Admin Law Case Digests - Part i

8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i

1/18

IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY vs COURT OF

APPEALS

FACTS:

Petitioner Iron and Steel Authority (ISA) was created

by Presidential Decree No. 272 dated August 9, 97!

in order, to de"elo# and #ro$ote the iron and steel

industry in the Phili##ines. P.D. No. 272 initially

created #etitioner ISA %or a ter$ o% & years, and when

ISAs original ter$ e'#ired on ctober , 97*, its

ter$ was e'tended %or another years. +he National

Steel or#oration (NS) then a wholly owned

subsidiary o% the National De"elo#$ent or#oration,

which is itsel% an entity wholly owned by the National

-o"ern$ent, e$bared on an e'#ansion #rogra$

e$bracing, a$ong other things, the construction o%

an integrated steel $ill in Iligan ity. Pursuant to thee'#ansion #rogra$ o% the NS, Procla$ation No. 22!9

was issued by the President o% the Phili##ines on

No"e$ber /, 9*2 withdrawing %ro$ sale or

settle$ent a large tract o% #ublic land located in Iligan

ity and reser"ing that land %or the use and

i$$ediate occu#ancy o% NSs. Since certain #ortions

o% the #ublic land sub0ect $atter o% Procla$ation No.

22!9 were occu#ied by a non1o#erational che$ical

%ertilier #lant owned by #ri"ate res#ondent 3aria

ristina 4ertilier or#oration (34), 5I No. 277,

also dated/ No"e$ber 9*2, was issued directing

the NS to 6negotiate with the owners o% 34, %or

and on behal% o% the -o"ern$ent, %or the

co$#ensation o% 34s #resent occu#ancy rights

on the sub0ect land. 5I No. 277 also directed that

should NS and #ri"ate res#ondent 34 %ail to reach

an agree$ent within a #eriod o% / days %ro$ the

date o% the 5I, #etitioner ISA was to e'ercise its

#ower o% e$inent do$ain under P.D. No. 272 and to

initiate e'#ro#riation #roceedings in res#ect o%

occu#ancy rights o% #ri"ate res#ondent 34 relating

to the sub0ect #ublic land as well as the #lant itsel%

and related %acilities and to cede the sa$e to the

NS. Negotiations between NS and #ri"ate

res#ondent 34 did %ail.

ISSUE:

hether or not the 8e#ublic o% the Phili##ines is

entitled to be substituted %or ISA in "iew o% the

e'#iration o% ISAs ter$.

HELD:

learly, ISA was "ested with so$e o% the #owers or

attributes nor$ally associated with 0uridical

#ersonality but did not #ossess general or

co$#rehensi"e 0uridical #ersonality se#arate and

distinct %ro$ that o% the -o"ern$ent. +he ISA in %act

a##ears to the ourt to be a non1incor#orated agency

or instru$entality o% the -o"ern$ent o% the 8e#ublic

o% the Phili##ines. ISA $ay thus be #ro#erly regarded

as an agent or delegate o% the 8e#ublic o% the

Phili##ines. hen the statutory ter$ o% a non1

incor#orated agency e'#ires, the #owers, duties and

%unctions as well as the assets and liabilities o% that

agency re"ert bac to, and are re1assu$ed by, the

8e#ublic o% the Phili##ines, in the absence o% s#ecial

#ro"isions o% law s#eci%ying so$e other dis#osition

thereo% such as, e.g., de"olution or trans$ission o% such #owers, duties, %unctions, etc. to so$e other

identi:ed successor agency or instru$entality o% the

8e#ublic o% the Phili##ines. hen the e'#iring agency

is an incor#orated one, the conse;uences o% such

e'#iry $ust be looed %or in the charter o% that

agency and, by way o% su##le$entation, in the

#ro"isions o% the or#oration ode. Since, in the

instant case, ISA is a non1incor#orated agency or

instru$entality o% the 8e#ublic, its #owers, duties,

%unctions, assets and liabilities are #ro#erly regarded

as %olded bac into the -o"ern$ent o% the 8e#ublic o%

the Phili##ines and hence assu$ed once again by the

8e#ublic, no s#ecial statutory #ro"ision ha"ing been

shown to ha"e $andated succession thereto by so$e

other entity or agency o% the 8e#ublic. In the instant

case, ISA instituted the e'#ro#riation #roceedings in

its ca#acity as an agent or delegate or re#resentati"e

o% the 8e#ublic o% the Phili##ines #ursuant to its

authority under P.D. No. 272.4ro$ the %oregoing

#re$ises, it %ollows that the 8e#ublic o% the

Phili##ines is entitled to be substituted in the

e'#ro#riation #roceedings as #arty1#lainti< in lieu o%

ISA, the statutory ter$ o% ISA ha"ing e'#ired. Put a

little di


2/18

hether or not the Ad$inistrati"e ode o% 9*7

re#ealed or abrogated Section /99 o% the 8e"ised

Ad$inistrati"e ode o% 97.

HELD:

N. Petition granted. 8es#ondent ordered to gi"e due

course on #etitioner=s clai$ %or bene:ts.

8e#eal by i$#lication #roceeds on the #re$ise that

where a statute o% later date clearly re"eals an

intention on the #art o% the legislature to abrogate a

#rior act on the sub0ect, that intention $ust be gi"en

econo$ic Intelligence and In"estigation

ureau (>II) to #ri$arily conduct anti1s$uggling

o#erations in areas outside the 0urisdiction o% the

ureau o% usto$s. In the year 2, President

>strada issued an order deacti"ating the >II. e

subse;uently ordered the e$#loyees o% >II to be

se#arated %ro$ the ser"ice. +herea%ter, he created the

Presidential Anti1S$uggling +as 4orce @AduanaE,

which >II e$#loyees clai$ to be essentially the

sa$e as >II. +he e$#loyees o% >II, through the

ulod ng Fawaning >II, in"oed the Su#re$e

ourt=s #ower o% 0udicial re"iew in ;uestioning thesaid orders. >II e$#loyees $aintained that the

#resident has no #ower to abolish a #ublic oGce, as

that is a #ower solely lodged in the legislatureB and

that the abolition "iolates their constitutional right to

security o% tenure.

ISSUE:

hether or not the #etition has $erit.

HELD:

No. It is a general rule that the #ower to abolish a

#ublic oGce is lodged with the legislature. +he

e'ce#tion is when it co$es to agencies, bureaus, and

other oGces under the e'ecuti"e de#art$ent, the

#resident $ay deacti"ate the$ #ursuant to control

#ower o"er such oGces, unless such oGce is created

by the onstitution. +his is also ger$ane to the

#resident=s #ower to reorganie the Gce o% the

President. asis o% such #ower also has its roots in

two laws i.e., PD 772 and PD H/. +hese decrees

e'#ressly grant the President o% the Phili##ines the

continuing authority to reorganie the national

go"ern$ent, which includes the #ower to grou#,

consolidate bureaus and agencies, to abolish oGces,

to trans%er %unctions, to create and classi%y %unctions,ser"ices and acti"ities and to standardie salaries and

$aterials.

Also, it cannot be said that there is bad %aith in the

abolition o% >II. >II allocations ha"e always

e'ceeded P $illion #er year. +o sa"e the

go"ern$ent so$e $oney, it needed to abolish it and

re#lace it with +4 Aduana which has %or its allocation

0ust P& $illion. 4urther, +4 Aduana is in"ested $ore

#ower that >II ne"er had, i.e., search and seiure

and arrest.

5astly, >>I e$#loyees= right to security o% tenure is

not "iolated. Since there is no bad %aith in the

abolition o% >II, such abolition is not in:r$. Jalid

abolition o% oGces is neither re$o"al nor se#aration

o% the incu$bents. I% the #ublic oGce ceases to e'ist,

there is no se#aration or dis$issal to s#ea o%.

Indeed, there is no such thing as an absolute right to

hold oGce. >'ce#t constitutional oGces which #ro"ide

%or s#ecial i$$unity as regards salary and tenure, noone can be said to ha"e any "ested right in an oGce

or its salary.

BAGAOISAN VS NAT'L TOBACCO

ADMINISTRATION. G.R. No. 15!"5 : A#$#s% 5&

(.

FACTS:

+he #etitioner was ter$inated %ro$ there #osition in

the national tobacco ad$inistration as a result o% the

e'ecuti"e order issued by #resident >strada which

$andates %or the strea$ lining o% the national

tobacco ad$inistration, a go"ern$ent agency under

the de#art$ent o% agriculture. +he #etitioners :led a

letter o% a##eal to the ci"il ser"ice co$$ission to

recall the order. Petitioner all :le a #etition %or


3/18

certiorari with #rohibition an $anda$us with #rayer

%or #reli$inary $andatory in0unction and a te$#orary

restraining order with the regional trial court o% ata

to #re"ent the res#ondent %ro$ en%orcing the notice

o% ter$ination and %ro$ austing the #etitioners in

there res#ecti"e oGces.

+he regional trial court issued an order ordering the

national tobacco ad$inistration to a##oint the

#etitioner to the o #osition si$ilar to the one that they

hold be%ore. +he national tobacco ad$inistration

a##ealed to the court o% a##eals who re"ersed the

decision o% the 8+. Petitioner a##ealed to the

su#re$e court.

ISSUE:

hether or not, the reorganiation o% the national

tobacco ad$inistration is "alid true issuance o%

e'ecuti"e order by the #resident.

HELD:

According to the su#re$e court, the #resident has the

#ower to reorganie an oGce to achie"e si$#licity

,econo$y and eGciency as #ro"ided under e'ecuti"e

order 292 sec. ! and section H* o% 8A 7/H& which#ro"ides that acti"ities o% e'ecuti"e agencies $ay be

scaled down i% it is no longer essential %or the deli"ery

o% #ublic ser"ice.

>8>48>, the 3otion to Ad$it Petition %or >n anc

resolution and the Petition %or an >n anc 8esolution

are D>NI>D %or lac o% $erit. 5et entry o% 0udg$ent be

$ade in due course. No costs.

PIMENTEL VS. COMELEC GR 1)1)5!& NOV. (&

(

FACTS:

ongress #assed 8A 9/&, o$#rehensi"e Dangerous

Drugs Act o% 22, and $aes it $andatory %or

candidates %or #ublic oGce, students o% secondary

and tertiary schools, oGcers and e$#loyees o% #ublicand #ri"ate oGces, and #ersons charged be%ore the

#rosecutor=s oGce with certain o


4/18

hether or not the S had #owers to e'ecute its

resolution or 0udg$ent.

HELD:

+he i"il Ser"ice o$$ission, lie the o$$ission on

>lections and the o$$ission on Audit, is a

constitutional co$$ission in"ested by the

onstitution and rele"ant laws not only with authority

to ad$inister the ci"il ser"ice, but also with ;uasi1

0udicial #owers. It has the authority to hear and

decide ad$inistrati"e disci#linary cases instituted

directly with it or brought to it on a##eal. +he i"il

Ser"ice o$$ission #ro$ulgated 8esolution No. *91

779 ado#ting, a##ro"ing and #utting into e 927 %urther de:ned and enlarged the %unctions

and #owers o% the 55DA and enu$erated the towns,

cities and #ro"inces enco$#assed by the ter$

@5aguna de ay 8egionE.

L#on i$#le$entation o% 8A 7/ (5ocal -o"ern$ent

ode o% 99), the $unici#alities assu$ed e'clusi"e 0urisdiction O authority to issue :shing #ri"ileges

within their $unici#al waters since Sec.H9 thereo%

#ro"idesM @3unici#al cor#orations shall ha"e the

authority to grant :shery #ri"ileges in the $unici#al

waters and i$#ose rental %ees or charges there%oreE

ig :sh#en o#erators too ad"antage o% the occasion

to establish :sh#ens O :sh cages to the consternation

o% the 55DA.

+he i$#le$entation o% se#arate inde#endent #olicies

in :sh cages O :sh #en o#eration and the

indiscri$inate grant o% :sh#en #er$its by the

laeshore $unici#alities ha"e saturated the lae with

:sh#ens, thereby aggra"ating the current

en"iron$ental #roble$s and ecological stress o%

5aguna 5ae.

+he 55DA then ser"ed notice to the general #ublic

that () :sh#ens, cages O other a;ua1culture

structures unregistered with the 55DA as o% 3arch !,

99! are declared illegalB (2) those declared illegal

shall be sub0ect to de$olition by the Presidential +as

4orce %or Illegal 4ish#en and Illegal 4ishingB and (!)

owners o% those declared illegal shall be cri$inally

charged with "iolation o% Sec.!91A o% 8A H*& as

a$ended by PD *!.

A $onth later, the 55DA sent notices ad"ising the

owners o% the illegally constructed :sh#ens, :shcages

and other a;ua1culture structures ad"ising the$ todis$antle their res#ecti"e structures otherwise

de$olition shall be e


5/18

should e'ercise 0urisdiction o"er the 5aguna lae and

its en"irons inso%ar as the issuance o% #er$its %or

:shery #ri"ileges is concernedK

hether the 55DA is a ;uasi10udicial agencyK

HELD:

. Sec.H() o% the charter o% the 55DA, 8A H*&, the

#ro"isions o% PD *!,and Sec.2 o% > No.927,

s#eci:cally #ro"ide that the 55DA shall ha"e e'clusi"e

0urisdiction to issue #er$its %or the use o% all sur%ace

water %or any #ro0ects or acti"ities in or achegaray y Pilo %or the cri$e o% ra#e o% the year1

old daughter o% his co$$on1law s#ouse and the

i$#osition u#on hi$ o% the death #enalty %or the said

cri$e.

e :led an 348 and a su##le$ental 348 raising %or

the :rst ti$e the issue o% the constitutionality o%

8e#ublic Act No. 7/&9 and the death #enalty %or ra#e.

+he ourt denied both $otions.

In the $eanti$e, ongress had seen it :t to change

the $ode o% e'ecution o% the death #enalty %ro$

electrocution to lethal in0ection, and #assed 8e#ublic

Act No. *77, AN A+ D>SI-NA+IN- D>A+ 5>+A5

IN?>+IN AS +> 3>+D 4 A88IN- L+API+A5 PLNIS3>N+, A3>NDIN- 48 +> PL8PS>

A8+I5> * 4 +> 8>JIS>D P>NA5 D>, AS

A3>ND>D S>+IN 2H 4 8>PL5I A+ N.

7/&9.

+he con"ict :led a Petition %or #rohibition %ro$

carrying out the lethal in0ection against hi$ under the

grounds that it constituted cruel, degrading, or

unusual #unish$ent, being "iolati"e o% due #rocess, a

"iolation o% the Phili##ines obligations underinternational co"enants, an undue delegation o%

legislati"e #ower by ongress, an unlaw%ul e'ercise

by res#ondent Secretary o% the #ower to legislate, and

an unlaw%ul delegation o% delegated #owers by the

Secretary o% ?ustice to res#ondent Director.

In his $otion to a$end, the #etitioner added e;ual

#rotection as a ground.

+he Gce o% the Solicitor -eneral stated that this

ourt has already u#held the constitutionality o% the

Death Penalty 5aw, and has re#eatedly declared that

the death #enalty is not cruel, un0ust, e'cessi"e or

unusual #unish$entB e'ecution by lethal in0ection, as

authoried under 8.A. No. *77 and the ;uestioned

rules, is constitutional, lethal in0ection being the $ost

$odern, $ore hu$ane, $ore econo$ical, sa%er and

easier to a##ly (than electrocution or the gas


6/18

cha$ber)B the International o"enant on i"il and

Political 8ights does not e'#ressly or i$#liedly

#rohibit the i$#osition o% the death #enaltyB 8.A. No.

*77 #ro#erly delegated legislati"e #ower to

res#ondent DirectorB and that 8.A. No. *77 con%ers

the #ower to #ro$ulgate the i$#le$enting rules to

the Secretary o% ?ustice, Secretary o% ealth and the

ureau o% orrections.

+he o$$ission on u$an 8ights :led a 3otion %or

5ea"e o% ourt to Inter"ene andRor A##ear as A$icus

uriae with the attached Petition to Inter"ene andRor

A##ear as A$icus uriae. +hey alleged si$ilarly with

>chegaray=s argu$ents.

+he #etitioner :led a re#ly si$ilar to his :rst

argu$ents. +he court ga"e due course to the #etition.

oncisely #ut, #etitioner argues that 8.A. No. *77

and its i$#le$enting rules do not #ass constitutional

$uster %orM (a) "iolation o% the constitutional

#roscri#tion against cruel, degrading or inhu$an

#unish$ent, (b) "iolation o% our international treaty

obligations, (c) being an undue delegation o%

legislati"e #ower, and (d) being discri$inatory.

ISSUE:

hether or not there was an undue delegation o%

legislati"e #owerK

HELD:

8.A. No. *77 liewise #ro"ides the standards which

de:ne the legislati"e #olicy, $ar its li$its, $a# out

its boundaries, and s#eci%y the #ublic agencies which

will a##ly it. It indicates the circu$stances underwhich the legislati"e #ur#ose $ay be carried out. 8.A.

No. *77 s#eci:cally re;uires that the death

sentence shall be e'ecuted under the authority o% the

Director o% the ureau o% orrections, endea"oring so

%ar as #ossible to $itigate the suS+A5ISIN- +>

PI5IPPIN> NA+INA5 P5I> LND>8 A 8>8-ANI>D

D>PA8+3>N+ 4 +> IN+>8I8 AND 5A5

-J>8N3>N+, AND 48 +>8 PL8PS>S,E

allegedly contra"ened Art. TJI, sec. / o% the 9*/

onstitutionM @+he State shall establish and $aintain

one #olice %orce, which shall be national in sco#e and

ci"ilian in character, to be ad$inistered and

controlled by a national #olice co$$ission. +he

authority o% local e'ecuti"es o"er the #olice units in

their 0urisdiction shall be #ro"ided by law.E

ISSUEsM

hether or not 8A /97& is contrary to the

onstitution

hether or not Sec. 2 8A /97& constitutes an

@encroach$ent u#on, inter%erence with, and an

abdication by the President o%, e'ecuti"e control and

co$$ander1in1chie% #owersE


7/18

HELD:

Power o% Ad$inistrati"e ontrol

NAP53 is under the Gce o% the President.

S held that the President has control o% all e'ecuti"e

de#art$ents, bureaus, and oGces. +his #residential

#ower o% control o"er the e'ecuti"e branch o%

go"ern$ent e'tends o"er all e'ecuti"e oGcers %ro$

abinet Secretary to the lowliest cler. In the

land$ar case o% 3ondano "s. Sil"osa, the #ower o%

control $eans @the #ower o% the President to alter or

$odi%y or nulli%y or set aside what a subordinate

oGcer had done in the #er%or$ance o% his duties and

to substitute the 0udg$ent o% the %or$er with that o%

the latter.E It is said to be at the "ery @heart o% the$eaning o% hie% >'ecuti"e.E

As a corollary rule to the control #owers o% the

President is the @Doctrine o% Uuali:ed Political

Agency.E As the President cannot be e'#ected to

e'ercise his control #owers all at the sa$e ti$e and

in #erson, he will ha"e to delegate so$e o% the$ to

his abinet $e$bers.

Lnder this doctrine, which recognies the

establish$ent o% a single e'ecuti"e, @all e'ecuti"e

and ad$inistrati"e organiations are ad0uncts o% the

>'ecuti"e De#art$ent, the heads o% the "arious

e'ecuti"e de#art$ents are assistants and agents o%

the hie% >'ecuti"e, and, e'ce#t in cases where the

hie% >'ecuti"e is re;uired by the onstitution or law

to act in #erson or the e'igencies o% the situation

de$and that he act #ersonally, the $ulti%arious

e'ecuti"e and ad$inistrati"e %unctions o% the hie%

>'ecuti"e are #er%or$ed by and through the

e'ecuti"e de#art$ents, and the acts o% the

Secretaries o% such de#art$ents, #er%or$ed and

#ro$ulgated in the regular course o% business, unless

disa##ro"ed or re#robated by the hie% >'ecuti"e, are

#resu$#ti"ely the acts o% the hie% >'ecuti"e.

+hus, @the President=s #ower o% control is directly

e'ercised by hi$ o"er the $e$bers o% the abinet

who, in turn, and by his authority, control the bureaus

and other oGces under their res#ecti"e 0urisdictions

in the e'ecuti"e de#art$ent.E

+he #lacing o% NAP53 and PNP under the

reorganied DI5- is $erely an ad$inistrati"e

realign$ent that would bolster a syste$ o%

coordination and coo#eration a$ong the citienry,

local e'ecuti"es and the integrated law en%orce$ent

agencies and #ublic sa%ety agencies.

Power o% >'ecuti"e ontrol

Sec. 2 does not constitute abdication o% co$$ander1

in1chie% #owers. It si$#ly #ro"ides %or the transition

#eriod or #rocess during which the national #olice

would gradually assu$e the ci"ilian %unction o%

sa%eguarding the internal security o% the State. Lnder

this instance, the President, to re#eat, abdicates

nothing o% his war #owers. It would bear to here state,

in reiteration o% the #re#onderant "iew, that the

President, as o$$ander1in1hie%, is not a $e$ber o%

the Ar$ed 4orces. e re$ains a ci"ilian whose duties

under the o$$ander1in1hie% #ro"ision @re#resent

only a #art o% the organic duties i$#osed u#on hi$.

All his other %unctions are clearly ci"il in nature.E is

#osition as a ci"ilian o$$ander1in1hie% is consistent

with, and a testa$ent to, the constitutional #rinci#lethat @ci"ilian authority is, at all ti$es, su#re$e o"er

the $ilitary.

DENR VS DENR EMPLOYEES

FACTS:

D>N8 8eg 2 >$#loyees :led a #etition %or nullity o% the $e$orandu$ order issued by the 8egional >'ec.

Director o% D>N8, directing the i$$ediate trans%er o%

the D>N8 2 8egional Gces %ro$ otabato to

Foronadal ity. +he $e$orandu$ was issued

#ursuant to D>N8 >'ecuti"e rder issued by the

D>N8 Secretary.

Iss#:

hether or not D>N8 Secretary has the authority toreorganie the D>N8 8egion 2 Gce.

HELD:

+he ;uali:ed #olitical agency doctrine, all e'ecuti"e

and ad$inistrati"e organiations are ad0uncts o% the

>'ecuti"e De#art$ent, and the acts o% the Secretaries

o% such de#art$ents, #er%or$ed and #ro$ulgated in

the regular course o% business, are, unless

disa##ro"ed or re#robated by the hie% >'ecuti"e, are

#resu$#ti"ely the acts o% the hie% >'ecuti"e. It is

corollary to the control #ower o% the President as

#ro"ided %or under Art. JII Sec. 7 o% the 9*7

onstitutionM +he President shall ha"e control o% all

the e'ecuti"e de#art$ents, bureaus, and oGces. e

shall ensure that the laws be %aith%ully e'ecuted.


8/18

In the case at bar, the D>N8 Secretary can "alidly

reorganie the D>N8 by ordering the trans%er o% the

D>N8 TII 8egional Gces %ro$ otabato ity to

Foronadal, South otabato. +he e'ercise o% this

authority by the D>N8 Secretary, as an alter ego, is

#resu$ed to be the acts o% the President %or the latter

had not e'#ressly re#udiated the sa$e.

CARINO VS. CHR

FACTS:

So$e * #ublic school teachers undertoo @$ass

concerted actionsE to #rotest the alleged %ailure o%

#ublic authorities to act u#on their grie"ances. +he

@$ass actionsE consisted in staying away %ro$ their

classes, con"erging at the 5iwasang oni%acio,gathering in #eacable asse$blies, etc. +he Secretary

o% >ducation ser"ed the$ with an order to return to

wor within 2H hours or %ace dis$issal. 4or %ailure to

heed the return1to1wor order, eight teachers at the

8a$on 3agsaysay igh School were ad$inistrati"ely

charged, #re"enti"ely sus#ended %or 9 days

#ursuant to sec. H, P.D. *7 and te$#orarily

re#laced. An in"estigation co$$ittee was

conse;uently %or$ed to hear the charges.

hen their $otion %or sus#ension was denied by the

In"estigating o$$ittee, said teachers staged a

walout signi%ying their intent to boycott the entire

#roceedings. >"entually, Secretary arino decreed

dis$issal %ro$ ser"ice o% >sber and the sus#ension %or

9 $onths o% abaran, udoy and del astillo. In the

$eanti$e, a case was :led with 8+, raising the issue

o% "iolation o% the right o% the striing teachers= to due

#rocess o% law. +he case was e"entually ele"ated to

S. Also in the $eanti$e, the res#ondent teachers

sub$itted sworn state$ents to o$$ission on

u$an 8ights to co$#lain that while they were

#artici#ating in #eace%ul $ass actions, they suddenlylearned o% their re#lace$ent as teachers, allegedly

without notice and conse;uently %or reasons

co$#letely unnown to the$.

hile the case was #ending with 8, S

#ro$ulgated its resolution o"er the cases :led with it

earlier, u#holding the Sec. arino=s act o% issuing the

return1to1wor orders. Des#ite this, 8 continued

hearing its case and held that the @striing teachersE

@were denied due #rocess o% lawBthey should notha"e been re#laced without a chance to re#ly to the

ad$inistrati"e chargesBE there had been "iolation o%

their ci"il and #olitical rights which the o$$ission is

e$#owered to in"estigate.E

ISSUE:

hether or not 8 has 0urisdiction to try and hear

the issues in"ol"ed

HELD:

+he ourt declares the o$$ission on u$an 8ights

to ha"e no such #owerB and that it was not $eant by

the %unda$ental law to be another court or ;uasi1

0udicial agency in this country, or du#licate $uch less

tae o"er the %unctions o% the latter.

+he $ost that $ay be conceded to the o$$ission in

the way o% ad0udicati"e #ower is that it $ay

in"estigate, i.e., recei"e e"idence and $ae :ndings

o% %act as regards clai$ed hu$an rights "iolations

in"ol"ing ci"il and #olitical rights. ut %act :nding is

not ad0udication, and cannot be liened to the 0udicial%unction o% a court o% 0ustice, or e"en a ;uasi10udicial

agency or oGcial. +he %unction o% recei"ing e"idence

and ascertaining there%ro$ the %acts o% a contro"ersy

is not a 0udicial %unction, #ro#erly s#eaing. +o be

considered such, the %aculty o% recei"ing e"idence and

$aing %actual conclusions in a contro"ersy $ust be

acco$#anied by the authority o% a##lying the law to

those %actual conclusions to the end that the

contro"ersy $ay be decided or deter$ined

authoritati"ely, :nally and de:niti"ely, sub0ect to such

a##eals or $odes o% re"iew as $ay be #ro"ided by

law. +his %unction, to re#eat, the o$$ission does not

ha"e.

Power to In"estigate

+he onstitution clearly and categorically grants to

the o$$ission the #ower to in"estigate all %or$s o%

hu$an rights "iolations in"ol"ing ci"il and #olitical

rights. It can e'ercise that #ower on its own initiati"e

or on co$#laint o% any #erson. It $ay e'ercise that

#ower #ursuant to such rules o% #rocedure as it $ay

ado#t and, in cases o% "iolations o% said rules, cite %or

conte$#t in accordance with the 8ules o% ourt. In the

course o% any in"estigation conducted by it or under

its authority, it $ay grant i$$unity %ro$ #rosecution

to any #erson whose testi$ony or whose #ossession

o% docu$ents or other e"idence is necessary or

con"enient to deter$ine the truth. It $ay also re;uest

the assistance o% any de#art$ent, bureau, oGce, or

agency in the #er%or$ance o% its %unctions, in the

conduct o% its in"estigation or in e'tending such

re$edy as $ay be re;uired by its :ndings.

ut it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and

deter$ine causes) as courts o% 0ustice, or e"en ;uasi1

0udicial bodies do. +o in"estigate is not to ad0udicate

or ad0udge. hether in the #o#ular or the technical

sense, these ter$s ha"e well understood and ;uite

distinct $eanings.


9/18

@In"estigateE "s. @Ad0udicateE

In"estigate, co$$only understood, $eans to

e'a$ine, e'#lore, in;uire or del"e or #robe into,

research on, study. +he dictionary de:nition o%

in"estigate is to obser"e or study closelyM in;uire

into syste$atically. to search or in;uire intoM . . . to

sub0ect to an oGcial #robe . . .M to conduct an oGcial

in;uiry. +he #ur#ose o% in"estigation , o% course, is to

disco"er, to :nd out, to learn, obtain in%or$ation.

Nowhere included or inti$ated is the notion o%

settling, deciding or resol"ing a contro"ersy in"ol"ed

in the %acts in;uired into by a##lication o% the law to

the %acts established by the in;uiry.

+he legal $eaning o% in"estigate is essentially the

sa$eM (t)o %ollow u# ste# by ste# by #atient in;uiry

or obser"ation. +o trace or tracB to search intoB to

e'a$ine and in;uire into with care and accuracyB to

:nd out by care%ul in;uisitionB e'a$inationB the taing

o% e"idenceB a legal in;uiryB to in;uireB to $ae an

in"estigation, in"estigation being in turn describe

as (a)n ad$inistrati"e %unction, the e'ercise o% which

ordinarily does not re;uire a hearing. 2 A$ ?2d Ad$ 5

Sec. 2&7B . . . an in;uiry, 0udicial or otherwise, %or the

disco"ery and collection o% %acts concerning a certain

$atter or $atters.

Ad0udicate, co$$only or #o#ularly understood,

$eans to ad0udge, arbitrate, 0udge, decide,

deter$ine, resol"e, rule on, settle. +he dictionary

de:nes the ter$ as to settle :nally (the rights and

duties o% the #arties to a court case) on the $erits o%

issues raisedM . . . to #ass 0udg$ent onM settle

0udiciallyM . . . act as 0udge. And ad0udge $eans to

decide or rule u#on as a 0udge or with 0udicial or

;uasi10udicial #owersM . . . to award or grant 0udicially

in a case o% contro"ersy . . . .

In the legal sense, ad0udicate $eansM +o settle in

the e'ercise o% 0udicial authority. +o deter$ine :nally.

Synony$ous with ad0udge in its strictest senseB and

ad0udge $eansM +o #ass on 0udicially, to decide,

settle or decree, or to sentence or conde$n. . . .

I$#lies a 0udicial deter$ination o% a %act, and the

entry o% a 0udg$ent.

ence it is that the o$$ission on u$an 8ights,

ha"ing $erely the #ower to in"estigate, cannot and

should not try and resol"e on the $erits

(ad0udicate) the $atters in"ol"ed in Striing +eachers

8 ase No. 9177&, as it has announced it $eans

to doB and it cannot do so e"en i% there be a clai$ that

in the ad$inistrati"e disci#linary #roceedings against

the teachers in ;uestion, initiated and conducted by

the D>S, their hu$an rights, or ci"il or #olitical rights

had been transgressed. 3ore #articularly, the

o$$ission has no #ower to resol"e on the $erits

the ;uestion o% (a) whether or not the $ass concerted

actions engaged in by the teachers constitute and are

#rohibited or otherwise restricted by lawB (b) whether

or not the act o% carrying on and taing #art in those

actions, and the %ailureo% the teachers to discontinue

those actions, and return to their classes des#ite theorder to this education,

constitute in%ractions o% rele"ant rules and regulations

warranting ad$inistrati"e disci#linary sanctions, or

are 0usti:ed by the grie"ances co$#lained o% by

the$B and (c) what where the #articular acts done by

each indi"idual teacher and what sanctions, i% any,

$ay #ro#erly be i$#osed %or said acts or o$issions.

ho has Power to Ad0udicateK

+hese are $atters within the original 0urisdiction o%

the Sec. o% >ducation, being within the sco#e o% the

disci#linary #owers granted to hi$ under the i"il

Ser"ice 5aw, and also, within the a##ellate 0urisdiction

o% the S.

3anner o% A##eal

Now, it is ;uite ob"ious that whether or not the

conclusions reached by the Secretary o% >ducation in

disci#linary cases are correct and are ade;uately

based on substantial e"idenceB whether or not the

#roceedings the$sel"es are "oid or de%ecti"e in not

ha"ing accorded the res#ondents due #rocessB and

whether or not the Secretary o% >ducation had in truth

co$$itted hu$an rights "iolations in"ol"ing ci"il and

#olitical rights, are $atters which $ay be #assed

u#on and deter$ined through a $otion %or

reconsideration addressed to the Secretary >ducationhi$sel%, and in the e"ent o% an ad"erse "erdict, $ay

be re"iewed by the i"il Ser"ice o$$ission and

e"entually the Su#re$e ourt.

TECSON VS. SALAS& (" SCRA /5

FACTS:

?ose . +ecson, Su#erintendent o% Dredging, ureau o%

Public ors, was assigned to the Gce o% the

President to assist inthe San 4ernando Port Pro0ect

through a directi"e %ro$ the >'ecuti"e Secretary

worded as %ollowsM 3r. ?ose -. +ecson,

Su#erintendent o% Dredging ureau o% Public ors, is

hereby detailed to the Gce o% the President,

e


10/18

o$$odore Santiago Nu"al Presidential Assistant on

Ports and arbors. It was clearly set %orth therein

that it was issued by authority o% the President.

ISSUE:

hether or not the assign$ent o% herein #etitioner on

te$#orary detail to the oGce o% o$$odore Santiago

Nu"al, Presidential Assistant on Ports and arbors, by

the President o% the Phili##ines thru the >'ecuti"e

Secretary, constitutes re$o"al %ro$ oGce without

cause.

RULING:

According to #aragra#h , section 2, Article JII, o%

our onstitution, all e'ecuti"e and ad$inistrati"eorganiations are ad0uncts o% the >'ecuti"e

De#art$ent, the heads o% the "arious e'ecuti"e

de#art$ents are assistants and agents o% the hie%

>'ecuti"e, and, e'ce#t in cases where the hie%

>'ecuti"e is re;uired by the onstitution or the law to

act in #erson or the e'igencies o% the situation

de$and that he act #ersonally, the $ulti%arious

e'ecuti"e and ad$inistrati"e %unctions o% the hie%

>'ecuti"e are #er%or$ed by and through the

e'ecuti"e de#art$ent and the acts o% the secretaries

o% such de#art$ents, #er%or$ed and #ro$ulgated in

the regular course o% business, are, unless

disa##ro"ed or re#robated by the hie% >'ecuti"e,

#resu$#ti"ely the acts o% the hie% >'ecuti"e. +he

detail o% #etitioner to the Gce o% the President is

unob0ectionable. y no stretch o% the i$agination

could it be considered a re$o"al. It was not e"en a

trans%er. >"en i% it could be so "iewed, the sa$e

conclusion would e$erge, as such was allowable

under the i"il Ser"ice Act #ro"ision then in %orce, so

long as there be no reduction in ran or salary, such

trans%er there%ore not being considered disci#linary

when $ade in the interest o% #ublic ser"ice. Nor is

there any $erit to the assertion $ade in the brie% o%

#etitioner that the directi"e o% the >'ecuti"eSecretary, acting u#on authority o% the President,

needed the a##ro"al o% the i"il Ser"ice o$$ission

and the o$$issioner o% the udget %or its

en%orce$ent. Such a thought is re#ugnant to the "ery

conce#t o% a single, not a #lural, e'ecuti"e in who$ is

"ested the whole #ano#ly o% e'ecuti"e #ower. It is not

only illogical, but it does not $ae sense, to re;uire

as a #rere;uisite to its "alidity the a##ro"al o%

subordinate to an action taen by their su#erior, the

President, who tinder the onstitution is the

>'ecuti"e, all #rerogati"es attaching to such branch

being "ested in hi$ solely. In that sense, %or those

discharging #urely e'ecuti"e %unction in the nationalgo"ern$ent, he lie gi"es orders to all and taes

orders %ro$ none.

CORONA VS. UNITED HARBOR PILOTS

ASSOCIATION

FACTS:

In issuing Ad$inistrati"e rder No. H192 (PPA1A No.

H192), li$iting the ter$ o% a##oint$ent o% harbor

#ilots to one year sub0ect to yearly renewal or

cancellation.

n August 2, 992, res#ondents Lnited arbor Pilots

Association and the 3anila Pilots Association, through

a#t. Alberto . o$#as, ;uestioned PPA1A No. H1

92 be%ore the De#art$ent o% +rans#ortation and

o$$unication, but they were in%or$ed by then

D+ Secretary ?esus . -arcia that @the $atter o%

re"iewing, recalling or annulling PPA=s ad$inistrati"e

issuances lies e'clusi"ely with its oard o% Directors

as its go"erning body.E

n Dece$ber 2!, 992, the P issued an order

directing the PPA to hold in abeyance the

i$#le$entation o% PPA1A No. H192. In its answer,

the PPA countered that said ad$inistrati"e order was

issued in the e'ercise o% its ad$inistrati"e control and

su#er"ision o"er harbor #ilots under Section /1a ("iii),

Article IJ o% P. D. No. *&7, as a$ended, and it, along

with its i$#le$enting guidelines, was intended to

restore order in the #orts and to i$#ro"e the ;uality

o% #ort ser"ices.

n 3arch 7, 99!, the P, through then Assistant

>'ecuti"e Secretary %or 5egal A


11/18

+he ourt is con"inced that PPA1A No. H192 was

issued in star disregard o% res#ondents= right against

de#ri"ation o% #ro#erty without due #rocess o% law. In

order to %all within the aegis o% this #ro"ision, two

conditions $ust concur, na$ely, that there is a

de#ri"ation and that such de#ri"ation is done without

#ro#er obser"ance o% due #rocess. hen one s#eas

o% due #rocess o% law, howe"er, a distinction $ust be

$ade between $atters o% #rocedure and $atters o% substance. In essence, #rocedural due #rocess

@re%ers to the $ethod or $anner by which the law is

en%orced,E while substanti"e due #rocess @re;uires

that the law itsel%, not $erely the #rocedures by

which the law would be en%orced, is %air, reasonable,

and 0ust.E PPA1A No. H192 $ust be e'a$ined in

light o% this distinction. In the #er%or$ance o% its

e'ecuti"e or legislati"e %unctions, such as issuing

rules and regulations, an ad$inistrati"e body need

not co$#ly with the re;uire$ents o% notice and

hearing.

+here is no dis#ute that #ilotage as a #ro%ession has

taen on the nature o% a #ro#erty right. >"en

#etitioner orona recognied this when he stated in

his 3arch 7, 99!, decision that @(t)he e'ercise o%

one=s #ro%ession %alls within the constitutional

guarantee against wrong%ul de#ri"ation o%, or

inter%erence with, #ro#erty rights without due

#rocess.E e $erely e'#ressed the o#inion that @(i)n

the li$ited conte't o% this case, PPA1A H192 does

not constitute a wrong%ul inter%erence with, let alone a

wrong%ul de#ri"ation o%, the #ro#erty rights o% thosea


12/18

YNOT VS. IAC

FACTS:

+here had been an e'isting law which #rohibited the

slaughtering o% carabaos (> /2/). +o strengthen the

law, 3arcos issued > /2/1A which not only banned

the $o"e$ent o% carabaos %ro$ inter#ro"inces but as

well as the $o"e$ent o% carabee%. n ! ?an 9*H,

not was caught trans#orting / carabaos %ro$

3asbate to Iloilo. e was then charged in "iolation o%

> /2/1A. not a"erred > /2/1A as unconstitutional

%or it "iolated his right to be heard or his right to due

#rocess. e said that the authority #ro"ided by >

/2/1A to outrightly con:scate carabaos e"en without

being heard is unconstitutional. +he lower court ruled

against not ruling that the > is a "alid e'ercise o% #olice #ower in order to #ro$ote general wel%are so

as to curb down the indiscri$inate slaughter o%

carabaos.

ISSUE:

hether or not the law is "alid.

HELD:

+he S ruled that the > is not "alid as it indeed

"iolates due #rocess. > /2/1A created a #resu$#tion

based on the 0udg$ent o% the e'ecuti"e. +he

$o"e$ent o% carabaos %ro$ one area to the other

does not $ean a subse;uent slaughter o% the sa$e

would ensue. not should be gi"en to de%end hi$sel%

and e'#lain why the carabaos are being trans%erred

be%ore they can be con:scated. +he S %ound that the

challenged $easure is an in"alid e'ercise o% the

#olice #ower because the $ethod e$#loyed to

conser"e the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to

the #ur#ose o% the law and, worse, is unduly

o##ressi"e. Due #rocess is "iolated because the

owner o% the #ro#erty con:scated is denied the right

to be heard in his de%ense and is i$$ediately

conde$ned and #unished. +he con%er$ent on the

ad$inistrati"e authorities o% the #ower to ad0udge the

guilt o% the su##osed on"iron$ent and Natural 8esources

(D>N8) %or the e"aluation o% ele"en ()

go"ern$ent re%orestation o#erations in Pangasinan.

+he e"aluation #ro0ect was #art o% the co$$it$ent o%

the Asian De"elo#$ent an (AD) under theADR>4 4orestry Sector Progra$ 5oan to the

8e#ublic o% the Phili##ines and was one a$ong

identical #ro0ect agree$ents entered into by the

D>N8 with si'teen (/) other state uni"ersities.

n / ?anuary 9*9, #er ad"ice o% the PSL Auditor1in1

harge with res#ect to the #ay$ent o% honoraria and

#er die$s o% PSL #ersonnel engaged in the re"iew

and e"aluation #ro0ect, PSL Jice President %or

8esearch and >'tension and Assistant Pro0ect DirectorJictorino P. >s#ero re;uested the Gce o% the

President, PSL, to ha"e the Lni"ersitys oard o%

8egents (8) con:r$ the a##oint$ents or

designations o% in"ol"ed PSL #ersonnel including the

rates o% honoraria and #er die$s corres#onding to

their s#eci:c roles and %unctions.

+he 8 a##ro"ed the 3A on ! ?anuary 9*9 and

on 4ebruary 9*9, PSL issued Joucher

No. *927 re#resenting the a$ount o% P7, !7& %or

#ay$ent o% honoraria to PSL #ersonnel engaged in

the #ro0ect. 5ater, howe"er, the a##ro"ed honoraria

rates were %ound to be so$ewhat higher than the

rates #ro"ided %or in the guidelines o% National

o$#ensation ircular (N) No. &!. Accordingly,

the a$ounts were ad0usted downwards to con%or$ to

N No. &!. Ad0ust$ents were $ade by deducting

a$ounts %ro$ subse;uent disburse$ents o%

honoraria. y ?une 9*9, N No. &! was being

co$#lied with.

n / ?uly 9*9, oni%acio Icu, A resident auditor at

PSL, alleging that there were e'cess #ay$ents o%

honoraria, issued a Notice o% Disallowance

disallowing P/H,92& %ro$ the a$ount o% P7,!7 stated

in Joucher No. *927, $entioned earlier. +he

resident auditor based his action on the #re$ise that

o$#ensation Policy -uidelines (P-) No. *1H,

dated 7 August 9*, issued by the De#art$ent o%

udget and 3anage$ent which #ro"ided %or lower

rates than N No. &! dated 2 ?une 9**, also

issued by the De#art$ent o% udget and

3anage$ent, was the schedule %or honoraria and #er

die$s a##licable to wor done under the 3A o% 9

Dece$ber 9** between the PSL and the D>N8.

ISSUE:


13/18

hether or not the e"aluation #ro0ect is in %act a

s#ecial #ro0ect and that there were e'cess o%

#ay$ents o% honoraria

HELD:

+he instant e"aluation #ro0ect being a 4oreign1

Assisted Pro0ect, the PSL #ersonnels in"ol"ed in the

#ro0ect shall be #aid according to the udget >sti$ate

schedule o% the 3A.

A, under its constitutional $andate, is not

authoried to substitute its own 0udg$ent %or any

a##licable law or ad$inistrati"e regulation with the

wisdo$ or #ro#riety o% which, howe"er, it does not

agree, at least not be%ore such law or regulation is set

aside by the authoried agency o% go"ern$ent Q i.e.,the courts Q as unconstitutional or illegal and "oid.

+he A, lie all other go"ern$ent agencies, $ust

res#ect the #resu$#tion o% legality and

constitutionality to which statutes and ad$inistrati"e

regulations are entitled until such statute or

regulation is re#ealed or a$ended, or until set aside

in a##ro#riate case by a co$#etent court and

ulti$ately the Su#re$e ourt.

TOLEDO VS. CSC

FACTS:

Atty. Augusto +oledo was a##ointed by then o$elec

hair$an 8a$on 4eli#e as 3anager o% the >ducation

and In%or$ation De#art$ent o% the o$elec on 3ay

9*/, at which ti$e +oledo was already $ore than &7

years old. +oledo=s a##oint$ent #a#ers and his oath

o% oGce were endorsed by the o$elec to the S on

?une 9*/ %or a##ro"al and attestation. owe"er, no

#rior re;uest %or e'e$#tion %ro$ the #ro"isions o%

Section 22, 8ule III o% the S8PAPVwhich #rohibits the

a##oint$ent o% #ersons &7 years old or abo"e into

go"ern$ent ser"ice without #rior S a##ro"alVwas

secured. Petitioner then re#orted %or wor.

o$elec, u#on disco"ery o% the lac o% authority

re;uired under S8PAP, and S 3e$o ircular &

issued 8esolution No. 2//, which declared "oid %ro$

the beginning +oledo=s a##oint$ent. Petitioner

a##ealed to S, which considered hi$ a de %actooGcer and his a##oint$ent "oidable, and $o"ed %or

reconsideration but was denied, hence the #resent

#etition %or certiorari.

ISSUE:

hether or not S8PAP #ro"ision is "alid.

HELD:

No. +he i"il Ser"ice Act o% 9&9 (8A 22/), which

established the S, contained no #ro"ision

#rohibiting a##oint$ent or reinstate$ent into

go"ern$ent ser"ice o% any #erson already &7 years

old. Sec & 8ule / o% the 8e"ised i"il Ser"ice 8ules,

which #rohibits such, was #urely the creation o% S.

3arcos=s PD *7 (i"il Ser"ice Decree), which

established a new S and su#erseded 8A 22/, also

#ro"ided that rules and regulations shall beco$e

e


14/18

#ersonally and directly #re#ared by the Director and

signed by hi$.E +hese #roceedings re%er to the

hearing o% o##osition to the registration o% a $ar or

trade na$e, inter%erence #roceeding instituted %or the

#ur#ose o% deter$ining the ;uestion o% #riority o%

ado#tion and use o% a trade1$ar, trade na$e or

ser"ice1$ar, and cancellation o% registration o% a

trade1$ar or trade na$e #ending at the Patent

Gce. Petitioners :led their ob0ections to theauthority o% the hearing oGcers to hear their cases,

alleging that the a$end$ent o% the 8ule is illegal and

"oid because under the law the Director $ust

#ersonally hear and decide inter #artes case. Said

ob0ections were o"erruled by the Director o% Patents,

hence, the #resent #etition %or $anda$us, to co$#el

the Director o% Patents to #ersonally hear the cases o%

#etitioners, in lieu o% the hearing oGcers.

ISSUE:

hether or not the hearing done by hearing oGcers

are within due #rocess.

HELD:

+he S ruled that the #ower to decide resides solely

in the ad$inistrati"e agency "ested by law, this doesnot #reclude a delegation o% the #ower to hold a

hearing on the basis o% which the decision o% the

ad$inistrati"e agency will be $ade. +he rule that

re;uires an ad$inistrati"e oGcer to e'ercise his own

0udg$ent and discretion does not #reclude hi$ %ro$

utiliing, as a $atter o% #ractical ad$inistrati"e

#rocedure, the aid o% subordinates to in"estigate and

re#ort to hi$ the %acts, on the basis o% which the

oGcer $aes his decisions. It is suGcient that the

0udg$ent and discretion :nally e'ercised are those o%

the oGcer authoried by law. Neither does due

#rocess o% law nor the re;uire$ents o% %air hearing

re;uire that the actual taing o% testi$ony be be%orethe sa$e oGcer who will $ae the decision in the

case. As long as a #arty is not de#ri"ed o% his right to

#resent his own case and sub$it e"idence in su##ort

thereo%, and the decision is su##orted by the

e"idence in the record, there is no ;uestion that the

re;uire$ents o% due #rocess and %air trial are %ully

$et. In short, there is no abnegation o% res#onsibility

on the #art o% the oGcer concerned as the actual

decision re$ains with and is $ade by said oGcer. It

is, howe"er, re;uired that to @gi"e the substance o% a

hearing, which is %or the #ur#ose o% $aing

deter$inations u#on e"idence the oGcer who $aes

the deter$inations $ust consider and a##raise the

e"idence which 0usti:es the$.E

PHIL COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORP. VS.

ALCUAZ

FACTS:

y "irtue o% 8A &&H, Phili##ine o$$unications

Satellite or#oration was granted @a %ranchise to

establish, construct, $aintain and o#erate in the

Phili##ines, at such #laces as the grantee $ay select,

station or stations and associated e;ui#$ent and

%acilities %or international satellite co$$unications.E

Lnder this %ranchise, it was liewise granted the

authority to @construct and o#erate such ground

%acilities as needed to deli"er teleco$$unications

ser"ices %ro$ the co$$unications satellite syste$

and ground ter$inal or ter$inals.E Lnder Sec & o% the

sa$e law, Philo$Sat was e'e$#t %ro$ the

0urisdiction, control and regulation o% the Public

Ser"ice o$$ission later nown as the National

+eleco$$unications o$$ission. owe"er, > 9/

was later #roclai$ed and the sa$e has #laced

Philo$Sat under the 0urisdiction o% N+.

onse;uently, Philo$Sat has to ac;uire #er$it to

o#erate %ro$ N+ in order to continue o#erating its

e'isting satellites. N+ ga"e the necessary #er$it but

it howe"er directed Philo$Sat to reduce its current

rates by &W. N+ based its #ower to :' the rates on

> &H/. Philo$Sat assailed the said directi"e and

holds that the enabling act (> &H/) o% res#ondent

N+ e$#owering it to :' rates %or #ublic ser"ice

co$$unications does not #ro"ide the necessary

standards constitutionally re;uired hence there is an

undue delegation o% legislati"e #ower, #articularly the

ad0udicatory #owers o% N+. Philo$Sat asserts that

nowhere in the #ro"isions o% > &H/, #ro"iding %or thecreation o% res#ondent N+ and granting its rate1

:'ing #owers, nor o% > 9/, #lacing #etitioner under

the 0urisdiction o% res#ondent N+, can it be in%erred

that res#ondent N+ is guided by any standard in the

e'ercise o% its rate1:'ing and ad0udicatory #owers.

Philo$Sat subse;uently clari:ed its said sub$ission

to $ean that the order $andating a reduction o%

certain rates is undue delegation not o% legislati"e but

o% ;uasi10udicial #ower to res#ondent N+, the

e'ercise o% which allegedly re;uires an e'#ress

con%er$ent by the legislati"e body.

ISSUE:

hether or not there is an undue delegation o% #ower.

HELD:

4unda$ental is the rule that delegation o% legislati"e

#ower $ay be sustained only u#on the ground that

so$e standard %or its e'ercise is #ro"ided and that

the legislature in $aing the delegation has

#rescribed the $anner o% the e'ercise o% the

delegated #ower. +here%ore, when the ad$inistrati"e

agency concerned, N+ in this case, establishes a

rate, its act $ust both be non1con:scatory and $ust

ha"e been established in the $anner #rescribed by

the legislatureB otherwise, in the absence o% a :'ed

standard, the delegation o% #ower beco$es

unconstitutional. In case o% a delegation o% rate1:'ing


15/18

#ower, the only standard which the legislature is

re;uired to #rescribe %or the guidance o% the

ad$inistrati"e authority is that the rate be reasonable

and 0ust. owe"er, it has been held that e"en in the

absence o% an e'#ress re;uire$ent as to

reasonableness, this standard $ay be i$#lied. In the

case at bar, the :'ed rate is %ound to be o% $erit and

reasonable.

RIZAL EMPIRE INSURANCE GROUP VS. NLRC

FACTS

In August, 977, herein #ri"ate res#ondent 8ogelio 8.

oria was hired by herein #etitioner 8ial >$#ire

Insurance -rou# as a casual e$#loyee with a salary

o% P. a day. n ?anuary , 97*, he was $ade aregular e$#loyee, ha"ing been a##ointed as cler1

ty#ist, with a $onthly salary o% P!.. eing a

#er$anent e$#loyee, he was %urnished a co#y o%

#etitioner co$#anys -eneral In%or$ation, Gce

eha"ior and ther 8ules and 8egulations. In the

sa$e year, without change in his #osition1

designation, he was trans%erred to the lai$s

De#art$ent and his salary was increased to PH&,

a $onth. In 9*, he was trans%erred to the

Lnderwriting De#art$ent and his salary was

increased to P&*. a $onth #lus cost o% li"ing

allowance, until he was trans%erred to the 4ire

De#art$ent as :ling cler. In ?uly, 9*!, he was $ade

an ins#ector o% the 4ire Di"ision with a $onthly salary

o% P/*&. #lus allowances and other bene:ts.

n ctober &, 9*!, #ri"ate res#ondent 8ogelio 8.

oria was dis$issed %ro$ wor, allegedly, on the

grounds o% tardiness and une'cused absences.

Accordingly, he :led a co$#laint with the 3inistry o%

5abor and >$#loy$ent (35>), and in a Decision

dated 3arch H, 5abor Arbiter +eodorico 5. 8ui

reinstated hi$ to his #osition with bac wages.

ISSUE:

hether or not it is still within the 0urisdiction o% the

Su#re$e ourt.

HELD:

+he record shows that the e$#loyer (#etitioner

herein) recei"ed a co#y o% the decision o% the 5abor

Arbiter on A#ril , 9*&. It :led a 3otion %or >'tension

o% +i$e to 4ile 3e$orandu$ o% A##eal on A#ril ,

9*& and :led the 3e$orandu$ o% A##eal on A#ril

22, 9*&. Pursuant to the no e'tension #olicy o% the

National 5abor 8elations o$$ission, a%oresaid

$otion %or e'tension o% ti$e was denied in its

resolution dated No"e$ber &, 9*& and the a##eal

was dis$issed %or ha"ing been :led out o% ti$e.

It will be noted howe"er, that the %oregoing #ro"ision

re%ers to the 8ules o% ourt. n the other hand, the

8e"ised 8ules o% the National 5abor 8elations

o$$ission are clear and e'#licit and lea"e no roo$

%or inter#retation.

3oreo"er, it is an ele$entary rule in ad$inistrati"e

law that ad$inistrati"e regulations and #olicies

enacted by ad$inistrati"e bodies to inter#ret the law

which they are entrusted to en%orce, ha"e the %orce o%

law, and are entitled to great res#ect.

Lnder the abo"e1;uoted #ro"isions o% the 8e"ised

N58 8ules, the decision a##ealed %ro$ in this case

has beco$e :nal and e'ecutory and can no longer be

sub0ect to a##eal.

MAKATI STOCK E+CHANGE INC VS SEC

FACTS: +he S> in its resolution, denied the 3aati Stoc>'change, Inc #er$ission to o#erate a stoc e'changeunless it agreed not to list %or trading on its board,securities already listed in the 3anila Stoc >'change.

b0ecting to the re;uire$ent, 3aati Stoc >'change,Inc. ontends that the o$$ission has no #ower to

i$#ose it and that anyway, it is illegal, discri$inatoryand un0ust. +he o$$ission=s order or resolutionwould $ae i$#ossible, %or all #ractical #ur#oses, %orthe 3aati Stoc >'change to o#erate, such that its@#er$issionE a$ounted to @#rohibitionE.

ISSUE:Does the o$$ission ha"e the authority to#ro$ulgate the rule in ;uestionK

HELD:None.

+est %or deter$ining the e'istence o% authority@+he co$$ission cites no #ro"ision o% law e'#ressly

su##orting its rule against double listing. It suggeststhat the #ower is necessary %or the e'ecution o% the%unctions "ested in it. It argues that said rule wasa##ro"ed by the De#art$ent ead be%ore the war andit is not in conCict with the #ro"isions o% the SecuritiesAct. +he a##ro"al o% the De#art$ent, by itsel%, addsno weight in 0udicial litigation.

+he test is not whether the Act %orbids o$$ission%ro$ i$#osing a #rohibition but whether it e$#owersthe o$$ission to #rohibit.

o$$ission without #ower to i$#ose #rohibition@+he o$$ission #ossesses no #ower to i$#ose the

condition o% the rule which results in discri$inationand "iolation o% constitutional rights. It is %unda$entalthat an ad$inistrati"e oGcer has such #owers as aree'#ressly granted to hi$ by statute, and thosenecessarily i$#lied in the e'ercise thereo%.Accordingly, the license o% 3aati Stoc >'change isa##ro"ed without such condition against doublelisting.


16/18

HOLY SPIRIT HOMEO0NERS ASSOCIATION VS

SEC DEFENSOR

FACTS:

Prior to the #assage o% 8.A. No. 927, a nu$ber o%

#residential issuances authoried the creation and

de"elo#$ent o% what is now nown as the National

-o"ern$ent enter (N-). n 3arch &, 972, %or$erPresident 4erdinand 3arcos issued Procla$ation No.

*2/, reser"ing a #arcel o% land in onstitution ills,

Uueon ity, co"ering a little o"er HH hectares as a

national go"ern$ent site to be nown as the N-. n

August , 9*7, then President oraon A;uino

issued Procla$ation No. !7, e'cluding & o% the HH

hectares o% the reser"ed site %ro$ the co"erage o%

Procla$ation No. *2/ and authoriing instead the

dis#osition o% the e'cluded #ortion by direct sale to

the bona :de residents therein.

In "iew o% the ra#id increase in #o#ulation density in

the #ortion e'cluded by Procla$ation No. !7 %ro$the co"erage o% Procla$ation No. *2/, %or$er

President 4idel 8a$os issued Procla$ation No. 2H* on

Se#te$ber 7, 99!, authoriing the "ertical

de"elo#$ent o% the e'cluded #ortion to $a'i$ie the

nu$ber o% %a$ilies who can e


17/18

0udicial or $inisterial %unctions, ordering

said entity or #erson to desist %ro$ %urther

#roceedings when said #roceedings are without or in

e'cess o% said entity=s or #erson=s 0urisdiction, or are

acco$#anied with gra"e abuse o% discretion, and

there is no a##eal or any other #lain, s#eedy and

ade;uate re$edy in the ordinary course o% law.X2Y

X2Y

Prohibition lies against 0udicial or $inisterial %unctions,but not against legislati"e or ;uasi1legislati"e

%unctions. -enerally, the #ur#ose o% a writ o%

#rohibition is to ee# a lower court within the li$its o%

its 0urisdiction in order to $aintain the ad$inistration

o% 0ustice in orderly channels. Prohibition is the #ro#er

re$edy to a8>48>, the instant #etition %or #rohibition is

DIS3ISS>D.

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE

E+PORTERS VS TORRES

FACTS:

D5> Secretary 8uben D. +orres issued De#art$ent

rder No. / Series o% 99 te$#orarily sus#ending

the recruit$ent by #ri"ate e$#loy$ent agencies o%

@4ili#ino do$estic hel#ers going to ong FongE. As a

result o% the de#art$ent order D5>, through the

P>A too o"er the business o% de#loying ong Fong

bound worers.

+he #etitioner, PAS>I, the largest organiation o%

#ri"ate e$#loy$ent and recruit$ent agencies duly

licensed and authoried by the P>A to engage in the

business o% obtaining o"erseas e$#loy$ent %or

4ili#ino land1based worers :led a #etition %or

#rohibition to annul the a%ore$entioned order and to

#rohibit i$#le$entation.

ISSUES:

whether or not res#ondents acted with gra"e abuse o%

discretion andRor in e'cess o% their rule1$aing

authority in issuing said circularsB

whether or not the assailed D5> and P>A circulars

are contrary to the onstitution, are unreasonable,

un%air and o##ressi"eB and

whether or not the re;uire$ents o% #ublication and

:ling with the Gce o% the National Ad$inistrati"e

8egister were not co$#lied with.

HELD:

4I8S+, the res#ondents acted well within in their

authority and did not co$$it gra"e abuse o%

discretion. +his is because Article !/ (5) clearly

grants the 5abor Secretary to restrict and regulate

recruit$ent and #lace$ent acti"ities, to witM

Art. !/. 8egulatory Power. V +he Secretary o% 5abor

shall ha"e the #ower to restrict and regulate the

recruit$ent and #lace$ent acti"ities o% all agencies

within the co"erage o% this title X8egulation o%

8ecruit$ent and Place$ent Acti"itiesY and is hereby

authoried to issue orders and #ro$ulgate rules and

regulations to carry out the ob0ecti"es and i$#le$ent

the #ro"isions o% this title.

S>ND, the "esture o% ;uasi1legislati"e and ;uasi1 0udicial #owers in ad$inistrati"e bodies is

constitutional. It is necessitated by the growing

co$#le'ities o% the $odern society.

+I8D, the orders and circulars issued are howe"er,

in"alid and unen%orceable. +he reason is the lac o%

#ro#er #ublication and :ling in the Gce o% the

National Ad$inistrati"e 8egistrar as re;uired in Article

2 o% the i"il ode to witM

Art. 2. 5aws shall tae e


18/18

(&) days %ro$ the date o% :ling as abo"e #ro"ided

unless a di

Documents

Admin Law Case Digests - Part i