**on, generall;acce(ted *eaning, i.e., as a rate o (a; or a standardwor" (eriod e/clusi3e o such additional (a;*ents as:onuses and o3erti*e. n re*unerati3e sche*esconsists o a +/ed or guaranteed wage (lus

co**ission, the +/ed or guaranteed wage is (atentl;the :asic salar; or this is what the e*(lo;eerecei3es or a standard wor" (eriod. 0o**issions aregi3en or e/tra eGorts e/erted in consu**ating saleso other related transactions. !he; are, as such,additional (a;, which the S0 has *ade clear do notro* (art o the :asic salar;.

Moreo3er, the Su(re*e 0ourt said that, includingco**issions in the co*(utation o the 1Dth *onth

(a;, the second (aragra(h o Section 5a7 o theRe3ised <uidelines on the *(le*entation o the 1DthMonth Pa; 4aw undul; e/(anded the conce(t o E:asicsalar;E as de+ned in P.. 851. t is a unda*ental rulethat i*(le*enting rules cannot add to or detract ro*

the (ro3isions o the law it is designed to i*(le*ent.Ad*inistrati3e regulations ado(ted under legislati3eauthorit; :; a (articular de(art*ent *ust :e inhar*on; with the (ro3isions o the law the; areintended to carr; into eGect. !he; cannot widen itssco(e. An ad*inistrati3e agenc; cannot a*end an acto 0ongress.

Documents

Admin Digest