admin cases wave 2

7/23/2019 Admin Cases Wave 2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/admin-cases-wave-2 1/92

1

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 149335 July 1, 2003

EDILLO C. MONTEMAYOR, petitioner,vs.LUIS UNDALIAN, RONALDO . !AMORA, E"#$u%&'#

S#$(#%)(y, O**&$# o* %+# P(#&-#%, AND GREGORIO R.

/IGILAR, S#$(#%)(y, D#)(%#% o* Pul&$ o( )-

&6+7)y 8DP, responents.

PUNO, J .:

In this petition for revie! on certiorari, petitioner "DI##O $.MONT"M%&OR assails the Decision of the $ourt of %ppeals,ate %pril 1', ())1, affir*in+ the ecision of the Office of thePresient in %*inistrative Orer No. 1( orerin+ petitionersis*issal as Re+ional Director of the Depart*ent of Public-ors an Hi+h!a/s 0DP-H for une2plaine !ealth.

Petitioners is*issal ori+inate fro* an unverifie letter3co*plaint, ate 4ul/ 15, 1665, aresse b/ private responent#7IS 87ND%#I%N to the Philippine $onsulate 9eneral in San:rancisco, $alifornia, 7.S.%. Private responent accuse petitioner, then OI$3Re+ional Director, Re+ion III, of theDP-H, of accu*ulatin+ une2plaine !ealth, in violation of Section ' of Republic %ct No. ;)16. Private responent char+ethat in 166;, petitioner an his !ife purchase a house an lot at6)< North 8el %ire Drive, 8urban, #os %n+eles, $alifornia,

*ain+ a o!n pa/*ent of 7S=1)),))).)). He further alle+ethat petitioners in3la!s !ho !ere livin+ in $alifornia ha a poor creit stanin+ ue to a nu*ber of ebts an the/ coul not have purchase such an e2pensive propert/ for petitioner an his

!ife. Private responent accuse petitioner of a*assin+ !ealthfro* lahar funs an other public !ors pro>ects.

Private responent attache to his letter3co*plaint the follo!in+ocu*ents?

a a cop/ of a 9rant Dee, ate Ma/ (<, 166;, !here spousesDavi an 4uith Teesco +rante the sub>ect propert/ to petitioner an his !ife@

b a cop/ of the Special Po!er of %ttorne/ 0SP% e2ecute b/ petitioner an his !ife in $alifornia appointin+ petitionerssister3in3la! "stela D. :a>aro as their attorne/3in3fact, tone+otiate an e2ecute all ocu*ents an reAuire*ents toco*plete the purchase of the sub>ect propert/@ an,

c an e2cerpt fro* the ne!spaper colu*n of #ito %. $atapusanin the Manila 8ulletin, entitle B8eat!atch,B !here it !asreporte that a lo!3ranin+, *ulti*illionaire DP-H e*plo/ee,travele to "urope an the 7.S. !ith his fa*il/, purchase an

e2pensive house in $alifornia, appointe a !o*an throu+h anSP% to *ana+e the sub>ect propert/ an ha hien anune2plaine !ealth in the Philippines an in the 7.S.

%ccorin+l/, the letter3co*plaint an its attache ocu*ents!ere inorse b/ the Philippine $onsulate 9eneral of San:rancisco, $alifornia, to the Philippine $o**ission %+ainst9raft an $orruption 0P$%9$1 for investi+ation. Petitioner,represente b/ counsel, sub*itte his counter3affiavit before

%DMIN #%-



(

the P$%9$ alle+in+ that the real o!ner of the sub>ect propert/!as his sister3in3la! "stela :a>aro. Petitioner e2plaine that invie! of the unstable conition of +overn*ent service in 1661,his !ife inAuire fro* her fa*il/ in the 7.S. about their possible

e*i+ration to the States. The/ !ere avise b/ an i**i+rationla!/er that it !oul be an avanta+e if the/ ha real propert/ inthe 7.S. :a>aro inti*ate to the* that she !as intereste in bu/in+ a house an lot in 8urban, $alifornia, but coul not oso at that ti*e as there !as a provision in her *ort+a+e contract prohibitin+ her to purchase another propert/ penin+ full pa/*ent of a real estate she earlier acAuire in Pal*ale, #os%n+eles. :a>aro offere to bu/ the 8urban propert/ an putthe title in the na*es of petitioner an his !ife to support their e*i+ration plans an to enable her at the sa*e ti*e to

circu*vent the prohibition in her *ort+a+e contract.

Petitioner lie!ise pointe out that the char+e a+ainst hi* !asthe sub>ect of si*ilar cases file before the O*bus*an. ( Heattache to his counter3affiavit the $onsoliate Investi+ationReport; of the O*bus*an is*issin+ si*ilar char+es for insufficienc/ of evience.

:ro* Ma/ (6, 166C until March 1;, 166<, the P$%9$conucte its o!n investi+ation of the co*plaint. -hile

petitioner participate in the proceein+s an sub*itte various pleain+s an ocu*ents throu+h his counsel, privateresponent3co*plainant coul not be locate as his Philippinearess coul not be ascertaine. In the course of theinvesti+ation, the P$%9$ repeatel/ reAuire petitioner tosub*it his State*ent of %ssets, #iabilities an Net -orth0S%#N, Inco*e Ta2 Returns 0ITRs an Personal Data Sheet.Petitioner i+nore these irectives an sub*itte onl/ hisService Recor. He lie!ise auce in evience the checs

alle+el/ issue b/ his sister3in3la! to pa/ for the house an lotin 8urban, $alifornia. -hen the P$%9$ reAueste the Deput/O*bus*an for #uon to furnish it !ith copies of petitionersS%#N fro* 166(3166E, it !as infor*e that petitioner faile to

file his S%#N for those /ears.

%fter the investi+ation, the P$%9$, in its Report to the Officeof the Presient, *ae the follo!in+ finin+s? Petitioner purchase a house an lot in 8urban, $alifornia, for 7S=165,))).)) 0or P;.6M at the e2chan+e rate prevailin+ in166;. The sale !as evience b/ a 9rant Dee. The P$%9$conclue that the petitioner coul not have been able to afforto bu/ the propert/ on his annual inco*e of P1C',CE'.)) in166; as appearin+ on his Service Recor. It lie!ise foun

petitioners e2planation as unusual, lar+el/ unsubstantiate,unbelievable an self3servin+. The P$%9$ note that instea of aucin+ evience, petitioners counsel e2erte *ore effort infilin+ pleain+s an *otion to is*iss on the +roun of foru*shoppin+. It also too a+ainst petitioner his refusal to sub*it hisS%#N an ITR espite the unertain+ *ae b/ his counsel!hich raise the presu*ption that evience !illfull/ suppresse!oul be averse if prouce. The P$%9$ conclue that as petitioners acAuisition of the sub>ect propert/ !as *anifestl/out of proportion to his salar/, it has been unla!full/ acAuire.

Thus, it reco**ene petitioners is*issal fro* service pursuant to Section ' of R.%. No. ;)16.

On %u+ust (E, 166', the Office of the Presient, concurrin+ !iththe finin+s an aoptin+ the reco**enation of the P$%9$,issue %*inistrative Orer No. 1(,E orerin+ petitionersis*issal fro* service !ith forfeiture of all +overn*ent benefits.

%DMIN #%-



;

Petitioners Motion for Reconsieration !as enie. His appealto the $ourt of %ppeals !as lie!ise is*isse.5

Hence, this petition for revie! !here petitioner raises the

follo!in+ issues for resolution? first, !hether he !as enie ue process in the investi+ation before the P$%9$@ #$o-, !hether his +uilt !as prove b/ substantial evience@ an, %+&(-, !hether the earlier is*issal of si*ilar cases before the O*bus*anrenere the a*inistrative case before the P$%9$ *oot anacae*ic.

On the issue of ue process, petitioner sub*its that the P$%9$co**itte infractions of the carinal rules of a*inistrative ue process !hen it relie on 8unalians unverifie letter3

co*plaint. He +ripes that his counter3affiavit shoul have been+iven *ore !ei+ht as the unverifie co*plaint constituteshearsa/ evience. Moreover, petitioner insists that in rulin+a+ainst hi*, the P$%9$ faile to respect his ri+ht to confrontan cross3e2a*ine the co*plainant as the latter never appearein an/ of the hearin+s before the P$%9$ nor i he sen arepresentative therein.

-e fin no *erit in his contentions. The essence of ue processin a*inistrative proceein+s is the opportunit/ to e2plain ones

sie or see a reconsieration of the action or rulin+ co*plaineof. %s lon+ as the parties are +iven the opportunit/ to be hear before >u+*ent is renere, the e*ans of ue process aresufficientl/ *et.CIn the case at bar, the P$%9$ e2erte efforts tonotif/ the co*plainant of the proceein+s but his Philippineresience coul not be locate.< 8e that as it *a/, petitioner cannot ar+ue that he !as eprive of ue process because hefaile to confront an cross3e2a*ine the co*plainant. Petitioner voluntaril/ sub*itte to the >urisiction of the P$%9$ b/

participatin+ in the proceein+s before it. He !as ul/represente b/ counsel. He file his counter3affiavit, sub*itteocu*entar/ evience, attene the hearin+s, *ove for areconsieration of %*inistrative Orer No. 1( issue b/ the

Presient an eventuall/ file his appeal before the $ourt of %ppeals. His active participation in ever/ step of theinvesti+ation effectivel/ re*ove an/ ba+e of proceuraleficienc/, if there !as an/, an satisfie the ue processreAuire*ent. He cannot no! be allo!e to challen+e the proceure aopte b/ the P$%9$ in the investi+ation.'

Neither can !e sustain petitioners contention that the char+ea+ainst hi* !as unsupporte b/ substantial evience as it !ascontaine in an unverifie co*plaint. The lac of verification of

the a*inistrative co*plaint an the non3appearance of theco*plainant at the investi+ation i not ivest the P$%9$ of itsauthorit/ to investi+ate the char+e of une2plaine !ealth. 7ner Section ; of "2ecutive Orer No. 151 creatin+ the P$%9$,co*plaints involvin+ +raft an corruption *a/ be file before it

& )y *o( o( )#( a+ainst presiential appointees in thee2ecutive epart*ent. Inee, it is not totall/ unco**on that a+overn*ent a+enc/ is +iven a !ie latitue in the scope ane2ercise of its investi+ative po!ers. The O*bus*an, uner the$onstitution, is irecte to act on an/ co*plaint lie!ise file in

an/ for* an *anner concernin+ official acts or o*issions. The$ourt %*inistrator of this $ourt investi+ates an taesco+niance of, not onl/ unverifie, but even anon/*ousco*plaints file a+ainst court e*plo/ees or officials for violation of the $oe of "thical $onuct. This polic/ has beenaopte in line !ith the serious effort of the +overn*ent to*ini*ie, if not eraicate, +raft an corruption in the service.

It is !ell to re*e*ber that in a*inistrative proceein+s,

%DMIN #%-



E

technical rules of proceure an evience are not strictl/applie. %*inistrative ue process cannot be full/ eAuate !ithue process in its strict >uicial sense for it is enou+h that the part/ is +iven the chance to be hear before the case a+ainst hi*

is ecie.

6

This !as affore to the petitioner in the case at bar.

On the secon issue, there is a nee to la/ o!n the basic principles in a*inistrative investi+ations. :irst, the buren is onthe co*plainant to prove b/ substantial evience the alle+ationsin his co*plaint.1) Substantial evience is *ore than a *erescintilla of evience. It *eans such relevant evience as areasonable *in *i+ht accept as aeAuate to support aconclusion, even if other *ins eAuall/ reasonable *i+htconceivabl/ opine other!ise.11 Secon, in revie!in+

a*inistrative ecisions of the e2ecutive branch of the+overn*ent, the finin+s of facts *ae therein are to berespecte so lon+ as the/ are supporte b/ substantial evience.Hence, it is not for the revie!in+ court to !ei+h the conflictin+evience, eter*ine the creibilit/ of !itnesses, or other!isesubstitute its >u+*ent for that of the a*inistrative a+enc/ !ithrespect to the sufficienc/ of evience. Thir, a*inistrativeecisions in *atters !ithin the e2ecutive >urisiction can onl/ beset asie on proof of +ross abuse of iscretion, frau, or error of la!. These principles ne+ate the po!er of the revie!in+ court to

re3e2a*ine the sufficienc/ of the evience in an a*inistrativecase as if ori+inall/ institute therein, an o not authorie thecourt to receive aitional evience that !as not sub*itte to thea*inistrative a+enc/ concerne.1(

In the case at bar, petitioner a*itte that the sub>ect propert/!as in his na*e. Ho!ever, he insiste that it !as his sister3in3la! "stela :a>aro !ho pai for the propert/ in install*ents. Hesub*itte as proof thereof the checs issue b/ :a>aro as

pa/*ent for the a*ortiations of the propert/. His evience,ho!ever, lie!ise fail to convince us. :irst, the recor is bereftof evience to prove the alle+e internal arran+e*ent petitioner entere into !ith :a>aro. He i not sub*it her affiavit to the

investi+atin+ bo/ nor i she testif/ before it re+arin+ her o!nership of the 8urban propert/. Secon, the checs alle+el/issue b/ :a>aro to pa/ for the *onthl/ a*ortiations on the propert/ have no evientiar/ !ei+ht as :a>aros *ere issuancethereof cannot prove petitioners non3o!nership of the propert/.:a>aro !oul naturall/ issue the checs as she !as appointe b/ petitioner as attorne/3in3fact an the latter !oul naturall/course throu+h her the pa/*ents for the 8urban propert/.Thir, petitioners o!n evience contraict his position. -ecannot reconcile petitioners enial of o!nership of the propert/

!ith the loan state*ent

1;

he auce sho!in+ that he obtaine aloan fro* the -orl Savin+s an #oan %ssociation for =165,))).)) on 4une (;, 166; to finance the acAuisition of the propert/. Then, three 0; /ears later, on Ma/ ;), 166C, petitioner an his !ife e2ecute a Fuitclai* Dee1E onatin+ the 8urban propert/ to his sisters3in3la! "stela an Rose :a>aro alle+el/to prove his non3o!nership of the propert/. It is obvious that theFuitclai* Dee is a *ere afterthou+ht, havin+ been e2ecuteonl/ after a co*plaint for une2plaine !ealth !as lo+ea+ainst petitioner. -h/ the Fuitclai* Dee inclue Rose:a>aro !hen it !as onl/ "stela :a>aro !ho alle+el/ o!nethe propert/ !as not e2plaine on the recor. Petitionersevience faile to clarif/ the issue as it prouce, rather thansettle, *ore Auestions.

Petitioner a*itte that the 9rant Dee over the propert/ !as inhis na*e. He never enie the e2istence an ue e2ecution of the 9rant Dee an the Special Po!er of %ttorne/ he conferreto "stela :a>aro !ith respect to the acAuisition of the 8urban

%DMIN #%-



5

propert/. -ith these a*issions, the buren of proof !as shifteto petitioner to prove non3o!nership of the propert/. He cannotno! as this $ourt to re*an the case to the P$%9$ for reception of aitional evience as, in the absence of an/ errors

of la!, it is not !ithin the $ourts po!er to o so. He ha ever/opportunit/ to auce his evience before the P$%9$.

#astl/, !e cannot sustain petitioners stance that the is*issal of si*ilar char+es a+ainst hi* before the O*bus*an renere thea*inistrative case a+ainst hi* before the P$%9$ *oot anacae*ic. To be sure, the ecision of the O*bus*an oes notoperate as res judicata in the P$%9$ case sub>ect of this revie!.The octrine of res judicata applies onl/ to >uicial or Auasi3 >uicial proceein+s, not to the e2ercise of a*inistrative

po!ers.15

Petitioner !as investi+ate b/ the O*bus*an for his possible cri*inal liabilit/ for the acAuisition of the 8urban propert/ in violation of the %nti39raft an $orrupt Practices %ctan the Revise Penal $oe. :or the sa*e alle+e *isconuct, petitioner, as a presiential appointee, !as investi+ate b/ theP$%9$ b/ virtue of the a*inistrative po!er an control of thePresient over hi*. %s the P$%9$s investi+ation of petitioner !as a*inistrative in nature, the octrine of res judicata finsno application in the case at bar.

Thus, !e fin that the $ourt of %ppeals correctl/ sustaine petitioners is*issal fro* service as the co*plaint an itssupportin+ ocu*ents establishe that he acAuire a propert/!hose value is isproportionate to his inco*e in the +overn*entservice, unless he has other sources of inco*e !hich he faile toreveal. His liabilit/ !as prove b/ substantial evience.

IN /IE EREO;, the petition is DISMISS"D. No costs.

SO ORD"R"D.

Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio Morales,

JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 149335 July 1, 2003

EDILLO C. MONTEMAYOR '. LUIS UNDALIAN

:%$TS? %n unverifie letter3co*plaint !as aresse b/ private responent #7IS 87ND%#I%N to the Philippine$onsulate 9eneral accusin+ petitioner, then OI$3Re+ionalDirector of the DP-H, of accu*ulatin+ une2plaine !ealth, inviolation of Section ' of Republic %ct No. ;)16. Privateresponent char+e a*on+ others that petitioner an his !ife purchase a house an lot in #os %n+eles, $alifornia an that petitioners in3la!s !ho !ere livin+ in $alifornia ha a poor creit stanin+ ue to a nu*ber of ebts the/ coul not have purchase such an e2pensive propert/ for petitioner an his!ife. Private responent also accuse petitioner of a*assin+!ealth fro* lahar funs an other public !ors pro>ects.

The P$%9$ conucte its o!n investi+ation of the co*plaint.Petitioner full/ participate in the proceein+s. %fter theinvesti+ation, the P$%9$ foun that petitioner purchase a

%DMIN #%-



C

house an lot in $alifornia, for 7S=165,))).)) evience b/ a9rant Dee. The bo/ conclue that the petitioner coul nothave been able to affor to bu/ the propert/ on his annualinco*e of P1C',CE'.)) as appearin+ on his Service Recor. The

P$%9$ conclue that as petitioners acAuisition of the sub>ect propert/ !as *anifestl/ out of proportion to his salar/, it has been unla!full/ acAuire. Thus, it reco**ene petitionersis*issal fro* service pursuant to Section ' of R.%. No. ;)16.

The Office of the Presient, concurrin+ !ith the finin+s anaoptin+ the reco**enation of the P$%9$, issue%*inistrative Orer No. 1(,E orerin+ petitioners is*issalfro* service !ith forfeiture of all +overn*ent benefits.

ISS7"? -hether or not petitioner !as enie ue process in theinvesti+ation before the P$%9$

H"#D? NO. T+# ##$# o* -u# (o$# & )-&&%()%&'#

(o$##-&6 & %+# oo(%u&%y %o #"l)& o#< &-# o( ## )

(#$o&-#()%&o o* %+# )$%&o o( (ul&6 $ol)&#- o*. A

lo6 ) %+# )(%&# )(# 6&'# %+# oo(%u&%y %o # +#)(-

#*o(# =u-6#% & (#-#(#-, %+# -#)- o* -u# (o$# )(#

u**&$&#%ly #%. In the case at bar, the P$%9$ e2erte effortsto notif/ the co*plainant of the proceein+s but his Philippine

resience coul not be locate. 8e that as it *a/, petitioner cannot ar+ue that he !as eprive of ue process because hefaile to confront an cross3e2a*ine the co*plainant. Petitioner voluntaril/ sub*itte to the >urisiction of the P$%9$ b/ participatin+ in the proceein+s before it. He !as ul/represente b/ counsel. He file his counter3affiavit, sub*itteocu*entar/ evience, attene the hearin+s, *ove for areconsieration of %*inistrative Orer No. issue b/ thePresient an eventuall/ file his appeal before the $ourt of

%ppeals. His active participation in ever/ step of theinvesti+ation effectivel/ re*ove an/ ba+e of proceuraleficienc/, if there !as an/, an satisfie the ue processreAuire*ent. He cannot no! be allo!e to challen+e the

proceure aopte b/ the P$%9$ in the investi+ation.

It is !ell to re*e*ber that in a*inistrative proceein+s,technical rules of proceure an evience are not strictl/applie. %*inistrative ue process cannot be full/ eAuate !ithue process in its strict >uicial sense for it is enou+h that the part/ is +iven the chance to be hear before the case a+ainst hi*is ecie. This !as affore to the petitioner in the case at bar.


Manila

:IRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 15094> July 15, 2003

COMMISSIONER O; INTERNAL RE/ENUE, petitioner,vs.MICEL J. LUILLIER PANSOP, INC., responent.

%DMIN #%-



<

DA/IDE, JR., C.J.:

%re pa!nshops inclue in the ter* lenin+ investors for the purpose of i*posin+ the 5G percenta+e ta2 uner then Section

11C of the National Internal Revenue $oe 0NIR$ of 16<<, asa*ene b/ "2ecutive Orer No. (<;

Petitioner $o**issioner of Internal Revenue 0$IR file theinstant petition for revie! to set asie the ecision1 of () Nove*ber ())1 of the $ourt of %ppeals in $% 9.R. SP No.C(EC;, !hich affir*e the ecision of 1; Dece*ber ())) of the$ourt of Ta2 %ppeals 0$T% in $T% $ase No. 5C6) cancellin+the assess*ent issue a+ainst responent Michel 4. #huillier Pa!nshop, Inc. 0hereafter #huillier in the a*ount of

P;,;C),;;5.11 as eficienc/ percenta+e ta2 for 166E, inclusiveof interest an surchar+es.

The facts are as follo!s?

On 11 March 1661, $IR 4ose 7. On+ issue RevenueMe*oranu* Orer 0RMO No. 15361 i*posin+ a 5G lenin+investors ta2 on pa!nshops@ thus?

% restu/ of P.D. No.J 11E sho!s that the principal activit/ of

pa!nshops is lenin+ *one/ at interest an incientall/acceptin+ a Bpa!nB of personal propert/ elivere b/ the pa!ner to the pa!nee as securit/ for the loan.0Sec. ;, Ibi. $learl/, this*aes pa!nshop business ain to lenin+ investors businessactivit/ !hich is broa enou+h to enco*pass the business of lenin+ *one/ at interest b/ an/ person !hether natural or >uriical. Such bein+ the case, pa!nshops shall be sub>ect to the5G lenin+ investors ta2 base on their +ross inco*e pursuantto Section 11C of the Ta2 $oe, as a*ene.

This RMO !as clarifie b/ Revenue Me*oranu* $ircular 0RM$ No. E;361 on (< Ma/ 1661, !hich reas?

1. RMOJ 15361 ate March 11, 1661.

This $ircular sub>ects to the 5G lenin+ investors ta2 the +rossinco*e of pa!nshops pursuant to Section 11C of the Ta2 $oe,an it thus revoes 8IR Rulin+ NoJ. C36), an V%T Rulin+ Nos.((36) an C<36). In orer to have a unifor* cut3off ate, avoiunfairness on the part of ta23 pa/ers if the/ are reAuire to pa/the ta2 on past transactions, an so as to +ive *eanin+ to thee2press provisions of Section (EC of the Ta2 $oe, pa!nshopo!ners or operators shall beco*e liable to the lenin+ investorsta2 on their +ross inco*e be+innin+ 4anuar/ 1, 1661. Since the

ealine for the filin+ of percenta+e ta2 return 08IR :or* No.(5(6%3) an the pa/*ent of the ta2 on lenin+ investorscoverin+ the first calenar Auarter of 1661 has alrea/ lapse,ta2pa/ers are +iven up to 4une ;), 1661 !ithin !hich to pa/ thesai ta2 !ithout penalt/. If the ta2 is pai after 4une ;), 1661,the corresponin+ penalties shall be assesse an co*pute fro*%pril (1, 1661.

Since pa!nshops are consiere as lenin+ investors effective4anuar/ 1, 1661, the/ also beco*e sub>ect to ocu*entar/ sta*p

ta2es prescribe in Title VII of the Ta2 $oe. 8IR Rulin+ No.;(53'' ate 4ul/ 1;, 16'' is hereb/ revoe.

On 11 Septe*ber 166<, pursuant to these issuances, the 8ureauof Internal Revenue 08IR issue %ssess*ent Notice No. '13PT31;36E36<36311' a+ainst #huillier e*anin+ pa/*ent of eficienc/ percenta+e ta2 in the su* ofP;,;C),;;5.11 for 166Einclusive of interest an surchar+es.

%DMIN #%-



'

On ; October 166<, #huillier file an a*inistrative protest !iththe Office of the Revenue Re+ional Director contenin+ that 01neither the Ta2 $oe nor the V%T #a! e2pressl/ i*poses 5G percenta+e ta2 on the +ross inco*e of pa!nshops@ 0( pa!nshops are ifferent fro* lenin+ investors, !hich aresub>ect to the 5G percenta+e ta2 uner the specific provision of the Ta2 $oe@ 0; RMO No. 15361 is not i*ple*entin+ an/ provision of the Internal Revenue la!s but is a ne! anaitional ta2 *easure on pa!nshops, !hich onl/ $on+resscoul enact@ 0E RMO No. 15361 i*pliel/ a*ens the Ta2 $oean is therefore ta2ation b/ i*plication, !hich is proscribe b/la!@ an 05 RMO No. 15361 is a Bclass le+islationB because itsin+les out pa!nshops a*on+ other lenin+ an financialoperations.

On 1( October 166', Deput/ 8IR $o**issioner Ro*eo S.Pan+aniban issue -arrant of Distraint anKor #ev/ No. '13)E;36' a+ainst #huilliers propert/ for the enforce*ent an pa/*entof the assesse percenta+e ta2.

Its protest havin+ been unacte upon, #huillier, in a letter ate; March 166', elevate the *atter to the $IR. Still, the protest!as not acte upon b/ the $IR. Thus, on 11 Nove*ber 166',#huillier file a BNotice an Me*oranu* on %ppealB !ith the

$ourt of Ta2 %ppeals invoin+ Section ((' of Republic %ct No.'E(E, other!ise no!n as the Ta2 Refor* %ct of 166<, !hich provies?

Section (('. Protestin+ of %ssess*ent. L

If the protest is enie in !hole or in part, or is not acte upon!ithin one hunre ei+ht/ 01') a/s fro* sub*ission of ocu*ents, the ta2pa/er aversel/ affecte b/ the ecision or

inaction *a/ appeal to the $ourt of Ta2 %ppeals !ithin thirt/0;) a/s fro* receipt of the sai ecision, or fro* the lapse of the one hunre ei+ht/ 01')3a/ perio@ other!ise, the ecisionshall beco*e final, e2ecutor/ an e*anable.

The case !as ocete as $T% $ase No. 5C6).

On 16 Nove*ber 166', the $IR file !ith the $T% a *otion tois*iss #huilliers petition on the +roun that it i not state acause of action, as there !as no action /et on the protest.

#huillier oppose the *otion to is*iss an *ove for theissuance of a !rit of preli*inar/ in>unction pra/in+ that the 8IR be en>oine fro* enforcin+ the !arrant of istraint an lev/.

:or #huilliers failure to appear on the scheule ate of hearin+, the $T% enie the *otion for the issuance of a !rit of preli*inar/ in>unction. Ho!ever, on #huilliers *otion for reconsieration, sai enial !as set asie an a hearin+ on the*otion for the issuance of a !rit of preli*inar/ in>unction !asset.

On ;) 4une 1666, after ue hearin+, the $T% enie the $IRs*otion to is*iss an +rante #huilliers *otion for the

issuance of a !rit of preli*inar/ in>unction.

On 1; Dece*ber ())), the $T% renere a ecision eclarin+01 RMO No. 15361 an RM$ No. E;361 null an voi insofar as the/ classif/ pa!nshops as lenin+ investors sub>ect to 5G percenta+e ta2@ an 0( %ssess*ent Notice No. '13PT31;36E36<36311' as cancelle, !ithra!n, an !ith no force an effect.(

Dissatisfie, the $IR file a petition for revie! !ith the $ourt of

%DMIN #%-



6

%ppeals pra/in+ that the aforesai ecision be reverse an setasie an another one be renere orerin+ #huillier to pa/ the5G lenin+ investors ta2 for 166E !ith interests an surchar+es.

7pon ue consieration of the issues presente b/ the parties intheir respective *e*orana, the $ourt of %ppeals affir*e the$T% ecision on () Nove*ber ())1.

The $IR is no! before this $ourt via this petition for revie! oncertiorari, alle+in+ that the $ourt of %ppeals erre in holin+that pa!nshops are not sub>ect to the 5G lenin+ investors ta2.He invoes then Section 11C of the Ta2 $oe, !hich i*pose a5G percenta+e ta2 on lenin+ investors. He ar+ues that the le+alefinition of lenin+ investors provie in Section 15< 0u of the

Ta2 $oe is broa enou+h to inclue pa!nshop operators.Section ; of Presiential Decree No. 11E states that the principal business activit/ of a pa!nshop is lenin+ *one/@ thus, a pa!nshop easil/ falls uner the le+al efinition of lenin+investors. RMO No. 15361 an RM$ No. E;361, !hich sub>ect pa!nshops to the 5G lenin+ investors ta2 base on their +rossinco*e, are vali. 8ein+ *ere interpretations of the NIR$, the/nee not be publishe. #astl/, the $IR invoes the case of $o**issioner of Internal Revenue vs. %+encia "2Auisite of 8ohol, Inc.,; !here the $ourt of %ppeals Special :ourteenth

Division rule that a pa!nshop is sub>ect to the 5G lenin+investors ta2.E

#huillier, on the other han, *aintains that before an after thea*en*ent of the Ta2 $oe b/ ".O. No. (<;, !hich too effecton 1 4anuar/ 16'', pa!nshops an lenin+ investors !eresub>ecte to ifferent ta2 treat*ents. Pa!nshops !ere reAuireto pa/ an annual fi2e ta2 of onl/ P1,))), !hile lenin+investors !ere sub>ect to a 5G percenta+e ta2 on their +ross

inco*e in aition to their fi2e annual ta2es. %ccorin+l/,urin+ the perio fro* %pril 16'( up to Dece*ber 166), the$IR consistentl/ rule that a pa!nshop is not a lenin+ investor an shoul not therefore be reAuire to pa/ percenta+e ta2 on its+ross inco*e.

#huillier lie!ise asserts that RMO No. 15361 an RM$ No. E;361 are not i*ple*entin+ rules but are ne! an aitional ta2*easures, !hich onl/ $on+ress is e*po!ere to enact. 8esies,the/ are invali because the/ have never been publishe in theOfficial 9aette or an/ ne!spaper of +eneral circulation.

#huillier further points out that pa!nshops are strictl/ re+ulate b/ the $entral 8an pursuant to P.D. No. 11E, other!ise no!n

as The Pa!nshop Re+ulation %ct. On the other han, there is nospecial la! +overnin+ lenin+ investors. Due to the !ieifferences bet!een the t!o, pa!nshops ha never beenconsiere as lenin+ investors for ta2 purposes. In fact, in166E, $on+ress passe House 8ill No. 1116<, 5 !hich atte*pteto a*en Section 11C of the NIR$, as a*ene, to inclueo!ners of pa!nshops as a*on+ those sub>ect to percenta+e ta2.Ho!ever, the Senate 8ill an the subseAuent 8ica*eral$o**ittee version, !hich eventuall/ beca*e the "3V%T #a!,i not incorporate such propose a*en*ent.

#astl/, #huillier ar+ues that follo!in+ the *a2i* in statutor/construction Be2pressio unius est e2clusio alterius,B it !as notthe intention of the #e+islature to i*pose percenta+e ta2es on pa!nshops because if it !ere so, pa!nshops !oul have beeninclue as a*on+ the businesses sub>ect to the sai ta2.Inas*uch as revenue la!s i*pose special burens uponta2pa/ers, the enforce*ent of such la!s shoul not be e2tene b/ i*plication be/on the clear i*port of the lan+ua+e use.

%DMIN #%-



1)

-e are therefore calle upon to resolve the issue of !hether pa!nshops are sub>ect to the 5G lenin+ investors ta2.$orollar/ to this issue are the follo!in+ Auestions? 01 %re RMO No. 15361 an RM$ No. E;361 vali 0( -ere the/ issue toi*ple*ent Section 11C of the NIR$ of 16<<, as a*ene 0;%re pa!nshops consiere Blenin+ investorsB for the purposeof the i*position of the lenin+ investors ta2 0E Is publicationnecessar/ for the valiit/ of RMO No. 15361 an RM$ No. E;361.

RMO No. 15361 an RM$ No. E;361 !ere issue in accorance!ith the po!er of the $IR to *ae rulin+s an opinions inconnection !ith the i*ple*entation of internal revenue la!s,!hich !as besto!e b/ then Section (E5 of the NIR$ of 16<<,

as a*ene b/ ".O. No. (<;.

C

Such po!er of the $IR cannot becontroverte. Ho!ever, the $IR cannot, in the e2ercise of such po!er, issue a*inistrative rulin+s or circulars not consistent!ith the la! sou+ht to be applie. Inee, a*inistrativeissuances *ust not overrie, supplant or *oif/ the la!, but*ust re*ain consistent !ith the la! the/ inten to carr/ out.Onl/ $on+ress can repeal or a*en the la!.<

The $IR ar+ues that both issuances are *ere rules anre+ulations i*ple*entin+ then Section 11C of the NIR$, as

a*ene, !hich provie?

S"$. 11C. Percenta+e ta2 on ealers in securities@ lenin+investors. 3 Dealers in securities an lenin+ investors shall pa/a ta2 eAuivalent to si2 0C per centu* of their +ross inco*e.#enin+ investors shall pa/ a ta2 eAuivalent to five 05G percentof their +ross inco*e.

It is clear fro* the aforeAuote provision that pa!nshops are not

specificall/ inclue. Thus, the Auestion is !hether pa!nshopsare consiere lenin+ investors for the purpose of i*posin+ percenta+e ta2.

-e rule in the ne+ative.

Incientall/, !e observe that both parties, as !ell as the $ourt of Ta2 %ppeals an the $ourt of %ppeals, refer to the NationalInternal Revenue $oe as the Ta2 $oe. The/ i not specif/!hether the provisions the/ cite !ere taen fro* the NIR$ of 16<<, as a*ene, or the NIR$ of 16'C, as a*ene. :or clarit/,it *ust be pointe out that the NIR$ of 16<< as renu*bere anrearran+e b/ ".O. No. (<; is a later la! than the NIR$ of 16'C, as a*ene b/ P.D. Nos. 1661, 166E, ())C an ();1. The

citation of the specific $oe is i*portant for us to eter*ine theintent of the la!.

7ner Section 15<0u of the NIR$ of 16'C, as a*ene, theter* lenin+ investor inclues Ball persons !ho *ae a practiceof lenin+ *one/ for the*selves or others at interest.B % pa!nshop, on the other han, is efine uner Section ; of P.D. No. 11E as Ba person or entit/ en+a+e in the business of lenin+*one/ on personal propert/ elivere as securit/ for loans anshall be s/non/*ous, an *a/ be use interchan+eabl/, !ith

pa!nbroer or pa!n broera+e.B

-hile it is true that pa!nshops are en+a+e in the business of lenin+ *one/, the/ are not consiere Blenin+ investorsB for the purpose of i*posin+ the 5G percenta+e ta2es for thefollo!in+ reasons?

:irst. 7ner Section 16(, para+raph ;, sub3para+raphs 0 an0ff, of the NIR$ of 16<<, prior to its a*en*ent b/ ".O. No.

%DMIN #%-



11

(<;, as !ell as Section 1C1, para+raph (, sub3para+raphs 0an 0ff, of the NIR$ of 16'C, pa!nshops an lenin+ investors!ere sub>ecte to ifferent ta2 treat*ents@ thus?

0; Other :i2e Ta2es. The follo!in+ fi2e ta2es shall becollecte as follo!s, the a*ount state bein+ for the !hole /ear,!hen not other!ise specifie?

L.

0 #enin+ investors

1. In chartere cities an first class *unicipalities, one thousan pesos@

(. In secon an thir class *unicipalities, five hunre pesos@

;. In fourth an fifth class *unicipalities an *unicipal istricts,t!o hunre fift/ pesos? Provie, That lenin+ investors !hoo business as such in *ore than one province shall pa/ a ta2 of one thousan pesos.

L.

0ff Pa!nshops, one thousan pesos 0unerscorin+ ours

Secon. $on+ress never intene pa!nshops to be treate in thesa*e !a/ as lenin+ investors. Section 11C of the NIR$ of 16<<, as renu*bere an rearran+e b/ ".O. No. (<;, !as basicall/ lifte fro* Section 1<5' of the NIR$ of 16'C, !hichtreate both ta2 sub>ects ifferentl/. Section 1<5 of the latter $oe rea as follo!s?

Sec. 1<5. Percenta+e ta2 on ealers in securities, lenin+investors. 33 Dealers in securities shall pa/ a ta2 eAuivalent to si20CG percent of their +ross inco*e. #enin+ investors shall pa/a ta2 eAuivalent to five 05G percent of their +ross inco*e. 0%sa*ene b/ P.D. No. 1<;6, P.D. No. 1656 an P.D. No. 166E.

-e note that the efinition of lenin+ investors foun in Section15< 0u of the NIR$ of 16'C is not foun in the NIR$ of 16<<,as a*ene b/ ".O. No. (<;, !here Section 11C invoe b/ the$IR is foun. Ho!ever, as e*phasie earlier, both the NIR$ of 16'C an the NIR$ of 16<< ealt !ith pa!nshops an lenin+investors ifferentl/. Veril/ then, it !as the intent of $on+ress toeal !ith both sub>ects ifferentl/. Hence, !e *ust lie!iseinterpret the statute to confor* !ith such le+islative intent.

Thir. Section 11C of the NIR$ of 16<<, as a*ene b/ ".O. No. (<;, sub>ects to percenta+e ta2 ealers in securities anlenin+ investors onl/. There is no *ention of pa!nshops.7ner the *a2i* e2pressio unius est e2clusio alterius, the*ention of one thin+ i*plies the e2clusion of another thin+ not*entione. Thus, if a statute enu*erates the thin+s upon !hichit is to operate, ever/thin+ else *ust necessaril/ an b/i*plication be e2clue fro* its operation an effect.6 This rule,as a +uie to probable le+islative intent, is base upon the rules

of lo+ic an natural !orin+s of the hu*an *in.

1)

:ourth. The 8IR ha rule several ti*es prior to the issuance of RMO No. 15361 an RM$ E;361 that pa!nshops !ere notsub>ect to the 5G percenta+e ta2 i*pose b/ Section 11C of the NIR$ of 16<<, as a*ene b/ ".O. No. (<;. This !as evena*itte b/ the $IR in RMO No. 15361 itself. $onsierin+ thatSection 11C of the NIR$ of 16<<, as a*ene, !as practicall/lifte fro* Section 1<5 of the NIR$ of 16'C, as a*ene, an

%DMIN #%-



1(

there bein+ no chan+e in the la!, the interpretation thereof shoul not have been altere.

It *a/ not be a*iss to state that, as pointe out b/ the

responent, pa!nshops !as sou+ht to be inclue as a*on+those sub>ect to 5G percenta+e ta2 b/ House 8ill No. 1116< in166E. Section 1; thereof reas?

Section 1;. Section 11C of the National Internal Revenue $oe,as a*ene, is hereb/ further a*ene to rea as follo!s?

BS"$. 11C. Percenta+e ta2 on ealers in securities@ lenin+investors@ O-N"RS O: P%-NSHOPS@ :OR"I9N$7RR"N$& D"%#"RS %NDKOR MON"& $H%N9"RS.

Dealers in securities shall pa/ a ta2 eAuivalent to Si2 0CG per centu* of their +ross inco*e. #enin+ investors, O-N"RS O:P%-NSHOPS %ND :OR"I9N $7RR"N$& D"%#"RS%NDKOR MON"& $H%N9"RS shall pa/ a ta2 eAuivalent to:ive 05G percent of their +ross inco*e.B

If pa!nshops !ere covere !ithin the ter* lenin+ investor,there !oul have been no nee to introuce such a*en*ent toinclue o!ners of pa!nshops. %t an/ rate, such proposea*en*ent !as not aopte. Instea, the approve bill !hich

beca*e R.%. No. <<1C11

repeale Section 11C of NIR$ of 16<<,as a*ene, !hich !as the basis of RMO No. 15361 an RM$ No. E;361@ thus?

S"$. (). Repealin+ $lauses. 33 The provisions of an/ specialla! relative to the rate of franchise ta2es are hereb/ e2pressl/repeale. Sections 11;, 11E an 11C of the National InternalRevenue $oe are hereb/ repeale.

Section (1 of the sa*e la! provies that the la! shall tae effectfifteen 015 a/s after its co*plete publication in the Official9aette or in at least t!o 0( national ne!spapers of +eneralcirculation !hichever co*es earlier. R.%. No. <<1C !as publishe in the Official 9aette on 1 %u+ust 166E1(@ in the4ournal an Mala/a ne!spapers, on 1( Ma/ 166E@ an in theManila 8ulletin, on 5 4une 166E. Thus, R.%. No. <<1C is ee*eeffective on (< Ma/ 166E.

Since Section 11C of the NIR$ of 16<<, !hich breathe life onthe Auestione a*inistrative issuances, ha alrea/ beenrepeale, RMO 15361 an RM$ E;361, !hich epene upon it,are ee*e auto*aticall/ repeale. Hence, even +rantin+ that pa!nshops are inclue !ithin the ter* lenin+ investors, theassess*ent fro* (< Ma/ 166E on!ar !oul have no le+ tostan on.

%in+ to the invaliit/ of the RM$ No. E;361 an RMO No.15361 is the absence of publication. -hile the rule3*ain+authorit/ of the $IR is not oubte, lie an/ other +overn*enta+enc/, the $IR *a/ not isre+ar le+al reAuire*ents or applicable principles in the e2ercise of Auasi3le+islative po!ers.

#et us first istin+uish bet!een t!o ins of a*inistrative

issuances? the le+islative rule an the interpretative rule. %le+islative rule is in the nature of suborinate le+islation,esi+ne to i*ple*ent a pri*ar/ le+islation b/ proviin+ theetails thereof. %n interpretative rule, on the other han, isesi+ne to provie +uielines to the la! !hich thea*inistrative a+enc/ is in char+e of enforcin+.1;

In Misa*is Oriental %ssociation of $oco Traers, Inc. vs.Depart*ent of :inance Secretar/,1E this Tribunal rule?

%DMIN #%-



1;

L In the sa*e !a/ that la!s *ust have the benefit of publichearin+, it is +enerall/ reAuire that before a le+islative rule isaopte there *ust be hearin+. In this connection, the%*inistrative $oe of 16'< provies?

Public Participation. 3 If not other!ise reAuire b/ la!, ana+enc/ shall, as far as practicable, publish or circulate notices of propose rules an affor intereste parties the opportunit/ tosub*it their vie!s prior to the aoption of an/ rule.

0( In the fi2in+ of rates, no rule or final orer shall be valiunless the propose rates shall have been publishe in ane!spaper of +eneral circulation at least t!o !ees before thefirst hearin+ thereon.

0; In case of opposition, the rules on conteste cases shall beobserve.

In aition, such rule *ust be publishe.

-hen an a*inistrative rule is *erel/ interpretative in nature,its applicabilit/ nees nothin+ further than its bare issuance, for it +ives no real conseAuence *ore than !hat the la! itself hasalrea/ prescribe. -hen, on the other han, the a*inistrative

rule +oes be/on *erel/ proviin+ for the *eans that canfacilitate or rener least cu*berso*e the i*ple*entation of thela! but substantiall/ increases the buren of those +overne, it behooves the a+enc/ to accor at least to those irectl/ affectea chance to be hear, an thereafter to be ul/ infor*e, beforethat ne! issuance is +iven the force an effect of la!.15

RMO No. 15361 an RM$ No. E;361 cannot be vie!e si*pl/as i*ple*entin+ rules or corrective *easures revoin+ in the

process the previous rulin+s of past $o**issioners. Specificall/,the/ !oul have been a*enator/ provisions applicable to pa!nshops. -ithout these ispute $IR issuances, pa!nshops!oul not be liable to pa/ the 5G percenta+e ta2, consierin+that the/ !ere not specificall/ inclue in Section 11C of the NIR$ of 16<<, as a*ene. In so oin+, the $IR i not si*pl/interpret the la!. The ue observance of the reAuire*ents of notice, hearin+, an publication shoul not have been i+nore.

There is no nee for us to iscuss the rulin+ in $%39.R. SP No.56('( entitle $o**issioner of Internal Revenue v. %+encia"2Auisite of 8ohol Inc., !hich uphel the valiit/ of RMO No.15361 an RM$ No. E;361. Suffice it to sa/ that the >u+*ent inthat case cannot be binin+ upon the Supre*e $ourt because itis onl/ a ecision of the $ourt of %ppeals. The Supre*e $ourt, b/ traition an in our s/ste* of >uicial a*inistration, has thelast !or on !hat the la! is@ it is the final arbiter of an/ >ustifiable controvers/. There is onl/ one Supre*e $ourt fro*!hose ecisions all other courts shoul tae their bearin+s.1C

In vie! of the fore+oin+, RMO No. 15361 an RM$ No. E;361are hereb/ eclare null an voi. $onseAuentl/, #huillier is notliable to pa/ the 5G lenin+ investors ta2.

ERE;ORE, the petition is hereb/ DISMISS"D for lac of *erit. The ecision of the $ourt of %ppeals of () Nove*ber ())1 in $%39.R. SP No. C(EC; is %::IRM"D.

SO ORD"R"D.

Vitug, Ynarez-Santiago, Carpio, and zcuna, JJ., concur.

%DMIN #%-



1E

COMMISSIONER O; INTERNAL RE/ENUE '. MICELJ. LUILLIER PANSOP, INC. G.R. No. 15094>. July 15,

2003

:%$TS?

On 1661, the $IR issue Revenue Me*oranu* Orer 0RMO No. 15361, !hich !as clarifie b/ RMO No. E;361 i*posin+ a

5G lenin+ investors ta2 on pa!nshops. It hel that the principalactivit/ of pa!nshops is lenin+ *one/ at interest anincientall/ acceptin+ personal propert/ as securit/ for the loan.Since pa!nshops are consiere as lenin+ investors effective,the/ also beco*e sub>ect to ocu*entar/ sta*p ta2es.

On 166<, the 8ureau of Internal Revenue 08IR issue an%ssess*ent Notice a+ainst #huillier e*anin+ pa/*ent ofeficienc/ percenta+e.#huillier file an a*inistrative protest !ith the Office of theRevenue Re+ional Director contenin+ that neither the Ta2 $oenor the V%T #a! e2pressl/ i*poses 5G percenta+e ta2 on the+ross inco*e of pa!nshops@ that pa!nshops are ifferent fro*lenin+ investors, !hich are sub>ect to the 5G percenta+e ta2uner the specific provision of the Ta2 $oe@ that RMO No. 153

61 is not i*ple*entin+ an/ provision of the Internal Revenuela!s but is a ne! an aitional ta2 *easure on pa!nshops,!hich onl/ $on+ress coul enact, an that it i*pliel/ a*ensthe Ta2 $oe, an that it is a class le+islation as it sin+les out pa!nshops.On 166', the 8IR issue -arrant of Distraint anKor #ev/a+ainst #huilliers propert/ for the enforce*ent an pa/*ent ofthe assesse percenta+e ta2.-hen #huillers protest !as not acte upon, the/ elevate it tothe $IR !hich !as also not acte upon. #huiller file a Notice

an Me*o on %ppeal !ith the $T%.On ())), the $T% hel the the RMOs !ere voi an that the%ssess*ent Notice shoul be cancelle.The $IR file a *otion for revie! !ith the $% !hich onl/affir*e the $T%s ecision thus this case in bar.

ISS7"? -hether pa!nshops inclue in the ter* lending

investors for the purpose of i*posin+ the 5G percenta+e ta2uner the NIR$.

%DMIN #%-



15

R7#IN9?

No.

The hel that even thou+h the RMOs No !ere issue inaccorance !ith the po!er of the $IR, the/ cannot issuea*inistrative rulin+s or circulars not consistent !ith the la!sou+ht to be applie. It shoul re*ain consistent !ith the la!the/ inten to carr/ out. Onl/ $on+ress can repeal or a*en thela!.

In the NIR$, the ter* lending investor inclues all persons !ho*ae a practice of lenin+ *one/ for the*selves or others atinterest. % pa!nshop, on the other han, is efine uner Section; of P.D. No. 11E as a person or entit/ en+a+e in the business of lenin+ *one/ on personal propert/ elivere as securit/ forloans.

-hile it is true that pa!nshops are en+a+e in the business oflenin+ *one/, the/ are not consiere lenin+ investors for the purpose of i*posin+ the 5G percenta+e ta2es citin+ thefollo!in+ reasons?

1. Pa!nshops an lenin+ investors !ere sub>ecte to ifferentta2 treat*ents as per the NIR$.

(. $on+ress never intene pa!nshops to be treate in the sa*e!a/ as lenin+ investors.

;. Section 11C of the NIR$ of 16<<, as a*ene b/ ".O. No.(<;, sub>ects to percenta+e ta2 ealers in securities an lenin+investors onl/. There is no *ention of pa!nshops.

E. The 8IR ha rule several ti*es prior to the issuance of theRMOs that pa!nshops !ere not sub>ect to the 5G percenta+e ta2i*pose b/ Section 11C of the NIR$ of 16<<. %s Section 11C of the NIR$ of 16<< !as practicall/ lifte fro* Section 1<5 of the NIR$ of 16'C, an there bein+ no chan+e in the la!, theinterpretation thereof shoul not have been altere.

%DMIN #%-



1C

Republic of the PhilippinesS7PR"M" $O7RT

Manila

"N 8%N$

9.R. No. <';'5 %u+ust ;1, 16'<

PHI#IPPIN" $ONS7M"RS :O7ND%TION, IN$., petitioner,vs.TH" S"$R"T%R& O: "D7$%TION, $7#T7R" %NDSPORTS, responent.

9%N$%&$O, 4.?

This is an ori+inal Petition for prohibition !ith a pra/er for theissuance of a !rit of preli*inar/ in>unction.

The recor of the case iscloses that the herein petitioner Philippine $onsu*ers :ounation, Inc. is a non3stoc, non3profitcorporate entit/ ul/ or+anie an e2istin+ uner the la!s of the Philippines. The herein responent Secretar/ of "ucation,

$ulture an Sports is a ranin+ cabinet *e*ber !ho heas theDepart*ent of "ucation, $ulture an Sports of the Office of thePresient of the Philippines.

On :ebruar/ (1, 16'<, the Tas :orce on Private Hi+her "ucation create b/ the Depart*ent of "ucation, $ulture anSports 0hereinafter referre to as the D"$S sub*itte a reportentitle BReport an Reco**enations on a Polic/ for Tuitionan Other School :ees.B The report favorabl/ reco**ene tothe D"$S the follo!in+ courses of action !ith respect to the9overn*ents polic/ on increases in school fees for theschool/ear 16'< to 16''

01 Private schools *a/ be allo!e to increase its total schoolfees b/ not *ore than 15 per cent to () per cent !ithout the neefor the prior approval of the D"$S. Schools that !ish to increaseschool fees be/on the ceilin+ !oul be sub>ect to the iscretionof the D"$S@

0( %n/ private school *a/ increase its total school fees ine2cess of the ceilin+, provie that the total schools fees !ill note2cee P1,))).)) for the school/ear in the ele*entar/ anseconar/ levels, an P5).)) per acae*ic unit on a se*estral basis for the colle+iate level. 1

The D"$S too note of the report of the Tas :orce an on the basis of the sa*e, the D"$S, throu+h the responent Secretar/of "ucation, $ulture an Sports 0hereinafter referre to as theresponent Secretar/, issue an Orer authoriin+, inter alia,the 15G to ()G increase in school fees as reco**ene b/ theTas :orce. The petitioner sou+ht a reconsieration of the saiOrer, apparentl/ on the +roun that the increases !ere too hi+h.( Thereafter, the D"$S issue Depart*ent Orer No. ;< ate

%DMIN #%-



1<

%pril 1), 16'< *oif/in+ its previous Orer an reucin+ theincreases to a lo!er ceilin+ of 1)G to 15G, accorin+l/. ;Despite this reuction, the petitioner still oppose the increases.On %pril (;, 16'<, the petitioner, throu+h counsel, sent atele+ra* to the Presient of the Philippines ur+in+ the

suspension of the i*ple*entation of Depart*ent Orer No. ;<.E No response appears to have been obtaine fro* the Office of the Presient.

Thus, on Ma/ (), 16'<, the petitioner, alle+el/ on the basis of the public interest, !ent to this $ourt an file the instantPetition for prohibition, seein+ that >u+*ent be renereeclarin+ the Auestione Depart*ent Orer unconstitutional. Thethrust of the Petition is that the sai Depart*ent Orer !asissue !ithout an/ le+al basis. The petitioner also *aintains thatthe Auestione Depart*ent Orer !as issue in violation of theue process clause of the $onstitution in as*uch as the petitioner !as not +iven ue notice an hearin+ before the saiDepart*ent Orer !as issue.

In support of the first ar+u*ent, the petitioner ar+ues that !hilethe D"$S is authorie b/ la! to re+ulate school fees ineucational institutions, the po!er to re+ulate oes not al!a/sinclue the po!er to increase school fees. 5

Re+arin+ the secon ar+u*ent, the petitioner *aintains thatstuents an parents are intereste parties that shoul beaffore an opportunit/ for a hearin+ before school fees areincrease. In su*, the petitioner stresses that the AuestioneOrer constitutes a enial of substantive an proceural ue process of la!.

$o*pl/in+ !ith the instructions of this $ourt, C the responent

Secretar/ sub*itte a $o**ent on the Petition. < Theresponent Secretar/ *aintains, inter alia, that the increase intuition an other school fees is ur+ent an necessar/, an that theassaile Depart*ent Orer is not arbitrar/ in character. In ueti*e, the petitioner sub*itte a Repl/ to the $o**ent. '

Thereafter, -e consiere the case sub*itte for resolution.

%fter a careful e2a*ination of the entire recor of the case, -efin the instant Petition evoi of *erit.

-e are not convince b/ the ar+u*ent that the po!er to re+ulateschool fees Boes not al!a/s inclue the po!er to increaseB suchfees. Section 5< 0; of 8atas Pa*bansa 8l+. (;(, other!iseno!n as The "ucation %ct of 16'(, vests the D"$S !ith the po!er to re+ulate the eucational s/ste* in the countr/, to !it?

S"$. 5<. "ucations an po!ers of the Ministr/. The Ministr/shall?

222 222 222

0; Pro*ul+ate rules an re+ulations necessar/ for thea*inistration, supervision an re+ulation of the eucationals/ste* in accorance !ith eclare polic/.

222 222 222 6

Section <) of the sa*e %ct +rants the D"$S the po!er to issuerules !hich are lie!ise necessar/ to ischar+e its functions anuties uner the la!, to !it?

S"$. <). Rule3*ain+ %uthorit/. The Minister of "ucation

%DMIN #%-



1'

an $ulture, char+e !ith the a*inistration an enforce*ent of this %ct, shall pro*ul+ate the necessar/ i*ple*entin+ rules anre+ulations.

In the absence of a statute statin+ other!ise, this po!er incluesthe po!er to prescribe school fees. No other +overn*ent a+enc/has been veste !ith the authorit/ to fi2 school fees an as such,the po!er shoul be consiere lo+e !ith the D"$S if it is to properl/ an effectivel/ ischar+e its functions an uties uner the la!.

-e fin the re*ainin+ ar+u*ent of the petitioner untenable. The petitioner invoes the ue process clause of the $onstitutiona+ainst the alle+e arbitrariness of the assaile Depart*entOrer. The petitioner *aintains that the ue process clausereAuires that prior notice an hearin+ are inispensable for theDepart*ent Orer to be valil/ issue.

-e isa+ree.

The function of prescribin+ rates b/ an a*inistrative a+enc/*a/ be either a le+islative or an a>uicative function. If it !erea le+islative function, the +rant of prior notice an hearin+ to theaffecte parties is not a reAuire*ent of ue process. %s re+ars

rates prescribe b/ an a*inistrative a+enc/ in the e2ercise of its Auasi3>uicial function, prior notice an hearin+ are essentialto the valiit/ of such rates. -hen the rules anKor rates laio!n b/ an a*inistrative a+enc/ are *eant to appl/ to allenterprises of a +iven in throu+hout the countr/, the/ *a/ partae of a le+islative character. -here the rules an the ratesi*pose appl/ e2clusivel/ to a particular part/, base upon afinin+ of fact, then its function is Auasi3>uicial in character. 6a

Is Depart*ent Orer No. ;< issue b/ the D"$S in the e2erciseof its le+islative function -e believe so. The assaileDepart*ent Orer prescribes the *a2i*u* school fees that *a/ be char+e b/ all private schools in the countr/ for school/ear 16'< to 16''. This bein+ so, prior notice an hearin+ are not

essential to the valiit/ of its issuance.

This observation not!ithstanin+, there is a failure on the part of the petitioner to sho! clear an convincin+ evience of sucharbitrariness. %s the recor of the case iscloses, the D"$S isnot !ithout an/ >ustification for the issuance of the AuestioneDepart*ent Orer. It !oul be reasonable to assu*e that thereport of the Tas :orce create b/ the D"$S, on !hich it baseits ecision to allo! an increase in school fees, !as *ae >uiciousl/. Moreover, upon the instance of the petitioner, as itso a*its in its Petition, the D"$S ha actuall/ reuce theori+inal rates of 15G to ()G o!n to 1)G to 15G, accorin+l/.7ner the circu*stances peculiar to this case, -e cannotconsier the assaile Depart*ent Orer arbitrar/.

7ner the Rules of $ourt, it is presu*e that official ut/ has been re+ularl/ perfor*e. 1) In the absence of proof to thecontrar/, that presu*ption prevails. This bein+ so, the buren of proof is on the part/ assailin+ the re+ularit/ of official proceein+s. In the case at bar, the petitioner has notsuccessfull/ ispute the presu*ption.

-e co**en the petitioner for tain+ the cu+els for the public,especiall/ the parents an the stuents of the countr/. Its eal inavocatin+ the protection of the consu*ers in its activitiesshoul be laue rather than iscoura+e. 8ut a *ore convincin+case shoul be *ae out b/ it if it is to see relief fro* thecourts so*e ti*e in the future. Petitioner *ust establish that

%DMIN #%-



16

responent acte !ithout or in e2cess of her >urisiction@ or !ith+rave abuse of iscretion, an there is no appeal or an/ other plain, spee/, an aeAuate re*e/ in the orinar/ course of la! before the e2traorinar/ !rit of prohibition *a/ issue. 11

This $ourt, ho!ever, oes not +o to the e2tent of sa/in+ that it+ives its >uicial i"pri"atur to future increases in school fees.The increases *ust not be unreasonable an arbitrar/ so as toa*ount to an outra+eous e2ercise of +overn*ent authorit/ an po!er. In such an eventualit/, this $ourt !ill not hesitate toe2ercise the po!er of >uicial revie! in its capacit/ as theulti*ate +uarian of the $onstitution.

-H"R":OR", in vie! of the fore+oin+, the instant Petition for prohibition is hereb/ DISMISS"D for lac of *erit. -e *aeno pronounce*ent as to costs.

SO ORD"R"D.

Teehanee, $.4., &ap, :ernan, Narvasa, Melencio3Herrera,9utierre, 4r., $ru, Paras, :eliciano, Pailla, 8iin, Sar*ientoan $ortes, 44., concur.

?@u)&=u-&$&)l o7#(B -&%&6u&+#- *(o ?=u-&$&)l o7#(B

)- ?u)&l#6&l)%&'# o7#(B

Philippine $onsu*ers :ounation, Inc. vs. Secretar/ of

"ucation $ulture an Sports, 15; S$R% C((

@UASILEGISLATI/E '. @UASIJUDICIAL:

-hen the rules anKor rates lai o!n b/ an a*inistrativea+enc/ are *eant to appl/ to all enterprises of a +iven inthrou+hout the countr/, the/ *a/ partae of a le+islativecharacter. -here the rules an the rates i*pose appl/e2clusivel/ to a particular part/, base upon a finin+ of fact,then its function is Auasi3>uicial in character.

R#u&(##% *o( /)l&- E"#($&#

81 Ju(&-&$%&o

@: o7 & =u(&-&$%&o -#%#(&#-

A: Jurisdiction is con#erred b$ la! and b$ the Constitution.

%hus, in order to deter"ine !ho has jurisdiction to ta&ecognizance o# a case, one onl$ needs to loo& at the la! !hether

or not it con#ers jurisdiction on the bod$.

@: o7 -o you (#ol'# ) $o*l&$% o* =u(&-&$%&o #%7## )

u)&=u-&$&)l o-y )- %+# $ou(%

A: 'irst, deter"ine !hat the controvers$ is all about. (s the plainti## )uestioning !hether an ad"inistrative bod$ has a

certain po!er* +r is he )uestioning ho! said po!er !as

eercised* (n the #irst, the particular la! creating the bod$ "ust be considered in order to deter"ine !hether or not the

ad"inistrative bod$ has authorit$. (# the la! has been entrusted

to that bod$ #or its i"ple"entation and such la! vests authorit$in said bod$, then it has jurisdiction. pon the other hand, i# the

%DMIN #%-



()

case puts in issue, not !hether the bod$ has authorit$, but the

)uestionable "anner it is eercised, then the courts have

jurisdiction to deter"ine !hether or not in the eercise o# such po!ers rights and obligations have been i"paired.

Philippine Consumers Foundation, Inc. vs. Sec. of Education,Culture and Sports,

G.R. No. 788! "u#ust $, $%87

(Admin Law, quasi-legislative power,)

Facts: The DE!, as recommended "# the Tas$ Force on %rivate

&igher Education and through respondent !ecretar# issued Dep 'rder o *+, a modiication o a previous Department 'rder, authoriingthe ./0 to .10 increase in school ees %etitioner opposed andalleged in a petition that said order was issued without an# legal "asisarguing that authorit# o DE! to regulate school ees does notalwa#s include the power to increase the same

!ec 1+ (*) o 2% 2lg 3*3 (The Education Act o .453), vests theDE! with the power to regulate the educational s#stem6 and !ec +/o the same act grants the DE! the power to issue rules which areli$ewise necessar# to discharge its unctions and duties under the law

The respondent !ecretar# maintains that the increase in tuition andother school ees is urgent and necessar#

7ssue: 8' the i9ing o school ees through department order "#DE! is a valid delegation o legislative power

&eld: es %ower granted to the educational department to regulatethe educational s#stem includes the power to prescri"e school ees 7nthe a"sence o a statue stating otherwise, this power include the

power to prescri"e school ees o other government agenc# has"een vested with the authorit# to i9 school ees and as such, thepower should "e considered lodged with the DE!

P&I'. C(NS)*ERS F()N+"I(N INC - SECRE"R (FE+)C"I(N

FAT!: 7n .45+, the Tas$ Force on %rivate &igher Educationsu"mitted a report, which avora"l# recommended to the DE!courses o action with respect to the ;overnment<s polic# on increasesin school ees or ! .45+-.455

'n this "asis, the !ecretar# o DE! issued an order authoriing a.1-3/0 increase in school ees as recommended "# the Tas$ Force%hilippine onsumers Foundation 7nc (%F7) opposed the order on theground that the increases were too high DE! issued Dept 'rder o*+ reducing the increases to a lower ceiling o ./-.10 Again, %F7opposed

7!!=E

8> DE! has the power to prescri"e school ees

&ELD

E! 7n the a"sence o a statute stating otherwise, this power includesthe power to prescri"e school ees o other government agenc# has"een vested with the authorit# to i9 school ees and as such, thepower should "e considered lodged with the DE! i it is to properl#and eectivel# discharge its unctions and duties under the law

The unction o prescri"ing rates "# an administrative agenc# ma# "eeither a legislative or an ad?udicative unction 7 it were a legislativeunction, the grant o prior notice and hearing to the aected parties isnot a requirement o due process As regards rates prescri"ed "# an

%DMIN #%-



(1

administrative agenc# in the e9ercise o its quasi-?udicial unction, prior notice and hearing are essential to the validit# o such rates 8hen therules and>or rates laid down "# an administrative agenc# are meant toappl# to all enterprises o a given $ind throughout the countr#, the#ma# parta$e o a legislative character 8here the rules and the ratesimposed appl# e9clusivel# to a particular part#, "ased upon a inding o

act, then its unction is quasi-?udicial in character

7s Department 'rder o *+ issued "# the DE! in the e9ercise o itslegislative unction@ E!

The assailed Department 'rder prescri"es the ma9imum school eesthat ma# "e charged "# all private schools in the countr# or ! .45+to .455

This "eing so, prior notice and hearing are not essential to the validit#o its issuance


Manila

"N 8%N$

G.R. No. 159>4> A(&l 13, 2004

GREGORIO . ONASAN II, petitioner,vs.TE PANEL O; IN/ESTIGATING PROSECUTORS O;

TE DEPARTMENT O; JUSTICE 8LEO DACERA,

SUSAN ;. DACANAY, EDNA A. /ALEN!UELA AND

SEASTIAN ;. CAPONONG, JR., CIDGPNP

PDIRECTOR EDUARDO MATILLANO, )- ON.

OMUDSMAN SIMEON /. MARCELO, responents.

D " $ I S I O N

AUSTRIAMARTINE!, J .:

On %u+ust E, ());, an affiavit3co*plaint !as file !ith theDepart*ent of 4ustice 0DO4 b/ responent $ID93PNPKP

Director "uaro Matillano. It reas in part?

L

(. %fter a thorou+h investi+ation, I foun that a cri*e of coupetat !as inee co**itte b/ *ilitar/ personnel !ho occupieOa!oo on the (<th a/ of 4ul/ ()); an Senator 9re+orioB9rin+oBHonasan, II L

;. L

E. The sai cri*e !as co**itte as follo!s?

E.1 On 4une E, ());, at on or about 11 p.*., in a house locate inSan 4uan, Metro Manila, a *eetin+ !as hel an presie b/Senator Honasan. A%%)$+#- ) A#" FF & %+# )**&-)'&% o*

Perfecto Ragil and made an integral part of this complaint .L

%DMIN #%-



((

E.' In the earl/ *ornin+ of 4ul/ (<, ());, $apt. 9eraro9a*bala, for an in behalf of the *ilitar/ rebels occup/in+Oa!oo, *ae a public state*ent aire on nation television,statin+ their !ithra!al of support to the chain of co**an of the %:P an the 9overn*ent of Presient 9loria Macapa+al

%rro/o an the/ are !illin+ to ris their lives in orer to achievethe National Recover/ %+ena of Sen. Honasan, !hich the/ believe is the onl/ pro+ra* that !oul solve the ills of societ/. . . . 0"*phasis supplie.

The S!orn State*ent of %:P Ma>or Perfecto Ra+il referre to b/ PNPKP Director Matillano is Auote verbati*, to !it?

1. That I a* a *e*ber of the $o**unication "lectronics anInfor*ation S/ste*s Services, %r*e :orces of the Philippines!ith the ran of Ma>or@

(. That I *et a certain $aptain 9ar/ %le>ano of the PresientialSecurit/ 9uar 0PS9 urin+ our Ver/ I*portant Person 0VIPProtection $ourse so*eti*e in last !ee of March ());@

;. That so*eti*e in Ma/ ());, $aptain %le>ano +ave *e a cop/of the pa*phlet of the National Recover/ Pro+ra* 0NRP antol *e that? Bailan+an n+ 8ansa n+ taon+ a+a/a *o na

!alan+ bahi n+ corruption a/a basahin *o ito 0referrin+ to NRP pa*phlet. I too the pa*phlet but never ha the ti*e torea it@

E. That so*eti*e in the afternoon of 4une E, ());, $aptain%le>ano invite *e to >oin hi* in a *eetin+ !here the NRP!oul be iscusse an that there !oul be a special +uest@

5. That $apt. %le>ano an I arrive at the *eetin+ at past 6

ocloc in the evenin+ of 4une E, ()); in a house locateso*e!here in San 4uan, Metro Manila@

C. That upon arrival !e !ere +iven a ocu*ent consistin+ of about ;3E pa+es containin+ iscussion of issues an concerns

!ithin the fra*e!or of NRP an !e !ere lie!ise serve !ithinner@

<. That !hile !e !ere still havin+ inner at about past 11 ocloc in the evenin+, Sen. 9re+orio B9rin+oB Honasan arrive to+ether !ith another fello! !ho !as later introuce as $apt. Turin+an@

'. That after Sen. Honasan ha taen his inner, the *eetin+ proper starte presie b/ Sen. Honasan@

6. That Sen. Honasan iscusse the NRP, the +raft ancorruption in the +overn*ent incluin+ the *ilitar/ institution,the >uiciar/, the e2ecutive branch an the lie@

1). That the iscussion conclue that !e *ust use force,violence an ar*e stru++le to achieve the vision of NRP. %tthis point, I raise the ar+u*ent that it is */ belief that refor*s!ill be achieve throu+h the e*ocratic processes an not thruforce an violence anKor ar*e stru++le. Sen. Honasan

countere that B!e !ill never achieve refor*s throu+h thee*ocratic processes because the people !ho are in po!er !illnot +ive up their positions as the/ have their veste interests to protect.B %fter a fe! *ore e2chan+es of vie!s, Sen. Honasanappeare irritate an ase *e irectl/ three 0; ti*es? BIn a ba o outB I then ase !hether all those present nu*berin+ ;) people, *ore or less, are reall/ co**itte, Sen. Honasanreplie? Bun+ a/a natin+ pu*ata/ sa atin+ *+a alaban, a/ain natin+ pu*ata/ sa *+a asa*ahan+ *a+tatasil.B I ecie

%DMIN #%-



(;

not to pursue further Auestions@

11. That in the course of the *eetin+, he presente the plan of action to achieve the +oals of NRP, i.e., overthro! of the+overn*ent uner the present leaership thru ar*e revolution

an after !hich, a >unta !ill be constitute an that >unta !illrun the ne! +overn*ent. He further sai that so*e of us !illresi+n fro* the *ilitar/ service an occup/ civilian positions inthe ne! +overn*ent. He also sai that there is ur+enc/ that !ei*ple*ent this plan an that !e !oul be notifie of the ne2tactivities.

1(. That after the iscussion an his presentation, he e2plainethe rites that !e !ere to uner+o3so*e sort of Bbloo co*pactB.He rea a pra/er that soune *ore lie a ple+e an !e allrecite it !ith raise ar*s an clenche fists. He then too anife an e*onstrate ho! to *ae a cut on the left upper inner ar* until it blees. The cut !as in for* of the letter BIB inthe ol alphabet but !as one in a !a/ that it actuall/ looelie letter BHB. Then, he presse his ri+ht thu*b a+ainst the bloo an presse the thu*b on the lo!er *ile portion of thecop/ of the Pra/er. He then covere his thu*b *ar in bloo!ith tape. He then presse the cut on his left ar* a+ainst the NRP fla+ an left *ar of letter BIB on it. "ver/bo/ elsefollo!e@

1;. That !hen */ turn ca*e, I sli+htl/ *ae a cut on */ upper inner ar* an price a portion of it to let it blee an Ifollo!e !hat Senator HON%S%N i@

1E. That I i not lie to participate in the rites but I ha the fear for */ life !ith !hat Senator HON%S%N sai that BLa/anatin+ pu*ata/ n+ asa*ahanB@

15. That after the rites, the *eetin+ !as a>ourne an !e leftthe place@

1C. That I avoie $aptain %le>ano after that *eetin+ but I !ase2tra cautious that he !oul not notice it for fear of */ life ue

to the threat *ae b/ Senator HON%S%N urin+ the *eetin+ on4une E, ()); an the infor*ation rela/e to *e b/ $aptain%le>ano that their +roup ha alrea/ eepl/ establishe their net!or insie the intelli+ence co**unit/@

1<. That so*eti*e in the first !ee of 4ul/ ());, $aptain%le>ano ca*e to see *e to return the rifle that he borro!e antol *e that !hen the +roup arrives at the MalacaQan+$o*poun for BD3D%&B, */ tas is to s!itch off the telephoneP%8 that serves the MalacaQan+ co*ple2. I tol hi* that Icoul not o it. No further conversation ensue an he left@

1'. That on Suna/, 4ul/ (<, ());, !hile !atchin+ thetelevision, I sa! flashe on the screen #ieutenant %ntonioTrillanes, $aptain 9eraro 9a*bala, $aptain %le>ano an so*eothers !ho !ere present urin+ the 4une Eth *eetin+ that Iattene, havin+ a press conference about their occupation of theOa!oo Hotel. I also sa! that the letter BIB on the ar* bansan the banner is the sa*e letter BIB in the banner !hich !asispla/e an on !hich !e presse our !oun to leave thei*print of the letter BIB@

16. That this %ffiavit is bein+ e2ecute in orer to attest theveracit/ of the fore+oin+ an in orer to char+e S"N%TOR 9R"9ORIO B9RIN9OB HON%S%N, $apt. :"#IT7RIN9%N, $apt. 9%R& %#"4%NO, #t. %NTONIOTRI##%N"S, $apt. 9"R%RDO 9%M8%#% an others for violation of %rticle 1;E3% of the Revise Penal $oe for the

%DMIN #%-



(E

offense of Bcoup detat B. 0"*phasis supplie

The affiavit3co*plaint is ocete as I.S. No. ());311() anthe Panel of Investi+atin+ Prosecutors of the Depart*ent of 4ustice 0DO4 Panel for brevit/ sent a subpoena to petitioner for

preli*inar/ investi+ation.

On %u+ust (<, ());, petitioner, to+ether !ith his counsel,appeare at the DO4. He file a Motion for $larificationAuestionin+ DO4s >urisiction over the case, assertin+ that sincethe i*pute acts !ere co**itte in relation to his public office,it is the Office of the O*bus*an, not the DO4, that has the >urisiction to conuct the corresponin+ preli*inar/investi+ation@ that shoul the char+e be file in court, it is theSani+anba/an, not the re+ular courts, that can le+all/ tae

co+niance of the case consierin+ that he belon+s to the +roupof public officials !ith Salar/ 9rae ;1@ an pra/in+ that the proceein+s be suspene until final resolution of his *otion.

Responent Matillano sub*itte his co**entKopposition theretoan petitioner file a repl/.

On Septe*ber 1), ());, the DO4 Panel issue an Orer, to !it?

On %u+ust (<, ());, Senator 9re+orio 8. Honasan II filethrou+h counsel a BMotion to $larif/ 4urisictionB. OnSepte*ber 1, ());, co*plainant file a $o**entKOpposition tothe sai *otion.

The *otion an co**entKopposition are hereb/ ul/ note anshall be passe upon in the resolution of this case.

In the *eanti*e, in vie! of the sub*ission b/ co*plainant of

aitional affiavitsKevience an to affor responents a*pleopportunit/ to controvert the sa*e, responents, thru counsel arehereb/ irecte to file their respective counter3affiavits ancontrovertin+ evience on or before Septe*ber (;, ());.1

Hence, Senator 9re+orio 8. Honasan II file the herein petitionfor certiorari uner Rule C5 of the Rules of $ourt a+ainst theDO4 Panel an its *e*bers, $ID93PNP3PKDirector "uaroMatillano an O*bus*an Si*eon V. Marcelo, attributin+ +raveabuse of iscretion on the part of the DO4 Panel in issuin+ theaforeAuote Orer of Septe*ber 1), ()); on the +roun that theDO4 has no >urisiction to conuct the preli*inar/ investi+ation.

Responent O*bus*an, the Office of Solicitor 9eneral inrepresentation of responents DO4 Panel, an Director Matillano

sub*itte their respective co**ents.

The $ourt hear the parties in oral ar+u*ents on the follo!in+issues?

1 -hether responent Depart*ent of 4ustice Panel of Investi+ators has >urisiction to conuct preli*inar/investi+ation over the char+e of coup detat a+ainst petitioner@

( -hether O*bus*an3DO4 $ircular No. 653))1 violates the$onstitution an Republic %ct No. C<<) or O*bus*an %ct of 16'6@ an

; -hether responent DO4 Panel of Investi+ators co**itte+rave abuse of iscretion in eferrin+ the resolution of the petitioners *otion to clarif/ >urisiction consierin+ the clai*of the petitioner that the DO4 Panel has no >urisiction toconuct preli*inar/ investi+ation.

%DMIN #%-

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_159747_2004.html#fnt1




(5

%fter the oral ar+u*ents, the parties sub*itte their respective*e*orana. The ar+u*ents of petitioner are?

1. The Office of the O*bus*an has >urisiction to conuct the preli*inar/ investi+ation over all public officials, incluin+

petitioner.

(. Responent DO4 Panel is neither authorie nor eputieuner OM83DO4 4oint $ircular No. 653))1 to conuct the preli*inar/ investi+ation involvin+ Honasan.

;. "ven if eputie, the responent DO4 Panel is still !ithoutauthorit/ since OM83DO4 4oint $ircular No. 653))1 is ultra

vires for bein+ violative of the $onstitution, be/on the po!ers+rante to the O*bus*an b/ R.%. C<<) an inoperative ue tolac of publication, hence null an voi.

E. Since petitioner is char+e !ith coup de etat in relation to hisoffice, it is the Office of the O*bus*an !hich has the >urisiction to conuct the preli*inar/ investi+ation.

5. The responent DO4 Panel +ravel/ erre in eferrin+ theresolution of petitioners Motion to $larif/ 4urisiction since theissue involve therein is eter*inative of the valiit/ of the

preli*inar/ investi+ation.

C. Responent DO4 Panel +ravel/ erre !hen it resolve petitioners Motion in the +uise of irectin+ hi* to sub*it$ounter3%ffiavit an /et refuse anKor faile to perfor* itsuties to resolve petitioners Motion statin+ its le+al an factual bases.

The ar+u*ents of responent DO4 Panel are?

1. The DO4 has >urisiction to conuct the preli*inar/investi+ation on petitioner pursuant to Section ;, $hapter I, TitleIII, 8oo IV of the Revise %*inistrative $oe of 16'< inrelation to P.D. No. 1(<5, as a*ene b/ P.D. No. 151;.

(. Petitioner is char+e !ith a cri*e that is not irectl/ nor inti*atel/ relate to his public office as a Senator. The factualalle+ations in the co*plaint an the supportin+ affiavits are bereft of the reAuisite ne2us bet!een petitioners office an theacts co*plaine of.

;. The challen+e a+ainst the constitutionalit/ of the OM83DO44oint $ircular, as a +roun to Auestion the >urisiction of theDO4 over the co*plaint belo!, is *isplace. The >urisiction of the DO4 is a statutor/ +rant uner the Revise %*inistrative

$oe. It is not erive fro* an/ provision of the >oint circular !hich e*boies the +uielines +overnin+ the authorit/ of boththe DO4 an the Office of the O*bus*an to conuct preli*inar/ investi+ation on offenses char+e in relation to public office.

E. Instea of filin+ his counter3affiavit, petitioner opte to file a*otion to clarif/ >urisiction !hich, for all intents an purposes,is actuall/ a *otion to is*iss that is a prohibite pleain+uner Section ;, Rule 11( of the Revise Rules of $ri*inalProceure. The DO4 Panel is not reAuire to act or evenreco+nie it since a preli*inar/ investi+ation is reAuire solel/for the purpose of eter*inin+ !hether there is a sufficient+roun to en+ener a !ell foune belief that a cri*e has beenco**itte an the responent is probabl/ +uilt/ thereof anshoul be hel for trial. The DO4 panel i not outri+htl/ re>ectthe *otion of petitioner but rule to pass upon the sa*e in theeter*ination of the probable cause@ thus, it has not violate an/

%DMIN #%-



(C

la! or rule or an/ nor* of iscretion.

The ar+u*ents of responent O*bus*an are?

1. The DO4 Panel has full authorit/ an >urisiction to conuct

preli*inar/ investi+ation over the petitioner for the reason thatthe cri*e of coup detat uner %rticle No. 1;E3% of the RevisePenal $oe 0RP$ *a/ fall uner the >urisiction of theSani+anba/an onl/ if the sa*e is co**itte Bin relation toofficeB of petitioner, pursuant to Section E, P.D. No. 1C)C, asa*ene b/ R.%. No. <6<5 an R.%. No. '(E6.

(. Petitioners pre*ise that the DO4 Panel erives its authorit/ toconuct preli*inar/ investi+ation over cases involvin+ publicofficers solel/ fro* the OM83DO4 4oint $ircular No. 653))1 is*isplace because the DO4s concurrent authorit/ !ith the OM8to conuct preli*inar/ investi+ation of cases involvin+ publicofficials has been reco+nie in Sanchez vs. /e"etriou 0112 SC3 412 567789: an incorporate in Section E, Rule 11( of the Revise Rules of $ri*inal Proceure.

;. Petitioners assertion that the 4oint $ircular is ultra vires anthe DO4 cannot be eputie b/ the O*bus*an en *asse but*ust be +iven in reference to specific cases has no factual or le+al basis. There is no rule or la! !hich reAuires theO*bus*an to !rite out iniviualie authorities to eputie prosecutors on a per case basis. The po!er of the O*bus*an toeputie DO4 prosecutors procees fro* the $onstitutional +rantof po!er to reAuest assistance fro* an/ +overn*ent a+enc/necessar/ to ischar+e its functions, as !ell as fro* the statutor/authorit/ to so eputie sai DO4 prosecutors uner Sec. ;1 of R% C<<).

E. The 4oint $ircular !hich is an internal arran+e*ent bet!eenthe DO4 an the Office of the O*bus*an nee not be publishe since it neither contains a penal provision nor oes it prescribe a *anator/ act or prohibit an/ uner pain or penalt/.It oes not re+ulate the conuct of persons or the public, in

+eneral.

The $ourt fins the petition !ithout *erit.

The authorit/ of responent DO4 Panel is base not on theassaile OM83DO4 $ircular No. 653))1 but on the provisions of the 16'< %*inistrative $oe uner $hapter I, Title III, 8oo IV, +overnin+ the DO4, !hich provies?

Sec. 1. Declaration of polic/ 3 It is the eclare polic/ of theState to provie the +overn*ent !ith a principal la! a+enc/!hich shall be both its l#6)l $ou#l )- (o#$u%&o )(@a*inister the cri*inal >ustice s/ste* in accorance !ith theaccepte processes thereof consistin+ in the investi+ation of thecri*es, prosecution of offeners an a*inistration of thecorrectional s/ste*@ L

Sec. ;. Po!ers an :unctions 3 To acco*plish its *anate, theDepart*ent shall have the follo!in+ po!ers an functions?

L

82 I'#%&6)%# %+# $o&&o o* $(&#, (o#$u%# o**#-#(

)- )-&&%#( %+# (o)%&o )- $o((#$%&o y%#

8E+)& ul&#-

an Section 1 of P.D. 1(<5, effective %pril 11, 16<', to !it?

%DMIN #%-



(<

S"$TION 1. Creation o# the ;ational Prosecution Service<

Supervision and Control o# the Secretar$ o# Justice. There ishereb/ create an establishe a National Prosecution Serviceuner the supervision an control of the Secretar/ of 4ustice, to be co*pose of the Prosecution Staff in the Office of the

Secretar/ of 4ustice an such nu*ber of Re+ional StateProsecution Offices, an Provincial an $it/ :iscals Offices asare hereinafter provie, !hich +)ll # (&)(&ly (#o&l#

*o( %+# &'#%&6)%&o )- (o#$u%&o o* )ll $)# &'ol'&6

'&ol)%&o o* #)l l)7. 0"*phasis supplie

Petitioner clai*s that it is the O*bus*an, not the DO4, that hasthe >urisiction to conuct the preli*inar/ investi+ation uner para+raph 01, Section 1;, %rticle I of the 16'< $onstitution,!hich confers upon the Office of the O*bus*an the po!er to

investigate on its o!n, or on co"plaint b$ an$ person, an$ act or o"ission o# an$ public o##icial, e"plo$ee, o##ice or agenc$,!hen such act or o"ission appears to be illegal, unjust,

i"proper, or ine##icient . Petitioner rationalies that the 16'<%*inistrative $oe an the O*bus*an %ct of 16'6 cannot prevail over the $onstitution, pursuant to %rticle < of the $ivil$oe, !hich provies?

%rticle <. #a!s are repeale onl/ b/ subseAuent ones, an their violation or non3observance shall not be e2cuse b/ isuse, or

custo* or practice to the contrar/.

-hen the courts eclare a la! to be inconsistent !ith the$onstitution, the for*er shall be voi an the latter shall +overn.

%*inistrative or e2ecutive acts, orers an re+ulations shall bevali onl/ !hen the/ are not contrar/ to the la!s or the$onstitution.

an Mabanag vs. =opez Vito.(

The $ourt is not convince. Para+raph 01 of Section 1;, %rticleI of the $onstitution, viz ?

S"$. 1;. %he +##ice o# the +"buds"an shall have the #ollo!ing po!ers, #unctions, and duties?

1. Investi+ate on its o!n, or on co*plaint b/ an/ person, an/ actor o*ission of an/ public official, e*plo/ee, office or a+enc/,!hen such act or o*ission appears to be ille+al, un>ust,i*proper, or inefficient.

oes not e2clue other +overn*ent a+encies tase b/ la! toinvesti+ate an prosecute cases involvin+ public officials. If it!ere the intention of the fra*ers of the 16'< $onstitution, the/!oul have e2pressl/ eclare the e2clusive confer*ent of the po!er to the O*bus*an. Instea, para+raph 0' of the sa*eSection 1; of the $onstitution provies?

0' Pro*ul+ate its rules of proceure an e2ercise such other po!ers or perfor* such functions or uties as *a/ be provie b/ la!.

%ccorin+l/, $on+ress enacte R.%. C<<), other!ise no!n asBThe O*bus*an %ct of 16'6.B Section 15 thereof provies?

Sec. 15. Po!ers, :unctions an Duties. 3 The Office of theO*bus*an shall have the follo!in+ po!ers, functions anuties?

01 Investi+ate an prosecute on its o!n or on co*plaint b/ an/

%DMIN #%-





('

person, an/ act or o*ission of an/ public officer or e*plo/ee,office or a+enc/, !hen such act or o*ission appears to be ille+al,un>ust, i*proper or inefficient. I% +) (&)(y =u(&-&$%&o

o'#( $)# $o6&H)l# y %+# S)-&6))y) )-, & %+#

#"#($&# o* %+& (&)(y =u(&-&$%&o, &% )y %)# o'#(, )% )y

%)6#, *(o )y &'#%&6)%o(y )6#$y o* %+# 6o'#(#%, %+#&'#%&6)%&o o* u$+ $)#.

L. 0"*phasis supplie

Pursuant to the authorit/ +iven to the O*bus*an b/ the$onstitution an the O*bus*an %ct of 16'6 to la/ o!n itso!n rules an proceure, the Office of the O*bus*an pro*ul+ate %*inistrative Orer No. ', ate Nove*ber ',166), entitle, Clari#$ing and Modi#$ing Certain 3ules o#

Procedure o# the +"buds"an, to !it?

% co*plaint file in or taen co+niance of b/ the Office of theO*bus*an char+in+ an/ public officer or e*plo/ee incluin+those in +overn*ent3o!ne or controlle corporations, !ith anact or o*ission alle+e to be ille+al, un>ust, i*proper or inefficient is an O*bus*an case. Such a co*plaint *a/ be thesub>ect of cri*inal or a*inistrative proceein+s, or both.

;o( u(o# o* &'#%&6)%&o )- (o#$u%&o, Ou-)

$)# &'ol'&6 $(&&)l o**## )y # u-&'&-#- &%o %7o

$l)#, %o 7&%: 81 %+o# $o6&H)l# y %+# S)-&6))y),

)- 82 %+o# *)ll&6 u-#( %+# =u(&-&$%&o o* %+# (#6ul)(

$ou(%. T+# -&**#(#$# #%7## %+# %7o, )&-# *(o %+#

$)%#6o(y o* %+# $ou(% 7+#(#& %+#y )(# *&l#-, & o %+#

)u%+o(&%y %o &'#%&6)%# ) -&%&6u&+#- *(o %+# )u%+o(&%y

%o (o#$u%#, u$+ $)#.

T+# o7#( %o &'#%&6)%# o( $o-u$% ) (#l&&)(y

&'#%&6)%&o o )y Ou-) $)# )y # #"#($&#- y

) &'#%&6)%o( o( (o#$u%o( o* %+# O**&$# o* %+#

Ou-), o( y )y P(o'&$&)l o( C&%y P(o#$u%o( o(

%+#&( )&%)$#, #&%+#( & %+#&( (#6ul)( $))$&%&# o( )

-#u%&H#- Ou-) (o#$u%o(.

T+# (o#$u%&o o* $)# $o6&H)l# y %+# S)-&6))y)

+)ll # u-#( %+# -&(#$% #"$lu&'# $o%(ol )- u#('&&o o*

%+# O**&$# o* %+# Ou-). I $)# $o6&H)l# y %+#

(#6ul)( Cou(%, %+# $o%(ol )- u#('&&o y %+# O**&$# o*

%+# Ou-) & oly & Ou-) $)# & %+# ##

-#*&#- )o'#. T+# l)7 (#$o6&H# ) $o$u((#$# o*

=u(&-&$%&o #%7## %+# O**&$# o* %+# Ou-) )- o%+#(

&'#%&6)%&'# )6#$&# o* %+# 6o'#(#% & %+# (o#$u%&o

o* $)# $o6&H)l# y (#6ul)( $ou(%. 0"*phasis supplie

It is note!orth/ that as earl/ as 166), the O*bus*an ha properl/ ifferentiate the authorit/ to investi+ate cases fro* theauthorit/ to prosecute cases. It is on this note that the $ourt !illfirst !ell on the nature or e2tent of the authorit/ of theO*bus*an to investi+ate cases. -hence, focus is irecte tothe secon sentence of para+raph 01, Section 15 of theO*bus*an %ct !hich specificall/ provies that theO*bus*an has pri*ar/ >urisiction over cases co+niable b/

the Sani+anba/an, an, in the e2ercise of this pri*ar/ >urisiction, it *a/ tae over, at an/ sta+e, fro* an/investi+atin+ a+enc/ of the +overn*ent, the investi+ation of such cases.

That the po!er of the O*bus*an to investi+ate offensesinvolvin+ public officers or e*plo/ees is not e2clusive but isconcurrent !ith other si*ilarl/ authorie a+encies of the

%DMIN #%-



(6

+overn*ent such as the provincial, cit/ an state prosecutors haslon+ been settle in several ecisions of the $ourt.

In Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Presidential Co""ission on Good Govern"ent, ecie in 166), the $ourt e2pressl/ eclare?

% reain+ of the fore+oin+ provision of the $onstitution oes notsho! that the po!er of investi+ation incluin+ preli*inar/investi+ation veste on the O*bus*an is e2clusive.;

Interpretin+ the pri*ar/ >urisiction of the O*bus*an uner Section 15 01 of the O*bus*an %ct, the $ourt hel in saicase?

7ner Section 15 01 of Republic %ct No. C<<) aforecite, theO*bus*an has pri*ar/ >urisiction over cases co+niable b/the Sani+anba/an so that it *a/ tae over at an/ sta+e fro* an/investi+ator/ a+enc/ of the +overn*ent, the investi+ation of such cases. T+# )u%+o(&%y o* %+# Ou-) %o &'#%&6)%#

o**## &'ol'&6 ul&$ o**&$#( o( #loy## & o%

#"$lu&'# u% & $o$u((#% 7&%+ o%+#( &&l)(ly )u%+o(&H#-

)6#$&# o* %+# 6o'#(#%. Su$+ &'#%&6)%o(y )6#$&#

(#*#((#- %o &$lu-# %+# PCGG )- %+# (o'&$&)l )- $&%y

(o#$u%o( )- %+#&( )&%)%, %+# %)%# (o#$u%o( )-

%+# =u-6# o* %+# u&$&)l %(&)l $ou(% )- u&$&)l $&($u&%

%(&)l $ou(%.

I o%+#( 7o(- %+# (o'&&o o* %+# l)7 +) o##- u %+#

)u%+o(&%y %o $o-u$% (#l&&)(y &'#%&6)%&o o* o**##

$o6&H)l# y %+# S)-&6))y) %o )ll &'#%&6)%o(y

)6#$&# o* %+# 6o'#(#% -uly )u%+o(&H#- %o $o-u$% )

(#l&&)(y &'#%&6)%&o u-#( S#$%&o 2, Rul# 112 o* %+#

195 Rul# o* C(&&)l P(o$#-u(# 7&%+ %+# oly u)l&*&$)%&o

%+)% %+# Ou-) )y %)# o'#( )% )y %)6# o* u$+

&'#%&6)%&o & %+# #"#($&# o* +& (&)(y =u(&-&$%&o.E

0"*phasis supplie

% little over a *onth later, the $ourt, in /eloso vs. /o"ingo,5

pronounce that the O*bus*an, uner the authorit/ of Section1; 01 of the 16'< $onstitution, has >urisiction to investi+atean/ cri*e co**itte b/ a public official, eluciatin+ thus?

%s protector of the people, the office of the O*bus*an has the po!er, function an ut/ to Bact pro*ptl/ on co*plaints file inan/ for* or *anner a+ainst public officialsB 0Sec. 1( an toBinvesti+ate 2 2 2 an/ act or o*ission of an/ public official 2 2 2!hen such act or o*ission appears to be ille+al, un>ust, i*proper or inefficient.B 0Sec. 1;1J. The O*bus*an is also e*po!ere

to Birect the officer concerne,B in this case the SpecialProsecutor, Bto tae appropriate action a+ainst a public official 22 2 an to reco**en his prosecutionB 0Sec. 1;;J.

The clause Ban/ ille+alJ act or o*ission of an/ public officialBis broa enou+h to e*brace an/ cri*e co**itte b/ a publicofficial. The la! oes not Aualif/ the nature of the ille+al act or o*ission of the public official or e*plo/ee that the O*bus*an*a/ investi+ate. It oes not reAuire that the act or o*ission berelate to or be connecte !ith or arise fro*, the perfor*ance of

official ut/. Since the la! oes not istin+uish, neither shoul!e.

The reason for the creation of the O*bus*an in the 16'<$onstitution an for the +rant to it of broa investi+ativeauthorit/, is to insulate sai office fro* the lon+ tentacles of officialo* that are able to penetrate >u+es an fiscals offices,an others involve in the prosecution of errin+ public officials,

%DMIN #%-











;)

an throu+h the e2ertion of official pressure an influence,Auash, ela/, or is*iss investi+ations into *alfeasances an*isfeasances co**itte b/ public officers. It !as ee*enecessar/, therefore, to create a special office to investi+ate all cri*inal co*plaints a+ainst public officers re+arless of !hether

or not the acts or o*issions co*plaine of are relate to or arisefro* the perfor*ance of the uties of their office. TheO*bus*an %ct *aes perfectl/ clear that the >urisiction of the O*bus*an enco*passes Ball &inds o# "al#easance,

"is#easance, and non-#easance that have been co**itte b/ an$o##icer or e"plo$ee as *entione in Section 1; hereof, during

his tenure of officeB 0Sec. 1C, R.%. C<<).

. . . . . . . . .

Inee, the labors of the constitutional co**ission that createthe O*bus*an as a special bo/ to investi+ate errin+ publicofficials !oul be !aste if its >urisiction !ere confine to theinvesti+ation of *inor an less +rave offenses arisin+ fro*, or relate to, the uties of public office, but !oul e2clue those+rave an terrible cri*es that sprin+ fro* abuses of official po!ers an prero+atives, for it is the investi+ation of the latter !here the nee for an inepenent, fearless, an honestinvesti+ative bo/, lie the O*bus*an, is +reatest.C

%t first blush, there appears to be conflictin+ vie!s in the rulin+sof the $ourt in the Cojuangco, Jr. case an the /eloso case.Ho!ever, the contrariet/ is *ore apparent than real. InsubseAuent cases, the $ourt eluciate on the nature of the po!ers of the O*bus*an to investi+ate.

In 166;, the $ourt hel in Sanchez vs. /e"etriou,< that !hile it*a/ be true that the O*bus*an has >urisiction to investi+ate

an prosecute an/ ille+al act or o*ission of an/ public official,the authorit/ of the O*bus*an to investi+ate is *erel/ a pri*ar/ an not an e2clusive authorit/, thus?

The O*bus*an is inee e*po!ere uner Section 15,

para+raph 01 of R% C<<) to investi+ate an prosecute an/ille+al act or o*ission of an/ public official. Ho!ever as !ehel onl/ t!o /ears a+o in the case of %+uinalo vs. Do*a+as, '

this authorit/ Bis not an e2clusive authorit/ but rather a share or concurrent authorit/ in respect of the offense char+e.B

Petitioners finall/ assert that the infor*ation an a*eneinfor*ation file in this case neee the approval of theO*bus*an. It is not ispute that the infor*ation an a*eneinfor*ation here i not have the approval of the O*bus*an.

Ho!ever, !e o not believe that such approval !as necessar/ atall. In Deloso v. Do*in+o, 161 S$R% 5E5 0166), the $ourthel that the O*bus*an has authorit/ to investi+ate char+es of ille+al acts or o*issions on the part of an/ public official, i.e.,an/ cri*e i*pute to a public official. I% u%, +o7#'#(, #

o&%#- ou% %+)% %+# )u%+o(&%y o* %+# Ou-) %o

&'#%&6)%# F)y &ll#6)lK )$% o( o&&o o* )y ul&$

o**&$&)lF 8191 SCRA 550 & o% ) #"$lu&'# )u%+o(&%y u%

()%+#( ) +)(#- o( $o$u((#% )u%+o(&%y & (##$% o* %+#

o**## $+)(6#-, i.e., the cri*e of seition. Thus, the non3

involve*ent of the office of the O*bus*an in the present caseoes not have an/ averse le+al conseAuence upon the authorit/of the panel of prosecutors to file an prosecute the infor*ationor a*ene infor*ation.

I *)$%, o%+#( &'#%&6)%o(y )6#$&# o* %+# 6o'#(#% u$+

) %+# D#)(%#% o* Ju%&$# & $o#$%&o 7&%+ %+# $+)(6# o*

#-&%&o, )- %+# P(#&-#%&)l Co&&o o Goo-

%DMIN #%-









;1

Go'#(#%, & &ll 6o%%# 7#)l%+ $)#, )y $o-u$% %+#

&'#%&6)%&o.6 0"*phasis supplie

In ;atividad vs. 'eli,1) a 166E case, !here the petitioner *unicipal *a/or contene that it is the O*bus*an an not

the provincial fiscal !ho has the authorit/ to conuct a preli*inar/ investi+ation over his case for alle+e Murer, the$ourt hel?

The /eloso case has alrea/ been re3e2a*ine in t!o cases,na*el/ guinaldo vs. /o"agas anSanchez vs. /e"etriou.Ho!ever, b/ !a/ of a*plification, !e feel the nee for tracin+the histor/ of the le+islation relative to the >urisiction of Sani+anba/an since the O*bus*ans pri*ar/ >urisiction isepenent on the cases co+niable b/ the for*er.

In the process, !e shall observe ho! the polic/ of the la!, !ithreference to the sub>ect *atter, has been in a state of flu2.

These la!s, in chronolo+ical orer, are the follo!in+? 0a Pres.Decree No. 1E'C, 33 the first la! on the Sani+anba/an@ 0b Pres.Decree No. 1C)C !hich e2pressl/ repeale Pres. Decree No.1E'C@ 0c Section () of 8atas Pa*bansa 8l+. 1(6@ 0 Pres.Decree No. 1'C)@ an 0e Pres. Decree No. 1'C1.

The latest la! on the Sani+anba/an, Sec. 1 of Pres. Decree No.1'C1 reas as follo!s?

BS"$TION 1. Section E of Presiential Decree No. 1C)C ishereb/ a*ene to rea as follo!s?

S"$. E. Jurisdiction. The Sani+anba/an shall e2ercise?

0a "2clusive ori+inal >urisiction in all cases involvin+?

. . .

0( Other offenses or felonies co**itte b/ public officers an

e*plo/ees in relation to their o##ice, incluin+ those e*plo/ein +overn*ent3o!ne or controlle corporation, !hether si*pleor co*ple2e !ith other cri*es, !here the penalt/ prescribe b/la! is hi+her that prision correccional or i*prison*ent for si20C /ears, or a fine of PC,)))? PROVID"D, HO-"V"R, thatoffenses or felonies *entione in this para+raph !here the penalt/ prescribe b/ la! oes not e2cee prision correccional or i*prison*ent for si2 0C /ears or a fine of PC,))) shall betrie b/ the proper Re+ional Trial $ourt, Metropolitan Trial$ourt, Municipal Trial $ourt an Municipal $ircuit Trial $ourt.B

% perusal of the aforecite la! sho!s that t!o reAuire*ents*ust concur uner Sec. E 0a 0( for an offense to fall uner theSani+anba/ans >urisiction, na*el/? the offense co**itte b/the public officer *ust be in relation to his office an the penalt/ prescribe be hi+her then prision correccional or i*prison*entfor si2 0C /ears, or a fine of PC,))).)).11

%ppl/in+ the la! to the case at bench, !e fin that althou+h thesecon reAuire*ent has been *et, the first reAuire*ent is

!antin+. % revie! of these Presiential Decrees, e2cept 8atasPa*bansa 8l+. 1(6, !oul reveal that the cri*e co**itte b/ public officers or e*plo/ees *ust be Bin relation to their officeBif it is to fall !ithin the >urisiction of the Sani+anba/an. This phrase !hich is traceable to Pres. Decree No. 1EC', has beenretaine b/ Pres. Decree No. 1'C1 as a reAuire*ent before theO*bus*an can acAuire pri*ar/ >urisiction on its po!er toinvesti+ate.

%DMIN #%-











;(

I% $)o% # -#&#- %+)% P(#. D#$(## No. 11 & & pari

materia %o A(%&$l# I, S#$%&o 12 )- 13 o* %+# 19>

Co%&%u%&o )- %+# Ou-) A$% o* 199 #$)u#, )

#)(l&#( #%&o#-, %+# Ou-) o7#( %o &'#%&6)%# &

-##-#% o %+# $)# $o6&H)l# y %+# S)-&6))y).

S%)%u%# )(# & pari materia 7+# %+#y (#l)%# %o %+# )##(o o( %+&6 o( %o %+# )# $l) o* #(o o( %+&6, o(

o=#$%, o( $o'#( %+# )# #$&*&$ o( )(%&$ul)( u=#$%

)%%#(.

I% & )"&o)%&$ & %)%u%o(y $o%(u$%&o %+)% ) %)%u%# u%

# &%#((#%#-, o% oly %o # $o&%#% 7&%+ &%#l*, u% )lo

%o +)(o&H# 7&%+ o%+#( l)7 o %+# )# u=#$% )%%#(, )

%o *o( ) $ol#%#, $o+#(#% )- &%#ll&6&l# y%#. T+#

(ul# & #"(##- & %+# )"&, Finterpretare et concordare

legibus est optimus interpretandi ,F o( #'#(y %)%u%# u% # o$o%(u#- )- +)(o&H#- 7&%+ o%+#( %)%u%# ) %o *o( )

u&*o( y%# o* =u(&(u-#$#. T+u, & %+# )l&$)%&o

)- &%#((#%)%&o o* A(%&$l# I, S#$%&o 12 )- 13 o* %+#

19> Co%&%u%&o )- %+# Ou-) A$% o* 199, P(#.

D#$(## No. 11 u% # %)# &%o $o&-#()%&o. I% u% #

)u#- %+)% 7+# %+# 19> Co%&%u%&o 7) 7(&%%#, &%

*()#( +)- & &- (#'&ou %)%u%# (#l)%&6 %o %+# )#

u=#$% )%%#(. I %+# )#$# o* )y #"(# (##)l o(

)#-#%, %+# 19> Co%&%u%&o )- %+# Ou-) A$%

o* 199 )(# -###- & )$$o(- 7&%+ #"&%&6 %)%u%#,#$&*&$)lly, P(#. D#$(## No. 11.1( 0"*phasis supplie

R.%. No. '(E6 !hich a*ene Section E, para+raph 0b of theSani+anba/an #a! 0P.D. 1'C1 lie!ise provies that for other offenses, asie fro* those enu*erate uner para+raphs 0a an0c, to fall uner the e2clusive >urisiction of the Sani+anba/an,the/ *ust have been co**itte b/ public officers or e*plo/ees

in relation to their office.

In su**ation, the $onstitution, Section 15 of the O*bus*an%ct of 16'6 an Section E of the Sani+anba/an #a!, asa*ene, o not +ive to the O*bus*an e2clusive >urisiction

to investi+ate offenses co**itte b/ public officers or e*plo/ees. The authorit/ of the O*bus*an to investi+ateoffenses involvin+ public officers or e*plo/ees is concurrent!ith other +overn*ent investi+atin+ a+encies such as provincial,cit/ an state prosecutors. Ho!ever, the O*bus*an, in thee2ercise of its pri*ar/ >urisiction over cases co+niable b/ theSani+anba/an, *a/ tae over, at an/ sta+e, fro* an/investi+atin+ a+enc/ of the +overn*ent, the investi+ation of such cases.

In other !ors, responent DO4 Panel is not preclue fro*conuctin+ an/ investi+ation of cases a+ainst public officersinvolvin+ violations of penal la!s but if the cases fall uner thee2clusive >urisiction of the Sani+anba/an, then responentO*bus*an *a/, in the e2ercise of its pri*ar/ >urisiction taeover at an/ sta+e.

Thus, !ith the >urispruential eclarations that the O*bus*anan the DO4 have concurrent >urisiction to conuct preli*inar/investi+ation, the respective heas of sai offices ca*e up !ith

OM83DO4 4oint $ircular No. 653))1 for the proper +uielinesof their respective prosecutors in the conuct of their investi+ations, to !it?

OM83DO4 4OINT $IR$7#%R NO. 653))1

Series of 1665

%DMIN #%-





;;

TO? %## 9R%:T INV"STI9%TIONKSP"$I%#PROS"$7TION O::I$"RS O: TH" O::I$" O: TH"OM87DSM%N

%## R"9ION%# ST%T" PROS"$7TORS %ND TH"IR

%SSIST%NTS, PROVIN$I%#K$IT& PROS"$7TORS %NDTH"IR %SSIST%NTS, ST%T" PROS"$7TORS %NDPROS"$7TIN9 %TTORN"&S O: TH" D"P%RTM"NT O:47STI$".

S784"$T? H%ND#IN9 $OMP#%INTS :I#"D %9%INSTP78#I$ O::I$"RS %ND "MP#O&""S, TH" $OND7$T O:PR"#IMIN%R& INV"STI9%TION, PR"P%R%TION O:R"SO#7TIONS %ND IN:ORM%TIONS %NDPROS"$7TION O: $%S"S 8& PROVIN$I%# %ND $IT&

PROS"$7TORS %ND TH"IR %SSIST%NTS.

233333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333332

In a recent ialo+ue bet!een the O::I$" O: TH"OM87DSM%N an the D"P%RTM"NT O: 47STI$",iscussion centere aroun the latest pronounce*ent of thesupre*e court on the e2tent to !hich the o*bus*an *a/ callupon the +overn*ent prosecutors for assistance in the

investi+ation an prosecution of cri*inal cases co+niable b/ hisoffice an the conitions uner !hich he *a/ o so. %lsoiscusse !as Republic %ct No. <6<5 other!ise no!n as Banact to stren+then the functional an structural or+aniation of thesani+anba/an, a*enin+ for the purpose presiential ecree no.1C)C, as a*eneB an its i*plications on the >urisiction of theoffice of the O*bus*an on cri*inal offenses co**itte b/ public officers an e*plo/ees.

$oncerns !ere e2presse on unnecessar/ ela/s that coul because b/ iscussions on >urisiction bet!een the O::I$" O:TH" OM87DSM%N an the epart*ent of >ustice, an b/ proceural conflicts in the filin+ of co*plaints a+ainst publicofficers an e*plo/ees, the conuct of preli*inar/

investi+ations, the preparation of resolutions an infor*ations,an the prosecution of cases b/ provincial an cit/ prosecutorsan their assistants as eputie prosecutors of the o*bus*an.

Reco+niin+ the concerns, the office of the o*bus*an an theepart*ent of >ustice, in a series of consultations, have a+reeon the follo!in+ +uielines to be observe in the investi+ationan prosecution of cases a+ainst public officers an e*plo/ees?

1. Preli*inar/ investi+ation an prosecution of offenses

co**itte b/ public officers an e*plo/ees in relation to office!hether co+niable b/ the sani+anba/an or the re+ular courts,an !hether file !ith the office of the o*bus*an or !ith theoffice of the provincialKcit/ prosecutor shall be uner the controlan supervision of the office of the o*bus*an.

(. 7nless the O*bus*an uner its $onstitutional *anatefins reason to believe other!ise, offenses not in relation tooffice an co+niable b/ the re+ular courts shall be investi+atean prosecute b/ the office of the provincialKcit/ prosecutor,

!hich shall rule thereon !ith finalit/.

;. Preparation of cri*inal infor*ation shall be the responsibilit/of the investi+atin+ officer !ho conucte the preli*inar/investi+ation. Resolutions reco**enin+ prosecution to+ether !ith the ul/ acco*plishe cri*inal infor*ations shall befor!are to the appropriate approvin+ authorit/.

%DMIN #%-



;E

E. $onsierin+ that the office of the o*bus*an has >urisictionover public officers an e*plo/ees an for effective *onitorin+of all investi+ations an prosecutions of cases involvin+ publicofficers an e*plo/ees, the office of the provincialKcit/ prosecutor shall sub*it to the office of the o*bus*an a

*onthl/ list of co*plaints file !ith their respective officesa+ainst public officers an e*plo/ees.

Manila, Philippines, October 5, 1665.

0si+ne

T"O:ISTO T. 97IN9ON%, 4R.

Secretar/Depart*ent of 4ustice

0si+ne

%NI%NO %. D"SI"RTO

O*bus*anOffice of the O*bus*an

% close e2a*ination of the circular supports the vie! of theresponent O*bus*an that it is >ust an internal a+ree*ent bet!een the O*bus*an an the DO4.

Sections ( an E, Rule 11( of the Revise Rules on $ri*inalProceure on Preli*inar/ Investi+ation, effective Dece*ber 1,())), to !it?

S"$. (. Officers authorie to conuct preli*inar/investi+ations3

The follo!in+ *a/ conuct preli*inar/ investi+ations?

0a Provincial or $it/ Prosecutors an their assistants@

0b 4u+es of the Municipal Trial $ourts an Municipal $ircuitTrial $ourts@

0c National an Re+ional State Prosecutors@ an

0 Other officers as *a/ be authorie b/ la!.

T+#&( )u%+o(&%y %o $o-u$% (#l&&)(y &'#%&6)%&o +)ll

&$lu-# )ll $(&# $o6&H)l# y %+# (o#( $ou(% & %+#&(

(##$%&'# %#((&%o(&)l =u(&-&$%&o.

S"$. E. Resolution of investi+atin+ prosecutor an its revie!. 3If the investi+atin+ prosecutor fins cause to hol the responentfor trial, he shall prepare the resolution an infor*ation, He shallcertif/ uner oath in the infor*ation that he, or as sho!n b/ therecor, an authorie officer, has personall/ e2a*ine theco*plainant an his !itnesses@ that there is reasonable +roun to believe that a cri*e has been co**itte an that the accuse is probabl/ +uilt/ thereof@ that the accuse !as infor*e of theco*plaint an of the evience sub*itte a+ainst hi*@ an that he!as +iven an opportunit/ to sub*it controvertin+ evience.Other!ise, he shall reco**en the is*issal of the co*plaint.

-ithin five 05 a/s fro* his resolution, he shall for!ar therecor of the case to the provincial or cit/ prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, o( %o %+# Ou-) o( +& -#u%y & $)#

o* o**## $o6&H)l# y %+# S)-&6))y) & %+# #"#($&#

o* &% o(&6&)l =u(&-&$%&o. The/ shall act on the resolution!ithin ten 01) a/s fro* their receipt thereof an shalli**eiatel/ infor* the parties of such action.

%DMIN #%-



;5

No $ol)&% o( &*o()%&o )y # *&l#- o( -&&#- y )

&'#%&6)%&6 (o#$u%o( 7&%+ou% %+# (&o( 7(&%%# )u%+o(&%y

o( )(o')l o* %+# (o'&$&)l o( $&%y (o#$u%o( o( $+&#* %)%#

(o#$u%o( o( %+# Ou-) o( +& -#u%y.

-here the investi+atin+ prosecutor reco**ens the is*issal of the co*plaint but his reco**enation is isapprove b/ the provincial or cit/ prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or theO*bus*an or his eput/ on the +roun that a probable causee2ists, the latter *a/, b/ hi*self file the infor*ation a+ainst theresponent, or irect another assistant prosecutor or state prosecutor to o so !ithout conuctin+ another preli*inar/investi+ation.

If upon petition b/ a proper part/ uner such rules as the

Depart*ent of 4ustice *a/ prescribe or "otu proprio, theSecretar/ of 4ustice reverses or *oifies the resolution of the provincial or cit/ prosecutor or chief state prosecutor, he shallirect the prosecutor concerne either to file the corresponin+infor*ation !ithout conuctin+ another preli*inar/investi+ation, or to is*iss or *ove for is*issal of theco*plaint or infor*ation !ith notice to the parties. The sa*eRule shall appl/ in preli*inar/ investi+ations conucte b/ theofficers of the Office of the O*bus*an. 0"*phasis supplie

confir* the authorit/ of the DO4 prosecutors to conuct preli*inar/ investi+ation of cri*inal co*plaints file !ith the*for offenses co+niable b/ the proper court !ithin their respective territorial >urisictions, incluin+ those offenses!hich co*e !ithin the ori+inal >urisiction of theSani+anba/an@ but !ith the Aualification that in offenses fallin+!ithin the ori+inal >urisiction of the Sani+anba/an, %+#

(o#$u%o( +)ll, )*%#( %+#&( &'#%&6)%&o, %()&% %+#

(#$o(- )- %+#&( (#olu%&o %o %+# Ou-) o( +&

-#u%y *o( )(o(&)%# )$%&o. %lso, the prosecutor cannotis*iss the co*plaint !ithout the prior !ritten authorit/ of theO*bus*an or his eput/, nor can the prosecutor file anInfor*ation !ith the Sani+anba/an !ithout bein+ eputie b/,

an !ithout prior !ritten authorit/ of the O*bus*an or hiseput/.

Ne2t, petitioner contens that uner OM834oint $ircular No. 653))1, there is no sho!in+ that the Office of the O*bus*an haseputie the prosecutors of the DO4 to conuct the preli*inar/investi+ation of the char+e file a+ainst hi*.

-e fin no *erit in this ar+u*ent. %s !e have len+thil/iscusse, the $onstitution, the O*bus*an %ct of 16'6,

%*inistrative Orer No. ' of the Office of the O*bus*an, the prevailin+ >urispruence an uner the Revise Rules on$ri*inal Proceure, all reco+nie an uphol the concurrent >urisiction of the O*bus*an an the DO4 to conuct preli*inar/ investi+ation on char+es file a+ainst public officersan e*plo/ees.

To reiterate for e*phasis, the po!er to investi+ate or conuct preli*inar/ investi+ation on char+es a+ainst an/ public officersor e*plo/ees *a/ be e2ercise b/ an investi+ator or b/ an/

provincial or cit/ prosecutor or their assistants, either in their re+ular capacities or as eputie O*bus*an prosecutors. Thefact that all prosecutors are in effect eputie O*bus*an prosecutors uner the OM83DO4 $ircular is a *ere superfluit/.The DO4 Panel nee not be authorie nor eputie b/ theO*bus*an to conuct the preli*inar/ investi+ation for co*plaints file !ith it because the DO4s authorit/ to act as the principal la! a+enc/ of the +overn*ent an investi+ate the

%DMIN #%-



;C

co**ission of cri*es uner the Revise Penal $oe is erivefro* the Revise %*inistrative $oe !hich ha been hel inthe ;atividad case1; as not bein+ contrar/ to the $onstitution.Thus, there is not even a nee to ele+ate the conuct of the preli*inar/ investi+ation to an a+enc/ !hich has the >urisiction

to o so in the first place. Ho!ever, the O*bus*an *a/ assertits pri*ar/ >urisiction at an/ sta+e of the investi+ation.

Petitioners contention that OM83DO4 4oint $ircular No. 653))1is ineffective on the +roun that it !as not publishe is not plausible. -e a+ree !ith an aopt the O*bus*ansissertation on the *atter, to !it?

Petitioner appears to be of the belief, althou+h NOT foune ona proper reain+ an application of >urispruence, that OM83

DO4 4oint $ircular No. 653))1, an internal arran+e*ent bet!eenthe DO4 an the Office of the O*bus*an, has to be publishe.

%s earl/ as 165E, the Honorable $ourt has alrea/ lai o!n therule in the case of People vs. Que Po Lay, 6E Phil. CE) 0165Ethat onl/ circulars an re+ulations !hich prescribe a penalt/ for its violation shoul be publishe before beco*in+ effective, this,on the +eneral principle an theor/ that before the public is boun b/ its contents, especiall/ its penal provision, a la!,re+ulation or circular *ust first be publishe an the people

officiall/ an specificall/ infor*e of sai contents an its penalties? sai preceent, to ate, has not /et been *oifie or reverse. OM83DO4 4oint $ircular No. 653))1 DO"S NOTcontain an/ penal provision or prescribe a *anator/ act or prohibit an/, uner pain or penalt/.

-hat is *ore, in the case of Tanaa v. Tuvera, 1EC S$R% E5;016'C, the Honorable $ourt rule that?

Interpretative re+ulations an those *erel/ internal in nature,that is, re+ulatin+ onl/ the personnel of the a*inistrativea+enc/ an not the public, nee not be publishe. Neither is publication reAuire of the so3calle letters of instructions issue b/ a*inistrative superiors concernin+ the rules or +uielines to

be follo!e b/ their suborinates in the perfor*ance of their uties. 0at pa+e E5E. e*phasis supplie

OM83DO4 4oint $ircular No. 653))1 is *erel/ an internalcircular bet!een the DO4 an the Office of the O*bus*an,outlinin+ authorit/ an responsibilities a*on+ prosecutors of theDO4 an of the Office of the O*bus*an in the conuct of preli*inar/ investi+ation. OM83DO4 4oint $ircular No. 653))1DO"S NOT re+ulate the conuct of persons or the public, in+eneral.

%ccorin+l/, there is no *erit to petitioners sub*ission thatOM83DO4 4oint $ircular No. 653))1 has to be publishe.1E

Petitioner insists that the O*bus*an has >urisiction to conuctthe preli*inar/ investi+ation because petitioner is a publicofficer !ith salar/ 9rae ;1 so that the case a+ainst hi* fallse2clusivel/ !ithin the >urisiction of the Sani+anba/an.$onsierin+ the $ourts finin+ that the DO4 has concurrent >urisiction to investi+ate char+es a+ainst public officers, the fact

that petitioner hols a Salar/ 9rae ;1 position oes not b/ itself re*ove fro* the DO4 Panel the authorit/ to investi+ate thechar+e of coup detat a+ainst hi*.

The Auestion !hether or not the offense alle+el/ co**itte b/ petitioner is one of those enu*erate in the Sani+anba/an #a!that fall !ithin the e2clusive >urisiction of the Sani+anba/an!ill not be resolve in the present petition so as not to pre3e*pt

%DMIN #%-







;<

the result of the investi+ation bein+ conucte b/ the DO4 Panelas to the Auestions !hether or not probable cause e2ists to!arrant the filin+ of the infor*ation a+ainst the petitioner@ anto !hich court shoul the infor*ation be file consierin+ the presence of other responents in the sub>ect co*plaint.

ERE;ORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISS"D for lac of *erit.

SO ORDERED.

SEPARATE OPINION

/ITUG, J .:

Preli*inar/ investi+ation is an initial step in the inict*ent of anaccuse@ it is a substantive ri+ht, not *erel/ a for*al or atechnical reAuire*ent,1 !hich an accuse can avail hi*self of infull *easure. Thus, an accuse is entitle to ri+htl/ assail theconuct of an investi+ation that oes not accor !ith the la!. He*a/ also Auestion the >urisiction or the authorit/ of the personor a+enc/ conuctin+ that investi+ation an, if bereft of such >urisiction or authorit/, to e*an that it be unertaen strictl/in confor*it/ !ith the le+al prescription.(

The O*bus*an is e*po!ere; to, a*on+ other thin+s,investi+ate an prosecute on its o!n or on co*plaint b/ an/ person, an/ act or o*ission of an/ public officer or e*plo/ee,office or a+enc/, !hen such act or o*ission appears to be ille+al,un>ust, i*proper or inefficient. It has pri*ar/ >urisiction over cases co+niable b/ the Sani+anba/an an, in the e2ercise of this pri*ar/ >urisiction, it *a/, at an/ sta+e, tae over fro* an/a+enc/ of 9overn*ent the investi+ation of such cases. This

statutor/ provision, b/ an lar+e, is a restate*ent of theconstitutional +rant to the O*bus*an of the po!er toinvesti+ate an prosecute Ban/ act or o*ission of an/ publicofficer or e*plo/ee, office or a+enc/, !hen such act or o*issionappears to be ille+al 2 2 2.BE

The Panel of Investi+atin+ Prosecutors of the Depart*ent of 4ustice, in tain+ co+niance of the preli*inar/ investi+ation onchar+es of coup detat a+ainst petitioner 9re+orio Honasan,relies on OM83DO4 $ircular No. 653))1. That >oint circular *ust be unerstoo as bein+ *erel/ a !orin+ arran+e*ent bet!een the Office of the O*bus*an 0OM8 an theDepart*ent of 4ustice 0DO4 that *ust not be *eant to be such a blanet ele+ation to the DO4 as to +enerall/ allo! it to conuct preli*inar/ investi+ation over an/ case co+niable b/ the OM8.

-hile Section ;1 of Republic %ct No. C<<) states that theO*bus*an *a/ Besi+nate or eputie an/ fiscal, state prosecutor or la!/er in the +overn*ent service to act as specialinvesti+ator or prosecutor to assist in the investi+ation an prosecution of certain cases,B the provision cannot be assu*e,ho!ever, to be an unefine an broa entrust*ent of authorit/.If it !ere other!ise, it !oul be unable to either !ithstan the!ei+ht of buren to be !ithin constitutional para*eters or the proscription a+ainst unue ele+ation of po!ers. The eputie

fiscal, state prosecutor or +overn*ent la!/er *ust in eachinstance be na*e@ the case to !hich the eputie official isassi+ne *ust be specifie@ an the investi+ation *ust beconucte uner the supervision an control of the O*bus*an.The O*bus*an re*ains to have the basic responsibilit/, irector inciental, in the investi+ation an prosecution of such cases.

The Sani+anba/an la!5 +rants to the Sani+anba/an e2clusive

%DMIN #%-

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_159747_2004.html#rntrv

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_159747_2004.html#fnt1rv






http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_159747_2004.html#rntrv








;'

ori+inal >urisiction over offenses or felonies, !hether si*ple or co*ple2e !ith other cri*es, co**itte b/ the public officials,incluin+ *e*bers of $on+ress, in relation to their office. Thecri*e of coup detat , !ith !hich petitioner, a *e*ber of theSenate, has been char+e, is sai to be closel/ line to his

BNational Recover/ Pro+ra*,B a publication !hich encapsulesthe bills an resolutions authore or sponsore b/ hi* on thesenate floor. I see the char+e as bein+ then relate to an bearin+on his official function.

On the above score, I vote to +rant the petition.

DISSENTING OPINION

YNARESSANTIAGO, J .:

The first Auestion to ans!er is !hich court has >urisiction to tr/a Senator !ho is accuse of coup detat . 8ehin the si*ple issueis a *ore salient Auestion 3 Shoul this $ourt allo! an all toorestrictive an li*itin+ interpretation of the la! rather than taea *ore >uicious approach of interpretin+ the la! b/ the spirit,!hich vivifies, an not b/ the letter, !hich illeth

The ele*ental thrust of the Ma>orit/ vie! is that the Depart*entof 4ustice 0DO4, not the Office of the O*bus*an, has the >urisiction to investi+ate the petitioner, a Senator, for the cri*eof coup detat pursuant to Section E of Presiential Decree No.1C)C as a*ene b/ Republic %ct No. '(E6 0Sani+anba/an#a!. The Ma>orit/ *aintains that since the cri*e for !hich petitioner is char+e falls uner Section E, para+raph 0b of theSani+anba/an #a!, it is i*perative to sho! that petitioner

co**itte the offense in relation to his office as Senator. Itreasone that since petitioner co**itte the felonious acts, asalle+e in the co*plaint, not in connection !ith or in relation tohis public office, it is the DO4, an not the Office of theO*bus*an, !hich is le+all/ tase to conuct the preli*inar/

investi+ation.

In li+ht of the peculiar circu*stances prevailin+ in the instantcase an in consieration of the policies relie upon b/ theMa>orit/, specificall/, the Sani+anba/an #a! an Republic %ct No. C<<) 0The O*bus*an %ct of 16'6, I sub*it that the posture taen b/ the Ma>orit/ seriousl/ eviates fro* anreners nu+ator/ the ver/ intent for !hich the la!s !ereenacte.

The cri*e of coup detat, if co**itte b/ *e*bers of $on+ressor b/ a public officer !ith a salar/ +rae above (<, falls !ithinthe e2clusive ori+inal >urisiction of the Sani+anba/an. SectionE of P.D. 1C)C, as a*ene, provies?

Sec. E. Jurisdiction.3 The Sandiganba$an shall e2ercisee2clusive ori+inal >urisiction in all cases involvin+?

a. Violations of Republic %ct No. ;)16, as a*ene, other!iseno!n as the %nti39raft an $orrupt Practices %ct, Republic %ct

No. 1;<6, an $hapter II, Section (, Title VII, 8oo II of theRevise Penal $oe, !here one or *ore of the accuse areofficials occup/in+ the follo!in+ positions in the +overn*ent,!hether in a per*anent, actin+ or interi* capacit/, at the ti*e of the co**ission of the offense?

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

%DMIN #%-

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_159747_2004.html#rntcys

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_159747_2004.html#rntcys



;6

0( Me*bers of $on+ress an officials thereof classifie as9rae B(<B an up uner the $o*pensation an Position$lassification %ct of 16'6@

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.

In the case of =acson v. >ecutive Secretar$ ,1 !e clarifie thee2clusive ori+inal >urisiction of the Sani+anba/an pursuant toPresiential Decree 0BPDB No. 1C)C, as a*ene b/ Republic%ct 0BR%B Nos. <6<5 an '(E6, an *ae the follo!in+efinitive pronounce*ents?

$onsierin+ that herein petitioner an intervenors are bein+char+e !ith *urer !hich is a felon/ punishable uner TitleVIII of the Revise Penal $oe, the +overnin+ provision on the

>urisictional offense is not para+raph but para+raph b, Section Eof R.%. '(E6. This para+raph b pertains to Bother offenses or felonies !hether si*ple or co*ple2e !ith other cri*esco**itte b/ the public officials an e*plo/ees *entione insubsection a of Section E, R.%. '(E6J in relation to their office.BThe phrase Bother offenses or feloniesB is too broa as to incluethe cri*e of *urer, provie it !as co**itte in relation to theaccuses official functions. Thus, uner sai para+raph b, !hateter*ines the Sani+anba/ans >urisiction is the official position or ran of the offener that is, !hether he is one of

those public officers or e*plo/ees enu*erate in para+raph a of Section E. The offenses *entione in para+raphs a, b an c of the sa*e Section E o not *ae an/ reference to the cri*inal participation of the accuse public officer as to !hether he ischar+e as a principal, acco*plice or accessor/. In enactin+ R.%.'(E6, the $on+ress si*pl/ restore the ori+inal provisions of P.D. 1C)C !hich oes not *ention the cri*inal participation of the public officer as a reAuisite to eter*ine the >urisiction of

the Sani+anba/an.

%s !ore, the Sani+anba/an #a! reAuires that for a felon/,

coup detat in this case, to fall uner the e2clusive >urisiction of the Sani+anba/an, t!o reAuisites *ust concur, na*el/? 01 that

the public officer or e*plo/ee occupies the positioncorresponin+ to Salar/ 9rae (< or hi+her@ an 0( that thecri*e is co**itte b/ the public officer or e*plo/ee in relationto his office. %ppl/in+ the la! to the case at bar, the Ma>orit/foun that althou+h the first reAuire*ent has been *et, thesecon reAuire*ent is !antin+. I isa+ree.

:ollo!in+ its efinition, coup detat can onl/ be co**itte b/*e*bers of the *ilitar/ or police or holin+ an/ public office or e*plo/*ent, !ith or !ithout civilian support. %rticle 1;E3% of

the Revise Penal $oe states?

%rticle 1;E3%. Coup detat . Ho! co**itte. The cri*e of coup detat is a s!ift attac acco*panie b/ violence,inti*iation, threat, strate+/ or stealth, irecte a+ainst ul/constitute authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or an/*ilitar/ ca*p or installation, co**unications net!or, publicutilities or other facilities neee for the e2ercise an continue possession of po!er, sin+l/ or si*ultaneousl/ carrie outan/!here in the Philippines b/ an/ person or persons, belon+in+

to the *ilitar/ or police or holin+ an/ public office or e*plo/*ent, !ith or !ithout civilian support or participation for the purpose of seiin+ or i*inishin+ state po!er.

% coup consists *ainl/ of the *ilitar/ personnel an publicofficers an e*plo/ees seiin+ the controllin+ levers of the state,!hich is then use to isplace the +overn*ent fro* its control of the re*ainer. %s efine, it is a s!ift attac irecte a+ainst the

%DMIN #%-

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/jan1999/gr_128096_1999.html



http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_159747_2004.html#fnt1cys





E)

ul/ constitute authorities or vital facilities an installations toseie state po!er. It is therefore inherent in coup detat that thecri*e be co**itte Bin relation toB the office of a public officer or e*plo/ee. The violence, inti*iation, threat, strate+/ or stealth !hich are inherent in the cri*e can onl/ be acco*plishe

b/ those !ho possess a e+ree of trust repose on such person inthat position b/ the Republic of the Philippines. It is b/e2ploitin+ this trust that the s!ift attac can be *ae. Since the perpetrators tae avanta+e of their official positions, it follo!sthat coup detat can be co**itte onl/ throu+h acts irectl/ or inti*atel/ relate to the perfor*ance of official functions, anthe sa*e nee not be prove since it inheres in the ver/ nature of the cri*e itself.

It is contene b/ public responent that the cri*e of coup

detat cannot be co**itte Bin relationB to petitioners office,since the perfor*ance of le+islative functions oes not inclueits co**ission as part of the >ob escription. To acco**oatethis reasonin+ !oul be to rener erroneous this $ourts rulin+ in

People v. Montejo( that Balthou+h public office is not an ele*entof the cri*e of *urer in theJ abstract,B the facts in a particular case *a/ sho! that B. . . the offense therein char+e is inti*atel/connecte !ith the accusesJ respective offices an !as perpetrate !hile the/ !ere in the perfor*ance, thou+hi*proper or irre+ular, of their official functions.B Si*pl/ put, &*

u(-#( $) # $o&%%#- & %+# #(*o()$# o* o**&$&)l*u$%&o, o $) %+# $(&# o* coup d'etat.

The O*bus*an is !ron+ !hen he sa/s that le+islative functionis onl/ Bto *ae la!s, an to alter an repeal the*.B The+ro!in+ co*ple2it/ of our societ/ an +overn*ental structurehas so revolutionie the po!ers an uties of the le+islative bo/ such that its *e*bers are no lon+er confine to *ain+

la!s. The/ can perfor* such other functions, !hich are, strictl/speain+, not !ithin the a*bit of the traitional le+islative po!ers, for instance, to canvass presiential elections, +iveconcurrence to treaties, to propose constitutional a*en*ents as!ell as oversi+ht functions. %s an incient thereto an in

pursuance thereof, *e*bers of $on+ress *a/ eliver privile+espeeches, interpellations, or si*pl/ infor* an eucate the public in respect to certain propose le+islative *easures.

The co*plaint alle+es that the *eetin+ on 4une E, ()); of thealle+e coup plotters involve a iscussion on the issues anconcerns !ithin the fra*e!or of the National Recover/Pro+ra* 0NRP, a bill !hich petitioner authore in the Senate.The act of the petitioner in ventilatin+ the ails of the societ/ ane2tollin+ the *erits of the NRP is part of his uties as le+islator

not onl/ to infor* the public of his le+islative *easures but also,as a co*ponent of the national leaership, to fin ans!ers to the*an/ proble*s of our societ/. One can see therefore thatSenator Honasans acts !ere Bin relation to his office.B

It is true that not ever/ cri*e co**itte b/ a hi+h3ranin+ public officer falls !ithin the e2clusive ori+inal >urisiction of the Sani+anba/an. It is also true that there is no public office or e*plo/*ent that inclues the co**ission of a cri*e as part of its >ob escription. Ho!ever, to follo! this latter ar+u*ent

!oul *ean that there !oul be no cri*e fallin+ uner SectionE, para+raph 0b PD No. 1C)C, as a*ene. This !oul be anunue truncation of the Sani+anba/ans e2clusive ori+inal >urisiction an contrar/ to the plain lan+ua+e of the provision.

Onl/ b/ a reasonable interpretation of the scope an breath of the ter* Boffense co**itte in relation to an accusesJ officeBin li+ht of the broa po!ers an functions of the office of

%DMIN #%-





E1

Senator, can !e subserve the ver/ purpose for !hich theSani+anba/an an the Office of the O*bus*an !ere create.

The raison d etre for the creation of the Office of theO*bus*an in the 16'< $onstitution an for the +rant of its

broa investi+ative authorit/, is to insulate sai office fro* thelon+ tentacles of officialo* that are able to penetrate >u+esan fiscals offices, an others involve in the prosecution of errin+ public officials, an throu+h the e2ertion of official pressure an influence, Auash, ela/, or is*iss investi+ationsinto *alfeasances, an *isfeasances co**itte b/ publicofficers.;

In si*ilar vein, the $onstitution provies for the creation of theSani+anba/an to attain the hi+hest nor*s of official conuct

reAuire of public officers an e*plo/ees. It is a special courtthat tries cases involvin+ public officers an e*plo/ees that fall!ithin specific salar/ levels. Thus, section E of theSani+anba/an #a! *aes it a reAuire*ent that for offenses tofall uner the e2lusive >urisiction of the Sani+anba/an, the public officer involve *ust occup/ a position eAuivalent toSalar/ 9rae (< or hi+her. This salar/ +rae reAuire*ent is not a prouct of !hi* or an e*pt/ e2pression of fanc/, but a !a/ toensure that offenses !hich sprin+ fro* official abuse !ill betrie b/ a >uicial bo/ insulate fro* official pressure an

unsusceptible to the blanish*ents, influence an inti*iationfro* those !ho see to subvert the ens of >ustice.

If !e !ere to +ive our assent to responents restrictiveinterpretation of the ter* Bin relation to his office,B !e !oul becreatin+ an a!!ar situation !herein a po!erful *e*ber of $on+ress !ill be investi+ate b/ the DO4 !hich is an a>unct of the e2ecutive epart*ent, an trie b/ a re+ular court !hich is

*uch vulnerable to outsie pressure. $ontraril/, a *ore liberalapproach !oul brin+ the case to be investi+ate an trie b/specialie $onstitutional boies an, thus ensure the inte+rit/of the >uicial proceein+s.

Secon, the Bpri*ar/ >urisictionB of the Office of theO*bus*an to conuct the preli*inar/ investi+ation of anoffense !ithin the e2clusive ori+inal >urisiction of theSani+anba/an operates as a *anate on the Office of theO*bus*an, especiall/ !hen the person uner investi+ation is a*e*ber of $on+ress. The O*bus*ans refusal to e2ercise suchauthorit/, rele+atin+ the conuct of the preli*inar/ investi+ationof I.S. No. ());311() to the responent Investi+atin+ Panelappointe b/ the Depart*ent of 4ustice 0BDO4B uner DO4Depart*ent Orer No. (<6, s. ());, is a ereliction of a ut/

i*pose b/ no less than the $onstitution.

Insofar as the investi+ation of sai cri*es is concerne, I sub*itthat the sa*e belon+s to the pri*ar/ >urisiction of theO*bus*an. R.%. No. C<<) or the O*bus*an %ct of 16'6,e*po!ers the O*bus*an to conuct the investi+ation of casesinvolvin+ ille+al acts or o*issions co**itte b/ an/ publicofficer or e*plo/ee. Section 15, para+raph 01 of theO*bus*an %ct of 16'6 provies?

S"$TION 15. Po!ers, 'unctions and /uties. The Office of the O*bus*an shall have the follo!in+ po!ers, functions anuties?

1. Investi+ate an prosecute on its o!n or on co*plaint b/ an/ person, an/ act or o*ission of an/ public officer or e*plo/ee,office or a+enc/, !hen such act or o*ission appears to be ille+al,un>ust, i*proper or inefficient. It has pri*ar/ >urisiction over

%DMIN #%-





E(

cases co+niable b/ the Sani+anba/an an, in the e2ercise of this pri*ar/ >urisiction, it *a/ tae over, at an/ sta+e, fro* an/investi+ator/ a+enc/ of 9overn*ent, the investi+ation of suchcases@ 2 2 2.E

In $ v. Sandiganba$an ,5

the e2tent an scope of the >urisictionof the Office of the O*bus*an to conuct investi+ations !asescribe as?

The po!er to investi+ate an to prosecute +rante b/ la! to theO*bus*an is plenar/ an unAualifie. It pertains to an/ act or o*ission of an/ public officer or e*plo/ee !hen such act or o*ission appears to be ille+al, un>ust, i*proper or inefficient.The la! oes not *ae a istinction bet!een cases co+niable b/ the Sani+anba/an an those co+niable b/ re+ular courts. It

has been hel that the clause Ban/ ille+al act or o*ission of an/ public officialB is broa enou+h to e*brace an/ cri*eco**itte b/ a public officer or e*plo/ee.

The reference *ae b/ R% C<<) to cases co+niable b/ theSani+anba/an, particularl/ in Section 15 01 +ivin+ theO*bus*an pri*ar/ >urisiction over cases co+niable b/ theSani+anba/an, an Section 11 0E +rantin+ the SpecialProsecutor the po!er to conuct preli*inar/ investi+ation an prosecute cri*inal cases !ithin the >urisiction of the

Sani+anba/an, shoul not be construe as confinin+ the scopeof the investi+ator/ an prosecutor/ po!er of the O*bus*anto such cases.

The Bpri*ar/ >urisictionB of the Office of the O*bus*an incases co+niable b/ the Sani+anba/an !as reiterate in =aurel

v. /esierto?C

Section 15 of R% C<<) +ives the O*bus*an pri*ar/ >urisiction over cases co+niable b/ the Sani+anba/an. Thela! efines such pri*ar/ >urisiction as authoriin+ theO*bus*an Bto tae over, at an/ sta+e, fro* an/ investi+ator/a+enc/ of the +overn*ent, the investi+ation of such cases.B The

+rant of this authorit/ oes not necessaril/ i*pl/ the e2clusionfro* its >urisiction of cases involvin+ public officers ane*plo/ees co+niable b/ other courts. The e2ercise b/ theO*bus*an of his pri*ar/ >urisiction over cases co+niable b/the Sani+anba/an is not inco*patible !ith the ischar+e of hisut/ to investi+ate an prosecute other offenses co**itte b/ public officers an e*plo/ees. Inee, it *ust be stresse thatthe po!ers +rante b/ the le+islature to the O*bus*an arever/ broa an enco*pass all ins of *alfeasance, *isfeasancean non3feasance co**itte b/ public officers an e*plo/ees

urin+ their tenure of office.

BPri*ar/ 4urisictionB usuall/ refers to cases involvin+specialie isputes !here the practice is to refer the sa*e to ana*inistrative a+enc/ of special co*petence in observance of the octrine of pri*ar/ >urisiction. This $ourt has sai that itcannot or !ill not eter*ine a controvers/ involvin+ a Auestion!hich is !ithin the >urisiction of the a*inistrative tribunal before the Auestion is resolve b/ the a*inistrative tribunal,!here the Auestion e*ans the e2ercise of soun a*inistrative

iscretion reAuirin+ the special no!le+e, e2perience anservices of the a*inistrative tribunal to eter*ine technical anintricate *atters of fact, an a unifor*it/ of rulin+ is essential toco*pl/ !ith the pre*ises of the re+ulator/ statute a*inistere. <

The ob>ective of the octrine of pri*ar/ >urisiction is Bto +uiea court in eter*inin+ !hether it shoul refrain fro* e2ercisin+its >urisiction until after an a*inistrative a+enc/ haseter*ine so*e Auestion or so*e aspect of so*e Auestion

%DMIN #%-


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/mar2001/gr_105965_2001.html



http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_145368_2002.html





http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/mar2001/gr_105965_2001.html








E;

arisin+ in the proceein+ before the court.B' It applies !here aclai* is ori+inall/ co+niable in the courts an co*es into pla/!henever enforce*ent of the clai* reAuires the resolution of issues !hich, uner a re+ulator/ sche*e, has been place !ithinthe special co*petence of an a*inistrative bo/@ in such case,

the >uicial process is suspene penin+ referral of such issuesto the a*inistrative bo/ for its vie!.6

-here the concurrent authorit/ is veste in both the Depart*entof 4ustice an the Office of the O*bus*an, the octrine of pri*ar/ >urisiction shoul operate to restrain the Depart*ent of 4ustice fro* e2ercisin+ its investi+ative authorit/ if the case !illliel/ be co+niable b/ the Sani+anba/an. In such cases, theOffice of the O*bus*an shoul be the proper a+enc/ toconuct the preli*inar/ investi+ation over such an offense, it

bein+ veste !ith the specialie co*petence an unoubte probit/ to conuct the investi+ation.

The ur+ent nee to follo! the octrine is *ore hei+htene in thiscase !here the accuse is a *e*ber of $on+ress. The DO4 isuner the supervision an control of the Office of the Presient@in effect, therefore, the investi+ation !oul be conucte b/ thee2ecutive over a *e*ber of a co3eAual branch of +overn*ent. Itis precisel/ for this reason that the inepenent constitutionalOffice of the O*bus*an shoul conuct the preli*inar/

investi+ation. Senator Honasan is a *e*ber of the politicalopposition. His ri+ht to a preli*inar/ investi+ation b/ a fair anuninfluence bo/ is sacre an shoul not be enie. %s !estate in the $ case?

The prosecution of offenses co**itte b/ public officers ane*plo/ees is one of the *ost i*portant functions of theO*bus*an. In passin+ R% C<<), the $on+ress eliberatel/

eno!e the O*bus*an !ith such po!er to *ae hi* a *oreactive an effective a+ent of the people in ensurin+accountabilit/ n public office. % revie! of the evelop*ent of our O*bus*an la!s reveals this intent.

These pronounce*ents are in har*on/ !ith the constitutional*anate of he Office of the O*bus*an, as e2presse in %rticleI of the $onstitution.

S"$TION 1(. The O*bus*an an his Deputies, as protectorsof the people, shall act pro*ptl/ on co*plaints file in an/ for*or *anner a+ainst public officials or e*plo/ees of the9overn*ent, or an/ a+enc/, subivision or instru*entalit/thereof , incluin+ +overn*ent3o!ne or controlle corporations,an shall, in appropriate cases, notif/ the co*plainants of the

actions taen an the result thereof. 07nerscorin+ supplie.

S"$TION 1;. The Office of the O*bus*an shall have thefollo!in+ po!ers, functions, an uties?

01 Investi+ate on its o!n, or on co*plaint b/ an/ person, an/act or o*ission of an/ public official, e*plo/ee, office or a+enc/, !hen such act or o*ission appears to be ille+al, un>ust,i*proper, or inefficient. 2 2 2.

$ouple !ith these provisions, Section 1; of the O*bus*an%ct of 16'6 provies?

S"$TION 1;. Mandate. The O*bus*an an his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act pro*ptl/ on co*plaints filein an/ for* or *anner a+ainst officers or e*plo/ees of the9overn*ent, or of an/ subivision, a+enc/ or instru*entalit/thereof, incluin+ +overn*ent3o!ne or controlle corporations,

%DMIN #%-








EE

an enforce their a*inistrative, civil an cri*inal liabilit/ inever/ case !here the evience !arrants in orer to pro*oteefficient service b/ the 9overn*ent to the people. 07nerscorin+supplie

The $onstitution an the O*bus*an %ct of 16'6 both *ention,uneAuivocall/, that the Office of the O*bus*an has the ut/an *anate to act on the co*plaints file a+ainst officers or e*plo/ees of the 9overn*ent. It is i*perative that this ut/ bee2ercise in orer to *ae real the role of the Office of theO*bus*an as a efener of the peoples interest speciall/ incases lie these !hich have partisan political taint.

:or the fore+oin+ reasons, I vote to 9R%NT the petition.

DISSENTING OPINION

SANDO/ALGUTIERRE!, J .:

I a* constraine to issent fro* the *a>orit/ opinion for thefollo!in+ reasons? 01 it evaes the conseAuence of the statutor/efinition of the cri*e of coup detat @ 0( it violates the principleof stare decisis !ithout a clear e2planation !h/ the establishe

octrine has to be re3e2a*ine an reverse@ an 0; it trivialiesthe i*portance of t!o constitutional offices the O*bus*anan the Senate an in the process, petitioners ri+ht to ue process has been i*paire.

I

It is an establishe principle that an act no *atter ho! offensive,estructive, or reprehensible, is not a cri*e unless it is efine, prohibite, an punishe b/ la!. The prosecution an punish*ent of an/ cri*inal offense are necessaril/circu*scribe b/ the specific provision of la! !hich efines it.

%rticle 1;E3% of the Revise Penal $oe efines coup detat ,thus?

B%rticle 1;E3%. Coup detat. Ho! co**itte. The cri*e of

coup detat is a s!ift attac acco*panie b/ violence,inti*iation, threat, strate+/ or stealth, irecte a+ainst ul/constitute authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or an/*ilitar/ ca*p or installation, co**unications net!ors, publicutilities or other facilities neee for the e2ercise an continue

possession of po!er, sin+l/ or si*ultaneousl/ carrie outan/!here in the Philippines b/ an/ person or persons, belon+in+to the *ilitar/ or police or holin+ an/ public office or e*plo/*ent !ith or !ithout civilian support or participation for the purpose of seiin+ or i*inishin+ state po!er.B

There is no Auestion that Senator Honasan, herein petitioner,hols a hi+h public office. If he is char+e !ith coup detat , ithas to be in his capacit/ as a public officer co**ittin+ thealle+e offense in relation to his public office.

The co*plaint file !ith the Depart*ent of 4ustice alle+es theevents supposel/ constitutin+ the cri*e of coup detat , thus?

1. On )E 4une ());, Senator Honasan presie over a *eetin+hel Bso*e!here in San 4uan, Metro Manila.B

(. %fter inner, Senator Honasan, as presiin+ officer, Biscusse

%DMIN #%-

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_159747_2004.html#rntasg

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_159747_2004.html#rntasg



E5

the NRP 0National Recover/ Pro+ra*, the +raft an corruptionin the +overn*ent, incluin+ the *ilitar/ institutions, the >uiciar/, the e2ecutive epart*ent, an the lie.B

;. BThe iscussion conclue that !e *ust use force, violence

an ar*e stru++le to achieve the vision of NRP. 2 2 2 Senator Honasan countere that !e !ill never achieve refor*s throu+hthe e*ocratic processes because the people !ho are in po!er !ill not +ive up their positions as the/ have their veste intereststo protect. 2 2 2 Senator Honasan replie un+ a/a natin+ pu*ata/ sa atin+ *+a alaban, a/a in natin+ pu*ata/ sa *+aasa*ahan+ *a+tatasil. 2 2 2.B

E. In the course of the *eetin+, Senator Honasan presente the plan of action to achieve the +oals of the NRP, i.e., overthro! of

the +overn*ent uner the present leaership thru ar*erevolution an after !hich, a >unta !ill be constitute to run thene! +overn*ent.

5. The cri*e of coup detat !as co**itte on (< 4ul/ ()); b/*ilitar/ personnel !ho occupie Oa!oo. Senator Honasanan various *ilitar/ officers, one *e*ber of his staff, anseveral 4ohn Does an 4ane Does !ere involve in the Oa!ooincient.

The above alle+ations eter*ine !hether or not petitioner co**itte the alle+e cri*e as a public officer Bin relation to hisoffice.B If it !as in relation to his office, the cri*e falls uner thee2clusive ori+inal >urisiction of the Sani+anba/an. It is theO*bus*an !ho has the (&)(y =u(&-&$%&o to investi+atean prosecute the co*plaint for coup detat , thus?

Section E of P.D. No. 1C)C, as a*ene, efines the >urisiction

of the Sani+anba/an as follo!s?

BS"$TION E. 4urisiction. The Sani+anba/an shall e2ercisee2clusive ori+inal >urisiction in all cases involvin+?

Ba. Violations of Republic No. ;)16, as a*ene, other!iseno!n as the %nti39raft an $orrupt Practices %ct, Republic %ct No. 1;<6, an $hapter II, Section (, Title VII, 8oo II of theRevise Penal $oe, !here one or *ore of the accuse areofficials occup/in+ the follo!in+ positions in the +overn*ent,!hether in a per*anent, actin+ or interi* capacit/, at the ti*e of the co**ission of the offense?

01 Officials of the e2ecutive branch occup/in+ the positions of re+ional irector an hi+her, other!ise classifie as 9rae (<

an hi+her, of the $o*pensations an Position $lassification %ctof 16'6 0Republic %ct No. C< 5', specificall/ incluin+?

0a Provincial +overnors, vice3+overnors, *e*bers of theSan++unian+ Panlala!i+an, an provincial treasurers , assessors,en+ineers, an other provincial epart*ent heas@

0b $it/ *a/ors, vice3*a/ors, *e*bers of the San++unian+Panlun+so, cit/ treasurers, assessors, en+ineers, an other cit/epart*ent heas@

0c Officials of the iplo*atic service occup/in+ the position of consul an hi+her@

0 Philippine %r*/ an air force colonels, naval captains, anall officers of hi+her ran@

%DMIN #%-



EC

0e Officers of the Philippine National Police !hile occup/in+the position of provincial irector an those holin+ the ran of senior superintenent or hi+her@

0f $it/ an provincial prosecutors an their assistants, an

officials an prosecutors in the Office of the O*bus*an anspecial prosecutor@

0+ Presients, irectors or trustees, or *ana+ers of +overn*ent3o!ne or controlle corporations, state universities or eucational institutions or founations@

0( Me*bers of $on+ress or officials thereof classifie as 9rae(< an up uner the $o*pensation an Position $lassification%ct of 16'6@

0; Me*bers of the >uiciar/ !ithout pre>uice to the provisionsof the $onstitution@

0E $hair*an an *e*bers of the $onstitutional $o**issions,!ithout pre>uice to the provisions of the $onstitution@

05 %ll other national an local officials classifie as 9rae (<or hi+her uner the $o*pensation an Position $lassification%ct of 16'6.

F. O%+#( o**## o( *#lo&# 7+#%+#( &l# o( $ol#"#-

7&%+ o%+#( $(&# $o&%%#- y %+# ul&$ o**&$&)l )-

#loy## #%&o#- & Su#$%&o ) o* %+& #$%&o &

(#l)%&o %o %+#&( o**&$#.

Bc. $ivil an cri*inal cases file pursuant to an in connection

!ith "2ecutive Orer Nos. 1, (, 1E an 1E3%, issue in 16'C.B

Section 15 of Republic %ct C<<), or the O*bus*an %ct of 16'6, provies?

B1 Investi+ate an prosecute on its o!n or on co*plaint b/ an/ person, an/ act or o*ission of an/ public officer or e*plo/ee,office or a+enc/, !hen such act or o*ission appears to be ille+al,un>ust, i*proper or inefficient. It has (&)(y =u(&-&$%&o over cases co+niable b/ the Sani+anba/an an, in the e2ercise of his pri*ar/ >urisiction, it *a/ tae over, at an/ sta+e, fro* an/investi+ator/ a+enc/ of 9overn*ent, the investi+ation of suchcases@ 2 2 2B 0"*phasis supplie

7ner the above provisions, !hat eter*ines the

Sani+anba/ans >urisiction is the official position or ran of the offener, that is, !hether he is one of those public officersenu*erate therein.

Petitioner, bein+ a Senator, occupies a +overn*ent positionhi+her than 9rae (< of the $o*pensation an Position$lassification %ct of 16'6. In fact, he hols the thir hi+hest position an ran in the 9overn*ent. %t the ape2, the Presientstans alone. %t the secon level, !e have the Vice3Presient,Speaer of the House, Senate Presient an $hief 4ustice.

$learl/, he is e*brace in the above provisions.

:ollo!in+ the octrine of Bpri*ar/ >urisiction,B it is theO*bus*an !ho shoul conuct the preli*inar/ investi+ationof the char+e of coup detat a+ainst petitioner. The DO4 shoulrefrain fro* e2ercisin+ such function.

The cru2 of the >urisiction of the DO4 lies in the *eanin+ of Bin

%DMIN #%-



E<

relation to their office.B

The responents start their iscussion of Bin relation to publicofficeB !ith a peculiar presentation. The/ conten that the utiesof a Senator are to *ae la!s, to appropriate, to ta2, to

e2propriate, to canvass presiential elections, to eclare thee2istence of a state !ar, to +ive concurrence to treaties ana*nesties, to propose constitutional a*en*ents, to i*peach, toinvesti+ate in ai of le+islation, an to eter*ine the Senaterules of proceein+s an iscipline of its *e*bers. The/*aintain that the Balle+e acts one to overthro! the incu*bent+overn*ent an authorities b/ ar*s an !ith violenceB cannot be Aualifie as Bacts re*iniscent of the ischar+e of petitionersle+islative uties as Senator.B1

The alle+ations in the co*plaint an in the pleain+s of the DO4,the Solicitor 9eneral, an the O*bus*an 0!ho is tain+ their sie char+in+ petitioner !ith coup detat sho! hat he !asen+a+e in a iscussion of his National Recover/ Pro+ra*0NRP, corruption in +overn*ent, an the nee for refor*. The NRP is a su**ar/ of !hat he has introuce an intene tointrouce into le+islation b/ $on+ress. There is no oubt,therefore, that the alle+e coup detat !as co**itte in relationto the perfor*ance of his official ut/ as a Senator.

II

The ponencia is a eparture or reversion fro* establisheoctrine. 7ner the principle of stare decisis, the $ourt shoul,for the sae of certaint/, appl/ a conclusion reache in one caseto ecisions !hich follo!, if the facts are substantiall/ si*ilar.%s state in Santiago vs. Valenzuela(, stare decisi et non )uieta"overe. Stan b/ the ecisions an isturb not !hat is settle.

In /eloso vs. /o"ingo;, !here the 9overnor of a*bales anhis *ilitar/ an police escorts a*bushe the victi*s !ho !ere passin+ b/ in a car, !e hel that the *ultiple *urers !ereco**itte in relation to public office. In Cunanan vs. rceoE,the *a/or orere his co3accuse to shoot the victi*s. -e rulethat the *urer !as in relation to public office. In

larilla vs.Sandiganba$an5, the to!n *a/or ai*e a +un an threatene toill a councilor of the *unicipalit/ urin+ a public hearin+. -econclue that the +rave threats !ere in relation to the *a/orsoffice. :ollo!in+ these preceents, I a* convince that petitioners iscourse on his National Recover/ Pro+ra* is inrelation to his office.

III

The responents state that the DO4 is veste !ith >urisiction toconuct )ll investi+ations an prosecution of )llcri*es. The/cite PD 1(<5, as a*ene b/ PD 151;, an the Revise%*inistrative $oe of 16'< as the source of this plenar/ po!er.

-hile the DO4 has a broa +eneral >urisiction over cri*esfoun in the Revise Penal $oe an special la!s, ho!ever, this >urisiction is not plenar/ or total. -henever the $onstitution or statute vests >urisiction over the investi+ation an prosecution

of certain cri*es in an office, the DO4 has no >urisiction over those cri*es. In election offenses, the $onstitution vests the po!er to investi+ate an prosecute in the $o**ission on"lections.CIn cri*es co**itte b/ public officers in relation totheir office, the O*bus*an is +iven b/ both the $onstitutionan the statute the sa*e po!er of investi+ation an prosecution. <

These po!ers *a/ not be e2ercise b/ the DO4.

%DMIN #%-

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_159747_2004.html#fnt1asg




http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/aug2000/gr_136806_2000.html

















E'

The DO4 cannot preten to have investi+ator/ an prosecutorial po!ers above those of the O*bus*an. The O*bus*an is aconstitutional officer !ith a ran eAuivalent to that of an%ssociate 4ustice of this $ourt. The responents ProsecutionOffice investi+ates an prosecutes all ins of offenses fro* pett/ cri*es, lie va+ranc/ or theft, to *ore serious cri*es, suchas those foun in the Revise Penal $oe. The O*bus*an, onthe other han, prosecutes offenses in relation to public officeco**itte b/ public officers !ith the ran an positionclassification of 9rae (< or hi+her. It is a special in of >urisiction !hich e2clues +eneral po!ers of other prosecutor/offices.

I a+ree !ith the petitioner that a beco*in+ sense of courtes/,respect, an propriet/ reAuires that the constitutional officer

shoul conuct the preli*inar/ investi+ation an prosecution of the co*plaint a+ainst hi* an not a fifth assistant cit/ prosecutor or even a panel of prosecutors fro* the DO4 NationalProsecution Service.

I o not believe that a *ere a+ree*ent, such as OM83DO4 4oint$ircular No. 653))1, can full/ transfer the prosecutor/ po!ersof the O*bus*an to the DO4 !ithout nee for -#u%&H)%&o &

#$&*&$ $)#. %s state b/ the petitioner, the DO4 cannot be+iven a rovin+ co**ission or authorit/ to investi+ate an

prosecute cases fallin+ uner the O*bus*ans po!ers an/ti*ethe DO4 pleases !ithout an/ special an e2plicit eputiation.On this point, I a+ree !ith 4ustice 4ose $. Vitu+ that the 4oint$ircular *ust be unerstoo as a *ere !orin+ arran+e*ent bet!een the Office of the O*bus*an an the DO4 that *ustnot be *eant to be such a blanet ele+ation to the DO4 as to+enerall/ allo! it to conuct preli*inar/ investi+ation over an/case co+niable b/ the O*bus*an.

Petitioner further raises a ue process Auestion. He accuses theDO4 of bias, partialit/, an pre>u+*ent. He states that he hasabsolutel/ no chance of bein+ cleare b/ the responent DO4 panel because it has alrea/ ecie, before an/ presentation of proof, that he *ust be char+e an arreste !ithout bail.

%s state b/ the petitioner, there are preceents to the effect that!here bias e2ists, >urisiction has to be assu*e b/ a *oreob>ective office. In Panlilio vs. Sandiganba$an,' !e reco+niethat the P$99 has the authorit/ to investi+ate the case, /et !eorere the transfer of the case to the O*bus*an because of the P$99s B*are biasB a+ainst the petitioner.

In Conjuangco vs. PCGG,6 !e hel that there is a enial of ue process !here the P$99 sho!e B*are biasB in hanlin+ the

investi+ation. In Salonga vs. Cruz Pa@o,1)

!here the preli*inar/investi+ation !as tainte b/ bias an partialit/, !e e*phasiethe ri+ht of an accuse to be free, not onl/ fro* arbitrar/ arrestan punish*ent but also fro* un!arrante an biase prosecution.

The petitioners pleain+s sho! the proofs of alle+e bias. The/*a/ be su**arie as follo!s?

:irst, on 4ul/ (<, ()); !hen the Oa!oo incient !as >ust

startin+, DI#9 Secretar/ #ina an National Securit/ %viser Roilo 9ole !ent on a *eia barra+e accusin+ petitioner of co*plicit/ !ithout a shre of evience.

Secon, petitioner !as approache b/ Palace e*issaries,Velasco, Defensor, Ti+lao, an %fable to help efuse the incientan as *utineers to surrener. Then the reAuest !as istorte to*ae it appear that he !ent there to save his o!n sin.

%DMIN #%-











E6

Thir, even before an/ char+e !as file, officials of the DO4!ere on an al*ost ail/ *eia pro+ra* pre*aturel/ proclai*in+ petitioners +uilt. Ho! can the DO4 conuct an i*partial an fair investi+ation !hen it has alrea/ foun hi* +uilt/

:ourth, petitioner !as +iven five a/s to ans!er Matillanosco*plaint but later on, it !as shortene to three a/s.

:ifth, petitioner file a ;) pa+e Repl/ but the DO4 Orer !asissue at once, or onl/ after t!o a/s, or on Sept. 1), ());. TheOrer i not iscuss the Repl/, but perfunctoril/ +losse over an isre+are it.

The petitioner states that the DO4 is constitutionall/ anfactuall/ uner the control of the Presient. He ar+ues that?

BNo Auestionable prosecution of an opposition Senator !ho haseclare hi*self available for the Presienc/ !oul be initiate!ithout the insti+ation, encoura+e*ent or approval of officials atthe hi+hest levels of the %*inistration. 4ustice reAuires that theO*bus*an, an inepenent constitutional office, hanle theinvesti+ation an prosecution of this case. The DO4 cannot actfairl/ an inepenentl/ in this case. In fact, all of the actionsthe DO4 has taen so far have been *are b/ bias, hounin+an persecution.

%n finall/, the char+es lai a+ainst Senator Honasan areunfoune concoctions of fertile i*a+inations. The petitioner ha no role in the Oa!oo *utin/ e2cept the Auell an pacif/the an+r/ /oun+ *en fi+htin+ for a >ust cause. Inspiration perhaps, fro* his National Recover/ Pro+ra*, but no *archin+orers !hatsoever.B

Prosecutors, lie $aesars !ife, *ust be be/on suspicion.-here the test of the col neutralit/ reAuire of the* cannot be*et, the/ *ust /iel to another office especiall/ !here their >urisiction is uner Auestion. The tenacious insistence of responents in hanlin+ the investi+ation of the case an their un!illin+ness to transfer it to the O*bus*an in the face of their Auestionable >urisiction are inications of *are bias.

ERE;ORE, I vote to 9R%NT the petition an to orer theDepart*ent of 4ustice to refrain fro* conuctin+ preli*inar/investi+ation of the co*plaint for coup detat a+ainst petitioner for lac of >urisiction.

G(#6o(&o o)) II #%&%&o#( '. T+# P)#l o*

I'#%&6)%&6 P(o#$u%o( O* %+# D#)(%#% o* Ju%&$#

G.R.No. 159>4> A(&l 13,2004

#essons %pplicable? Rule on Interpretative Re+ulations

0persons, Po!ers of the O*bus*an 0consti, concurrent

>urisiction of the O*bus*an an the DO4 to conuct preli*inar/ investi+ation 0consti

#a! %pplicable? Section 1;, %rticle I of the $onstitution, %rt.

( $ivil $oe

;)$%:

%DMIN #%-

http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/2012/11/jurisprudence-gr-no-159747.html

http://www.philippinelegalguide.com/2012/11/jurisprudence-gr-no-159747.html



5)

%u+ust E, ());? $ID93PNPKP Director "+uaro Matillanofile an affiavit3co*plaint !ith the Depart*ent of 4ustice0DO4 !hich contains the follo!in+ in part?

o 4ul/ (<, ());? cri*e of coup etat !as co**itte b/

*ilitar/ personnel !ho occupie Oa!oo an Senator 9re+orio 9rin+oU Honasan, II

o On or about 11 p.*. 4une E,());? % *eetin+ !as hel an presie b/ Senator Honasan in a house locate in San4uan, Metro Manila

o "arl/ *ornin+ of 4ul/ (<, ());? $apt. 9eraro 9a*bala,in behalf of the *ilitar/ rebels occup/in+ Oa!oo,*ae a public state*ent aire on national television,

statin+ their !ithra!al of support to the chain of co**an of the %:P an the 9overn*ent of Presient9loria Macapa+al %rro/o. -illin+ to ris their lives toachieve the National Recover/ %+ena 0NR% of Senator Honasan !hich the/ believe is the onl/ pro+ra* that!oul solve the ills of societ/.

S!orn state*ent of %:P Ma>or Perfecto Ra+il state that?

o 4une E, ()); about 11 p*? Senator 9re+orio 9rin+oU

Honasan arrive !ith $apt. Turin+a to hol the NRP*eetin+ !here the/ conclue the use of force, violencean ar*e stru++le to achieve the vision of NRP !here a >unta !ill be constitute !hich !ill run the ne!+overn*ent. The/ ha a bloo co*pact an that he onl/ participate ue to the threat *ae b/ Senator Honasan!hen he sai un+ a/a natin+ pu*ata/ sa atin+ *+aalaban, a/a in natin+ pu*ata/ sa *+a asa*ahan+

*a+tatasil.U

o 4ul/ (<, ());? He sa! on TV that #ieutenant %ntonioTrillanes, $aptain 9eraro 9a*bala, $aptain %le>anoan so*e others !ho !ere present urin+ the NRP

*eetin+ he attene, havin+ a press conference abouttheir occupation of the Oa!oo Hotel. He sa! that theletter BIB on the ar* bans an the banner is the sa*eletter BIB in the banner is the sa*e as their bloo co*pact!oun.

%u+ust (<, ());? Senator Honasan appeare !ith counsel at theDO4 to file a a Motion for $larification Auestionin+ DO4s >urisiction over the case since the i*pute acts !ere co**ittein relation to his public office b/ a +roup of public officials !ith

Salar/ 9rae ;1 !hich shoul be hanle b/ the Office of theO*bus*an an the Sani+anba/an

Senator Honasan then file a petition for certiorari uner RuleC5 of the Rules of $ourt a+ainst the DO4 Panel an its *e*bers,$ID93PNP3PKDirector "uaro Matillano an O*bus*anSi*eon V. Marcelo, attributin+ +rave abuse of iscretion on the part of the DO4 Panel in issuin+ the aforeAuote Orer of

Septe*ber 1), ()); irectin+ hi* to file his respective counter3affiavits an controvertin+ evience on the +roun that the DO4has no >urisiction to conuct the preli*inar/ investi+ation

Iu#:

1. -hether in re+ars to O*bus*an3DO4 $ircular no. 653))1,the office of the O*bus*an shoul eputie the prosecutors of

%DMIN #%-

h DO4 h li i i i i ; Th $ i i Th O b % f 16'6



51

the DO4 to conuct the preli*inar/ investi+ation.

(. -hether the O*bus*an3DO4 4oint $ircular no. 653))1 isineffective on the +roun that it !as not publishe

;. -hether the O*bus*an has >urisiction to conuct the preli*inar/ investi+ation because the petitioner is a publicofficer !ith salar/ +rae ;1 09rae (< or Hi+her thereb/ fallin+!ithin the >urisiction of the Sani+an 8a/an.

Hel? -herefore, the petition for certiorari is DISMISS"D for lac of *erit

1. No.O*bus*an cases involvin+ cri*inal offenses *a/ be

subivie into t!o classes, to !it? 01 those co+niable b/the Sani+anba/an, an 0( those fallin+ uner the >urisiction of the re+ular courts. The ifference bet!een thet!o, asie fro* the cate+or/ of the courts !herein the/ arefile, is on the authorit/ to investi+ate as istin+uishe fro*the authorit/ to prosecute

1 The po!er to investi+ate or conuct a preli*inar/investi+ation on an/ O*bus*an case *a/ be e2ercise b/an investi+ator or prosecutor of the Office of the

O*bus*an, or b/ an/ Provincial or $it/ Prosecutor or their assistance, either in their re+ular capacities or as eputieO*bus*an prosecutors.

( $ircular supports the vie! of the responentO*bus*an that it is >ust an internal a+ree*ent bet!een theO*bus*an an the DO4

; The $onstitution, The O*bus*an %ct of 16'6,%*inistrative orer no. ' of the office of the O*bus*an.The prevailin+ >urispruence an uner the Revise Rules on$ri*inal Proceure, %ll reco+nie an uphol the concurrent >urisiction of the O*bus*an an the DO4 to conuct preli*inar/ investi+ation on char+es file a+ainst publicofficers an e*plo/ees.

E The DO4 Panel nee not be authorie nor eputie b/the O*bus*an to conuct the preli*inar/ investi+ation for co*plaints file !ith it because the DO4s authorit/ to act asthe principal la! a+enc/ of the +overn*ent an investi+atethe co**ission of cri*es uner the Revise Penal $oe iserive fro* the Revise %*inistrative $oe !hich ha been hel in the Nativia case1; as not bein+ contrar/ tothe $onstitution. Thus, there is not even a nee to ele+atethe conuct of the preli*inar/ investi+ation to an a+enc/!hich has the >urisiction to o so in the first place.Ho!ever, the O*bus*an *a/ assert its pri*ar/ >urisiction at an/ sta+e of the investi+ation.

(. No. In the case of People vs. Fue Po #a/, 6E Phil. CE) 0165E.The onl/ circulars an re+ulations !hich prescribe a penalt/for its violation shoul be publishe before beco*in+effective.

In the case of Taaa V. Tuvera, 1EC Scra E5; 016'C, TheHonorable $ourt rules that?

o Interpretative re+ulations an those *erel/ internal innature, that is re+ulatin+ onl/ the personnel of thea*inistrative a+enc/ an not the public, nee not be publishe. Neither is publication reAuire of the so

%DMIN #%-

ll l tt f i t ti i b th



5(

calle letters of instructions issue b/ thea*inistrative superiors concernin+ the rules on+uielines to be follo!e b/ their suborinates in perfor*ance of their uties.

OM83DO4 4oint $irculars no. 653))1 is *erel/ an internalcircular bet!een the DO4 an the office of the O*bus*an,Outlinin+ authorit/ an responsibilities a*on+ prosecutors of the DO4 an of the office of the O*bus*an in the conuct of preli*inar/ investi+ation. It oes not re+ulate the conuct of persons or the public, in +eneral.

;. No. -hether or not the offense is !ithin e2clusive >urisictionor not !ill not resolve the present petition so as not to pre3e*pt the result of the investi+ation conucte b/ the DO4

Panel.


Manila

"N 8%N$

G.R. No. L1423 No'##( 29, 190

%DMIN #%-

GIL ALUNA ET AL petitioners appellants also involvin+ 4ehovahs -itnesses an assailin+ on practicall/



5;

GIL ALUNA, ET AL., petitioners3appellants,vs.

TE ON. SECRETARY O; EDUCATION, ET AL., responents3appellees.

A. V. 'a$lona and Juan B. Soliven #or appellants.

+##ice o# the Solicitor General >dilberto Barot and SolicitorCe#erino Padua #or appellees.

REYES, J..L., J.:

%ppeal b/ *e*bers of the B4ehovahs -itnessesB fro* aecision of the $ourt of :irst Instance of $api, ate 4une (;,165', is*issin+ their petition for prohibition an *ana*usa+ainst the Secretar/ of "ucation an the other responents.

The action !as brou+ht to en>oin the enforce*ent of Depart*entOrer No. ', s. 1655, issue b/ the Secretar/ of "ucation, pro*ul+atin+ rules an re+ulations for the conuct of theco*pulsor/ fla+ cere*on/ in all schools, as provie inRepublic %ct No. 1(C5. Petitioners appellants assail the valiit/of the above Depart*ent Orer, for it alle+el/ enies the*freeo* of !orship an of speech +uarantee b/ the 8ill of Ri+hts@ that it enies the* ue process of la! an the eAual protection of the la!s@ an that it unul/ restricts their ri+hts in

the upbrin+in+ of their chilren. Since the brief for the petitioners3appellants assails Republic %ct No. 1(C5 onl/ asconstrue an applie, the issue ulti*atel/ boils o!n thevaliit/ of Depart*ent Orer No. ', s. 1655, !hich pro*ul+atethe rules an re+ulations for the i*ple*entation of the la!.

This case, therefore, is on all fours !ith Gerona, et al., vs.

Secretar$ o# >ducation, et al ., 1)C Phil., (@ 5< Off. 9a., 05 '(),

also involvin+ 4ehovah s -itnesses, an assailin+, on practicall/ientical +rouns, the valiit/ of the sa*e Depart*ent Orer above3*entione. This $ourt iscerns no reasons for chan+in+its stan therein, !here !e sai?

In conclusion, !e fin an hol that the :ilipino fla+ is not ani*a+e that reAuires reli+ious veneration@ rather, it is a s/*bol of the Republic of the Philippines, of soverei+nt/, an e*ble* of freeo*, libert/ an national unit/@ that the fla+ salute is not areli+ious cere*on/ but an act an profession of love analle+iance an ple+e of lo/alt/ to the fatherlan !hich the fla+stans for@ that b/ the authorit/ of the #e+islature of theSecretar/ of "ucation !as ul/ authorie to pro*ul+ateDepart*ent Orer No. ', series of 1655@ that the reAuire*ent of observance of the fla+ cere*on/, or salute provie for in saiDepart*ent Orer No. ' oes not violate the $onstitutional provisions about freeo* of reli+ion an e2ercise of reli+ion@that co*pliance !ith the non3iscri*inator/ an reasonablerules an re+ulations an school iscipline, incluin+ observanceof the fla+ cere*on/, is a prereAuisite to attenance in publicschools@ an that for failure an refusal to participate in the fla+cere*on/, petitioners !ere properl/ e2clue an is*issefro* the public school the/ !ere attenin+.

Ho!ever, in their *e*oranu*, petitioners3appellants raise thene! issue that that Depart*ent Orer No. ' has no binin+ forcean effect, not havin+ been publishe in the Official 9aette asalle+el/ reAuire b/ $o**on!ealth %ct C;', %rticle ( of the Ne! $ivil $oe, an Section 11 of the Revise %*inistrative$oe. -e see no *erit in this contention. The assaileDepart*ent Orer, bein+ aresse onl/ to the Directors of Public an Private Schools, an eucational institutions uner their supervision, can not be sai to be of +eneral application.

%DMIN #%-

Moreover as observe in People vs FuePo #a/ 6E Phil CE)@ supra



5E

Moreover, as observe in People vs. FuePo #a/, 6E Phil., CE)@5) Off. 9a., 01) E'5) 0affir*e in #i* Hoa Tin+ vs. $entral8an, 1)E Phil., 5<;@ 55 Off. 9a., CJ 1))C,

the la!s in Auestion 0$o**on!ealth %ct C;' an %ct (6;) onot reAuire the publication of the circulars, re+ulations or noticestherein *entione in orer to beco*e binin+ an effective. %llthat sai t!o la!s provie is that la!s, re+ulations, ecisions of the Supre*e $ourt an $ourt of %ppeals, notices an ocu*entsreAuire b/ la! to be publishe shall be publishe in the Official9aette but sai t!o la!s o not sa/ that unless so publishethe/ !ill be of no force an effect. In other !ors, sai t!o acts*erel/ enu*erate an *ae a list of !hat shoul be publishe inthe Official 9aette, presu*abl/, for the +uiance of theifferent branches of the +overn*ent issuin+ the sa*e, an of the 8ureau of Printin+.

It is true, as hel in the above cases, that pursuant to %rticle ( of the Ne! $ivil $oe an Section 11 of the Revise%*inistrative $oe, statutes or la!s shall tae effect fifteena/s follo!in+ the co*pletion of their publication in the Official9aette, unless other!ise provie. It is lie!ise true thata*inistrative rules an re+ulations, issue to i*ple*ent a la!,have the force of la!. Nevertheless, the cases cite aboveinvolve circulars of the $entral 8an !hich provie for penalties for violations thereof an that !as the pri*ar/ factor that influence the rationale of those ecisions. In the case at bar, Depart*ent Orer No. ' oes not provie an/ penalt/a+ainst those pupils or stuents refusin+ to participate in the fla+cere*on/ or other!ise violatin+ the provisions of sai orer.Their e2pulsion !as *erel/ the conseAuence of their failure toobserve school iscipline !hich the school authorities are bounto *aintain. %s observe in 9erona vs. Secretar/ of "ucation,

supra,

... for their failure or refusal to obe/ school re+ulations about thefla+ salute, the/ !ere not bein+ prosecute. Neither !ere the/ bein+ cri*inall/ prosecute uner threat of penal sanction. If the/ choose not to obe/ the fla+ salute re+ulation, the/ *erel/lost the benefits of public eucation bein+ *aintaine at thee2pense of their fello! citiens, nothin+ *ore. Havin+ electenot to co*pl/ !ith the re+ulations about the fla+ salute, the/forfeite their ri+ht to atten public schools.

:inall/, appellants conten that Republic %ct No. 1(C5 isunconstitutional an voi for bein+ an unue ele+ations of le+islative po!er, Bfor its failure to la/ o!n an/ specific anefinite stanar b/ !hich the Secretar/ of "ucation *a/ be

+uie in the preparation of those rules an re+ulations !hich hehas been authorie to pro*ul+ate.B -ith this vie! !e a+ainisa+ree. Sections 1 an ( of the %ct rea as follo!s?

Section 1. %ll eucational institutions shall henceforth, observeail/ fla+ cere*on/, !hich shall be si*ple an i+nifie anshall inclue the pla/in+ or sin+in+ of the Philippine National%nthe*.

Section (. The Secretar/ of "ucation is hereb/ authorie an

irecte to issue or cause to be issue rules an re+ulations for the proper conuct of the fla+ cere*on/ herein provie.

In our opinion, the reAuire*ents above3Auote constitute anaeAuate stanar, to !it, si*plicit/ an i+nit/ of the fla+cere*on/ an the sin+in+ of the National %nthe* speciall/!hen contraste !ith other stanars heretofore uphel b/ the$ourts? Bpublic interestB0People vs. Rosenthal, C' Phil. ;('@

%DMIN #%-

Bpublic !elfareB 0Municipalit/ of $arona vs. 8inan+onan, ;C cere*on/ in all schools.



55

public !elfare 0Municipalit/ of $arona vs. 8inan+onan, ;CPhil. 5E<@ Interest of la! an orerB0Rubi vs. Provincial 8oar,;6 Phil., CC6@ >ustice an eAuit/ an the substantial *erits of thecaseB 0Int. Har!oo vs. PaQ+il :eeration of #abor, <) Phil.C)(@ or BaeAuate an efficient instructionB 0P.%.$.7. vs.Secretar/ of "ucation, 6< Phil., ')C@ 51 Off. 9a., C(;). That

the #e+islature i not specif/ the etails of the fla+ cere*on/ isno ob>ection to the valiit/ of the statute, for all that is reAuireof it is the la/in+ o!n of stanars an polic/ that !ill li*it theiscretion of the re+ulator/ a+enc/. To reAuire the statute toestablish in etail the *anner of e2ercise of the ele+ate po!er !oul be to estro/ the a*inistrative fle2ibilit/ that theele+ation is intene to achieve.

-herefore, the ecision appeale fro* is affir*e. $osts a+ainst petitioner3appellants.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista ngelo, =abrador, Barrera,Gutierrez /avid, Paredes, and /izon, JJ., concur.

ALUNA, ET AL. '. TE ON. SEC. O; EDUCATION G.R.

No. L1423 No'##( 29, 190

R"&"S, 4.8.#., 4."N 8%N$

;ACTS:

1. Me*bers of the 4ehovas -itnesses file a petition for prohibition an *ana*us before the $:I of $api a+ainst theSec. of "ucation, et al. It !as to prevent the enforce*ent ofDept. Orer No. ' issue pursuant to R% 1(C5 pro*ul+atin+rules an re+ulations for the conuct of the co*pulsor/ fla+

cere*on/ in all schools.

(. The facts are the sa*e !ith the 9erona case. It alle+el/enies the* freeo* of !orship an of speech, ho!ever, ne!issues have been raise this ti*e such as?

a. the epart*ent orer has no binin+ force an effect, nothavin+ been publishe in the Official 9aette@ an b. it is an unue ele+ation of le+islative po!er

;. The petition !as is*isse. Hence, appeal to the S$.

ISSUES:

1. Does it violate freeo* of !orship an speech

(. Is it in accorance !ith the reAuire*ents of publication;. Is it unconstitutional for bein+ an unue ele+ation ofle+islative po!er

RULING:

1. Iu# o *(##-o o* 7o(+& )- ##$+. No.

a. the court *aintains that the :ilipino fla+ is not an i*a+e thatreAuires reli+ious veneration@ rather, it is a s/*bol of the

Republic of the Philippines, of soverei+nt/, an e*ble* of freeo*, libert/ an national unit/@

b. that the fla+ salute is not a reli+ious cere*on/ but an act an profession of love an alle+iance an ple+e of lo/alt/ to thefatherlan !hich the fla+ stans for@

%DMIN #%-

c. that co*pliance !ith the non3iscri*inator/ an reasonable the/ *erel/ lost the benefits of public eucation bein+



5C

p /rules an re+ulations is a prereAuisite to attenance in publicschools@ an that for failure an refusal to participate in the fla+cere*on/, petitioners !ere properl/ e2clue an is*issefro* the public school the/ !ere attenin+.

2. Iu# o ul&$)%&o. Y#.

a. $o**on!ealth %ct C;' an %ct (6;) o not reAuire the publication of the circulars, re+ulations or notices therein*entione in orer to beco*e binin+ an effective@

b. sai t!o acts *erel/ enu*erate an *ae a list of !hatshoul be publishe in the Official 9aette, presu*abl/, for the+uiance of the ifferent branches of the +overn*ent issuin+ the

sa*e, an of the 8ureau of Printin+.

c. !hile it is true that statutes or la!s shall tae effect fifteena/s after publication in the Official 9aette an it is also truethat a*inistrative rules an re+ulations have the force of la!,the pri*ar/ factor for this rationale is that such statutes proviefor penalties for violations thereof.

. in the case at bar, Depart*ent Orer No. ' oes not proviean/ penalt/ a+ainst those pupils or stuents refusin+ to

participate in the fla+ cere*on/ or other!ise violatin+ the provisions of sai orer@ their e2pulsion !as *erel/ theconseAuence of their failure to observe school iscipline !hichthe school authorities are boun to *aintain.

e. for their failure or refusal to obe/ school re+ulations about thefla+ salute, the/ !ere not bein+ prosecute uner threat of penalsanction@ if the/ choose not to obe/ the fla+ salute re+ulation,

/ / p +*aintaine at the e2pense of their fello! citiens, nothin+ *orean havin+ electe not to co*pl/, the/ forfeite their ri+ht toatten public schools.

3. Iu# o u-u# -#l#6)%&o o* l#6&l)%&'# o7#(. No.

a. the reAuire*ents in Sections 1 an ( of the epart*ent orer constitute an aeAuate stanar, to !it, si*plicit/ an i+nit/ of the fla+ cere*on/ an the sin+in+ of the National %nthe*.

b. that the #e+islature i not specif/ the etails of the fla+cere*on/ is no ob>ection to the valiit/ of the statute, for all thatis reAuire of it is the la/in+ o!n of stanars an polic/ that!ill li*it the iscretion of the re+ulator/ a+enc/@

c. to reAuire the statute to establish in etail the *anner of e2ercise of the ele+ate po!er !oul be to estro/ thea*inistrative fle2ibilit/ that the ele+ation is intene toachieve.

%DMIN #%-

$onstitution vests that po!er not onl/ in the Supre*e $ourt but



5<

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 100 M)($+ 14, 200

PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., Petitioner,vs.

;ERTIPIL CORPORATION, Responent.

D " $ I S I O N

REYES, R.T., J.:

TH" Re+ional Trial $ourts 0RT$ have the authorit/ an >urisiction to consier the constitutionalit/ of statutes,e2ecutive orers, presiential ecrees an other issuances. The

p / pin all Re+ional Trial $ourts.

The principle is relevant in this petition for revie! on certiorariof the Decision1 of the $ourt of %ppeals 0$% affir*in+ !ith*oification that of the RT$ in Maati $it/,( finin+ petitioner Planters Proucts, Inc. 0PPI liable to private responent:ertiphil $orporation 0:ertiphil for the levies it pai uner #etter of Instruction 0#OI No. 1EC5.

T+# ;)$%

Petitioner PPI an private responent :ertiphil are privatecorporations incorporate uner Philippine la!s.; The/ are bothen+a+e in the i*portation an istribution of fertiliers,

pesticies an a+ricultural che*icals.

On 4une ;, 16'5, then Presient :erinan Marcos, e2ercisin+his le+islative po!ers, issue #OI No. 1EC5 !hich provie,a*on+ others, for the i*position of a capital recover/co*ponent 0$R$ on the o*estic sale of all +raes of fertiliers in the Philippines.E The #OI provies?

;. The %*inistrator of the :ertilier Pesticie %uthorit/ toinclue in its fertilier pricin+ for*ula a capital contribution

co*ponent of not less than P1) per ba+. This capitalcontribution shall be collecte until aeAuate capital is raise to*ae PPI viable. Such capital contribution shall be applie b/:P% to all o*estic sales of fertiliers in the Philippines.5

07nerscorin+ supplie

Pursuant to the #OI, :ertiphil pai P1) for ever/ ba+ of fertilier it sol in the o*estic *aret to the :ertilier an Pesticie

%DMIN #%-

%uthorit/ 0:P%. :P% then re*itte the a*ount collecte to the

efenant Planters Prouct, Inc., orerin+ the latter to pa/ the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/mar2008/gr_166006_2008.html#fnt1













5'

:ar "ast 8an an Trust $o*pan/, the epositar/ ban of PPI.:ertiphil pai PC,C'6,1EE to :P% fro* 4ul/ ', 16'5 to 4anuar/(E, 16'C.C

%fter the 16'C "sa Revolution, :P% voluntaril/ stoppe thei*position of the P1) lev/. -ith the return of e*ocrac/,:ertiphil e*ane fro* PPI a refun of the a*ounts it paiuner #OI No. 1EC5, but PPI refuse to accee to the e*an. <

:ertiphil file a co*plaint for collection an a*a+es' a+ainst:P% an PPI !ith the RT$ in Maati. It Auestione theconstitutionalit/ of #OI No. 1EC5 for bein+ un>ust,unreasonable, oppressive, invali an an unla!ful i*positionthat a*ounte to a enial of ue process of la!.6 :ertiphilalle+e that the #OI solel/ favore PPI, a privatel/ o!necorporation, !hich use the procees to *aintain its *onopol/of the fertilier inustr/.

In its %ns!er ,1) :P%, throu+h the Solicitor 9eneral, counterethat the issuance of #OI No. 1EC5 !as a vali e2ercise of the police po!er of the State in ensurin+ the stabilit/ of the fertilier inustr/ in the countr/. It also averre that :ertiphil i notsustain an/ a*a+e fro* the #OI because the buren i*pose b/ the lev/ fell on the ulti*ate consu*er, not the seller.

RTC D&o&%&o

On Nove*ber (), 1661, the RT$ renere >u+*ent in favor of :ertiphil, isposin+ as follo!s?

-H"R":OR", in vie! of the fore+oin+, the $ourt hereb/reners >u+*ent in favor of the plaintiff an a+ainst the

for*er?

1 the su* of PC,C6',1EE.)) !ith interest at 1(G fro* the ti*eof >uicial e*an@

( the su* of P1)),))) as attorne/s fees@

; the cost of suit.

SO ORD"R"D.11

Rulin+ that the i*position of the P1) $R$ !as an e2ercise of the States inherent po!er of ta2ation, the RT$ invaliate thelev/ for violatin+ the basic principle that ta2es can onl/ be

levie for public purpose, vi.?

It is apparent that the i*position of P1) per fertilier ba+ sol inthe countr/ b/ #OI 1EC5 is purportel/ in the e2ercise of the po!er of ta2ation. It is a settle principle that the po!er of ta2ation b/ the state is plenar/. $o*prehensive an supre*e, the principal chec upon its abuse restin+ in the responsibilit/ of the*e*bers of the le+islature to their constituents. Ho!ever, thereare t!o ins of li*itations on the po!er of ta2ation? theinherent li*itations an the constitutional li*itations.

One of the inherent li*itations is that a ta2 *a/ be levie onl/for public purposes?

The po!er to ta2 can be resorte to onl/ for a constitutionall/vali public purpose. 8/ the sa*e toen, ta2es *a/ not be leviefor purel/ private purposes, for builin+ up of private fortunes,

%DMIN #%-

or for the reress of private !ron+s. The/ cannot be levie for

PPI *ove for reconsieration but its *otion !as enie.1; PPI


















56

the i*prove*ent of private propert/, or for the benefit, an pro*otion of private enterprises, e2cept !here the ai is incientto the public benefit. It is !ell3settle principle of constitutionalla! that no +eneral ta2 can be levie e2cept for the purpose of raisin+ *one/ !hich is to be e2pene for public use. :uns

cannot be e2acte uner the +uise of ta2ation to pro*ote a purpose that is not of public interest. -ithout such li*itation, the po!er to ta2 coul be e2ercise or e*plo/e as an authorit/ toestro/ the econo*/ of the people. % ta2, ho!ever, is not helvoi on the +roun of !ant of public interest unless the !ant of such interest is clear. 0<1 %*. 4ur. pp. ;<13;<(

In the case at bar, the plaintiff pai the a*ount of PC,C6',1EE.))to the :ertilier an Pesticie %uthorit/ pursuant to the P1) per ba+ of fertilier sol i*position uner #OI 1EC5 !hich, in turn,

re*itte the a*ount to the efenant Planters Proucts, Inc. thruthe latters epositor/ ban, :ar "ast 8an an Trust $o. Thus, b/ virtue of #OI 1EC5 the plaintiff, :ertiphil $orporation, !hichis a private o*estic corporation, beca*e poorer b/ the a*ountof PC,C6',1EE.)) an the efenant, Planters Prouct, Inc.,another private o*estic corporation, beca*e richer b/ thea*ount of PC,C6',1EE.)).

Teste b/ the stanars of constitutionalit/ as set forth in theafore3Auote >urispruence, it is Auite evient that #OI 1EC5insofar as it i*poses the a*ount of P1) per fertilier ba+ sol inthe countr/ an orers that the sai a*ount shoul +o to theefenant Planters Prouct, Inc. is unla!ful because it violatesthe *anate that a ta2 can be levie onl/ for a public purposean not to benefit, ai an pro*ote a private enterprise such asPlanters Prouct, Inc.1(

then file a notice of appeal !ith the RT$ but it faile to pa/ thereAuisite appeal ocet fee. In a separate but relate proceein+,this $ourt1E allo!e the appeal of PPI an re*ane the case tothe $% for proper isposition.

CA D#$&&o

On Nove*ber (', ());, the $% hane o!n its ecisionaffir*in+ !ith *oification that of the RT$, !ith the follo!in+fallo?

IN VI"- O: %## TH" :OR"9OIN9, the ecision appealefro* is hereb/ %::IRM"D, sub>ect to the MODI:I$%TIONthat the a!ar of attorne/s fees is hereb/ D"#"T"D.15

In affir*in+ the RT$ ecision, the $% rule that the lis *ota of the co*plaint for collection !as the constitutionalit/ of #OI No.1EC5, thus?

The Auestion then is !hether it !as proper for the trial court toe2ercise its po!er to >uiciall/ eter*ine the constitutionalit/ of the sub>ect statute in the instant case.

%s a rule, !here the controvers/ can be settle on other +rouns,

the courts !ill not resolve the constitutionalit/ of a la! 0#i* v.PacAuin+, (E) S$R% CE6 1665J. The polic/ of the courts is toavoi rulin+ on constitutional Auestions an to presu*e that theacts of political epart*ents are vali, absent a clear anun*istaable sho!in+ to the contrar/.

Ho!ever, the courts are not preclue fro* e2ercisin+ such po!er !hen the follo!in+ reAuisites are obtainin+ in a

%DMIN #%-

controvers/ before it? :irst, there *ust be before the court ant l lli f th i f > i i l i S

isputes the court a Auos finin+s ar+uin+ that the collections #OI 1EC5 f th b fit f Pl t : ti









C)

actual case callin+ for the e2ercise of >uicial revie!. Secon,the Auestion *ust be ripe for a>uication. Thir, the personchallen+in+ the valiit/ of the act *ust have stanin+ tochallen+e. :ourth, the Auestion of constitutionalit/ *ust have been raise at the earliest opportunit/@ an lastl/, the issue of

constitutionalit/ *ust be the ver/ lis *ota of the case 0Inte+rate8ar of the Philippines v. a*ora, ;;' S$R% '1 ()))J.

Inisputabl/, the present case !as pri*aril/ institute for collection an a*a+es. Ho!ever, a perusal of the co*plaintalso reveals that the instant action is foune on the clai* thatthe lev/ i*pose !as an unla!ful an unconstitutional specialassess*ent. $onseAuentl/, the reAuisite that the constitutionalit/of the la! in Auestion be the ver/ lis *ota of the case is present,*ain+ it proper for the trial court to rule on the constitutionalit/

of #OI 1EC5.1C

The $% hel that even on the assu*ption that #OI No. 1EC5 !asissue uner the police po!er of the state, it is stillunconstitutional because it i not pro*ote public !elfare. The$% e2plaine?

In eclarin+ #OI 1EC5 unconstitutional, the trial court hel thatthe lev/ i*pose uner the sai la! !as an invali e2ercise of the States po!er of ta2ation inas*uch as it violate the inherentan constitutional prescription that ta2es be levie onl/ for public purposes. It reasone out that the a*ount collecte uner the lev/ !as re*itte to the epositor/ ban of PPI, !hich thelatter use to avance its private interest.

On the other han, appellant sub*its that the sub>ect statutes passa+e !as a vali e2ercise of police po!er. In aition, it

uner #OI 1EC5 !as for the benefit of Planters :ounation,Incorporate 0P:I, a founation create b/ la! to hol in trustfor *illions of far*ers, the stoc o!nership of PPI.

Of the three funa*ental po!ers of the State, the e2ercise of

police po!er has been characterie as the *ost essential,insistent an the least li*itable of po!ers, e2tenin+ as it oes toall the +reat public nees. It *a/ be e2ercise as lon+ as theactivit/ or the propert/ sou+ht to be re+ulate has so*erelevance to public !elfare 0$onstitutional #a!, b/ Isa+ani %.$ru, p. ;', 1665 "ition.

Vast as the po!er is, ho!ever, it *ust be e2ercise !ithin theli*its set b/ the $onstitution, !hich reAuires the concurrence of a la!ful sub>ect an a la!ful *etho. Thus, our courts have laio!n the test to eter*ine the valiit/ of a police *easure asfollo!s? 01 the interests of the public +enerall/, as istin+uishefro* those of a particular class, reAuires its e2ercise@ an 0( the*eans e*plo/e are reasonabl/ necessar/ for theacco*plish*ent of the purpose an not unul/ oppressive uponiniviuals 0National Develop*ent $o*pan/ v. PhilippineVeterans 8an, 16( S$R% (5< 166)J.

It is upon appl/in+ this establishe tests that -e sustain the trialcourts holin+ #OI 1EC5 unconstitutional. To be sure, ensurin+the continue suppl/ an istribution of fertilier in the countr/is an unertain+ i*bue !ith public interest. Ho!ever, the*etho b/ !hich #OI 1EC5 sou+ht to achieve this is b/ no*eans a *easure that !ill pro*ote the public !elfare. The+overn*ents co**it*ent to support the successfulrehabilitation an continue viabilit/ of PPI, a privatecorporation, is an un*istaable atte*pt to *as the sub>ect

%DMIN #%-

statutes i*partialit/. There is no !a/ to treat the self3interest of

a fa ore entit lie PPI as ientical ith the +eneral interest of

unpai portion of the outstanin+ capital stoc of Planters bein+hereafter referre to as the W7npai $apital an s bseA entl





C1

a favore entit/, lie PPI, as ientical !ith the +eneral interest of the countr/s far*ers or even the :ilipino people in +eneral.-ell to stress, substantive ue process e2acts fairness an eAual protection isallo!s istinction !here none is neee. -hen astatutes public purpose is spoile b/ private interest, the use of

police po!er beco*es a travest/ !hich *ust be struc o!n for bein+ an arbitrar/ e2ercise of +overn*ent po!er. To rule infavor of appellant !oul contravene the +eneral principle thatrevenues erive fro* ta2es cannot be use for purel/ private purposes or for the e2clusive benefit of private iniviuals.1<

The $% i not accept PPIs clai* that the lev/ i*pose uner #OI No. 1EC5 !as for the benefit of Planters :ounation, Inc., afounation create to hol in trust the stoc o!nership of PPI.The $% state?

%ppellant ne2t clai*s that the collections uner #OI 1EC5 !asfor the benefit of Planters :ounation, Incorporate 0P:I, afounation create b/ la! to hol in trust for *illions of far*ers, the stoc o!nership of P:I on the stren+th of #etter of 7nertain+ 0#O7 issue b/ then Pri*e Minister $esar Virataon %pril 1', 16'5 an affir*e b/ the Secretar/ of 4ustice in anOpinion ate October 1(, 16'<, to !it?

B(. 7pon the effective ate of this #etter of 7nertain+, theRepublic shall cause :P% to inclue in its fertilier pricin+for*ula a capital recover/ co*ponent, the procees of !hich!ill be use initiall/ for the purpose of funin+ the unpai portion of the outstanin+ capital stoc of Planters presentl/hel in trust b/ Planters :ounation, Inc. 0Planters :ounation,!hich unpai capital is esti*ate at appro2i*atel/ P()C *illion0sub>ect to valiation b/ Planters an Planters :ounation 0such

hereafter referre to as the W7npai $apital, an subseAuentl/for such capital increases as *a/ be reAuire for the continuin+viabilit/ of Planters.

The capital recover/ co*ponent shall be in the *ini*u*

a*ount of P1) per ba+, !hich !ill be ae to the price of allo*estic sales of fertilier in the Philippines b/ an/ i*porter anKor fertilier *other co*pan/. In this connection, theRepublic hereb/ acno!le+es that the avances b/ Planters toPlanters :ounation !hich !ere applie to the pa/*ent of thePlanters shares no! hel in trust b/ Planters :ounation, have been assi+ne to, a*on+ others, the $reitors. %ccorin+l/, theRepublic, throu+h :P%, hereb/ a+rees to eposit the procees of the capital recover/ co*ponent in the special trust accountesi+nate in the notice ate %pril (, 16'5, aresse b/

counsel for the $reitors to Planters :ounation. Such proceesshall be eposite b/ :P% on or before the 15th a/ of each*onth.

The capital recover/ co*ponent shall continue to be char+e ancollecte until pa/*ent in full of 0a the 7npai $apital anKor 0b an/ shortfall in the pa/*ent of the Subsi/ Receivables, 0can/ carr/in+ cost accruin+ fro* the ate hereof on the a*ounts!hich *a/ be outstanin+ fro* ti*e to ti*e of the 7npai$apital anKor the Subsi/ Receivables an 0 the capital

increases conte*plate in para+raph ( hereof. :or the purpose of the fore+oin+ clause 0c, the Wcarr/in+ cost shall be at such rateas !ill represent the full an reasonable cost to Planters of servicin+ its ebts, tain+ into account both its peso an forei+ncurrenc/3eno*inate obli+ations.B 0Recors, pp. E(3E;

%ppellants proposition is open to Auestion, to sa/ the least. The

%DMIN #%-

#O7 issue b/ then Pri*e Minister Virata taen to+ether !iththe 4ustice Secretar/s Opinion oes not preponerantl/

HO#D IN TR7ST :OR MI##IONS O: :%RM"RS TH"IR STO$ O-N"RSHIP IN PPI $ONSTIT7T"S % V%#ID






C(

the 4ustice Secretar/ s Opinion oes not preponerantl/e*onstrate that the collections *ae !ere hel in trust in favor of *illions of far*ers. 7nfortunatel/ for appellant, in theabsence of sufficient evience to establish its clai*s, this $ourtis constraine to rel/ on !hat is e2plicitl/ provie in #OI 1EC5

that one of the pri*ar/ ai*s in i*posin+ the lev/ is to supportthe successful rehabilitation an continue viabilit/ of PPI. 1'

PPI *ove for reconsieration but its *otion !as enie. 16 Itthen file the present petition !ith this $ourt.

Iu#

Petitioner PPI raises four issues for Our consieration, vi.?

I

TH" $ONSTIT7TION%#IT& O: #OI 1EC5 $%NNOT 8"$O##%T"R%##& %TT%$"D %ND 8" D"$R""D VI% %D":%7#T 47D9M"NT IN % $%S" :I#"D :OR $O##"$TION %ND D%M%9"S -H"R" TH" ISS7" O:$ONSTIT7TION%#IT& IS NOT TH" V"R& #IS MOT% O:TH" $%S". N"ITH"R $%N #OI 1EC5 8" $H%##"N9"D8& %N& P"RSON OR "NTIT& -HI$H H%S NO ST%NDIN9

TO DO SO.

II

#OI 1EC5, 8"IN9 % #%- IMP#"M"NT"D :OR TH"P7RPOS" O: %SS7RIN9 TH" :"RTI#I"R S7PP#& %NDDISTRI87TION IN TH" $O7NTR&, %ND :OR 8"N":ITIN9 % :O7ND%TION $R"%T"D 8& #%- TO

STO$ O-N"RSHIP IN PPI $ONSTIT7T"S % V%#ID#"9IS#%TION P7RS7%NT TO TH" ""R$IS" O:T%%TION %ND PO#I$" PO-"R :OR P78#I$P7RPOS"S.

III

TH" %MO7NT $O##"$T"D 7ND"R TH" $%PIT%#R"$OV"R& $OMPON"NT -%S R"MITT"D TO TH"9OV"RNM"NT, %ND 8"$%M" 9OV"RNM"NT :7NDSP7RS7%NT TO %N "::"$TIV" %ND V%#ID#& "N%$T"D#%- -HI$H IMPOS"D D7TI"S %ND $ON:"RR"DRI9HTS 8& VIRT7" O: TH" PRIN$IP#" O: BOP"R%TIV":%$TB PRIOR TO %N& D"$#%R%TION O:7N$ONSTIT7TION%#IT& O: #OI 1EC5.

IV

TH" PRIN$IP#" O: 7N47ST V"%TION 0SHO7#D 8""NRI$HM"NT :INDS NO %PP#I$%TION IN TH"INST%NT $%S".() 07nerscorin+ supplie

Ou( Rul&6

-e shall first tacle the proceural issues of locus stani an the >urisiction of the RT$ to resolve constitutional issues.

:ertiphil has locus stani because it suffere irect in>ur/@octrine of stanin+ is a *ere proceural technicalit/ !hich *a/ be !aive.

%DMIN #%-

PPI ar+ues that :ertiphil has no locus stani to Auestion theconstitutionalit/ of #OI No 1EC5 because it oes not have a

interestB rule for private suits uner Section (, Rule ; of the166< Rules of $ivil Proceure (C











C;

constitutionalit/ of #OI No. 1EC5 because it oes not have aBpersonal an substantial interest in the case or !ill sustainirect in>ur/ as a result of its enforce*ent.B(1 It asserts that:ertiphil i not suffer an/ a*a+e fro* the $R$ i*position because Bincience of the lev/ fell on the ulti*ate consu*er or

the far*ers the*selves, not on the seller fertilier co*pan/.B((

-e cannot a+ree. The octrine of locus stani or the ri+ht of appearance in a court of >ustice has been aeAuatel/ iscusse b/ this $ourt in a catena of cases. Succinctl/ put, the octrinereAuires a liti+ant to have a *aterial interest in the outco*e of acase. In private suits, locus stani reAuires a liti+ant to be a Breal part/ in interest,B !hich is efine as Bthe part/ !ho stans to be benefite or in>ure b/ the >u+*ent in the suit or the part/entitle to the avails of the suit.B(;

In public suits, this $ourt reco+nies the ifficult/ of appl/in+the octrine especiall/ !hen plaintiff asserts a public ri+ht on behalf of the +eneral public because of conflictin+ public polic/issues. (E On one en, there is the ri+ht of the orinar/ citien to petition the courts to be free fro* unla!ful +overn*entintrusion an ille+al official action. %t the other en, there is the public polic/ precluin+ e2cessive >uicial interference inofficial acts, !hich *a/ unnecessaril/ hiner the eliver/ of basic public services.

In this >urisiction, -e have aopte the Birect in>ur/ testB toeter*ine locus stani in public suits. In People v. Vera, (5 it !ashel that a person !ho i*pu+ns the valiit/ of a statute *usthave Ba personal an substantial interest in the case such that hehas sustaine, or !ill sustain irect in>ur/ as a result.B TheBirect in>ur/ testB in public suits is si*ilar to the Breal part/ in

166< Rules of $ivil Proceure.

Reco+niin+ that a strict application of the Birect in>ur/B test*a/ ha*per public interest, this $ourt rela2e the reAuire*entin cases of Btranscenental i*portanceB or !ith Bfar reachin+

i*plications.B 8ein+ a *ere proceural technicalit/, it has also been hel that locus stani *a/ be !aive in the publicinterest.(<

-hether or not the co*plaint for collection is characterie as a private or public suit, :ertiphil has locus stani to file it.:ertiphil suffere a irect in>ur/ fro* the enforce*ent of #OI No. 1EC5. It !as reAuire, an it i pa/, theP1) lev/ i*posefor ever/ ba+ of fertilier sol on the o*estic *aret. It *a/ betrue that :ertiphil has passe so*e or all of the lev/ to the

ulti*ate consu*er, but that oes not isAualif/ it fro* attacin+the constitutionalit/ of the #OI or fro* seein+ a refun. %sseller, it bore the ulti*ate buren of pa/in+ the lev/. It face the possibilit/ of severe sanctions for failure to pa/ the lev/. Thefact of pa/*ent is sufficient in>ur/ to :ertiphil.

Moreover, :ertiphil suffere har* fro* the enforce*ent of the#OI because it !as co*pelle to factor in its prouct the lev/.The lev/ certainl/ renere the fertilier proucts of :ertiphilan other o*estic sellers *uch *ore e2pensive. The har* totheir business consists not onl/ in fe!er clients because of theincrease price, but also in aoptin+ alternative corporatestrate+ies to *eet the e*ans of #OI No. 1EC5. :ertiphil another fertilier sellers *a/ have shoulere all or part of the lev/ >ust to be co*petitive in the *aret. The har* occasione on the business of :ertiphil is sufficient in>ur/ for purposes of locusstani.

%DMIN #%-

"ven assu*in+ ar+ueno that there is no irect in>ur/, -e finthat the liberal polic/ consistentl/ aopte b/ this $ourt on locus

aeAuatel/ pleae in its co*plaint. It clai*s that theconstitutionalit/ of #OI No. 1EC5 is the ver/ lis *ota of the case
















CE

that the liberal polic/ consistentl/ aopte b/ this $ourt on locusstani *ust appl/. The issues raise b/ :ertiphil are of para*ount public i*portance. It involves not onl/ theconstitutionalit/ of a ta2 la! but, *ore i*portantl/, the use of ta2es for public purpose. :or*er Presient Marcos issue #OI

No. 1EC5 !ith the intention of rehabilitatin+ an ailin+ privateco*pan/. This is clear fro* the te2t of the #OI. PPI is e2pressl/na*e in the #OI as the irect beneficiar/ of the lev/. -orse,the lev/ !as *ae epenent an conitional upon PPI beco*in+ financiall/ viable. The #OI provie that Bthe capitalcontribution shall be collecte until aeAuate capital is raise to*ae PPI viable.B

The constitutionalit/ of the lev/ is alrea/ in oubt on a plainreain+ of the statute. It is Our constitutional ut/ to sAuarel/

resolve the issue as the final arbiter of all >usticiablecontroversies. The octrine of stanin+, bein+ a *ere proceuraltechnicalit/, shoul be !aive, if at all, to aeAuatel/ thresh outan i*portant constitutional issue.

RT$ *a/ resolve constitutional issues@ the constitutional issue!as aeAuatel/ raise in the co*plaint@ it is the lis *ota of thecase.

PPI insists that the RT$ an the $% erre in rulin+ on theconstitutionalit/ of the #OI. It asserts that the constitutionalit/ of the #OI cannot be collaterall/ attace in a co*plaint for collection.(' %lternativel/, the resolution of the constitutionalissue is not necessar/ for a eter*ination of the co*plaint for collection.(6

:ertiphil counters that the constitutionalit/ of the #OI !as

constitutionalit/ of #OI No. 1EC5 is the ver/ lis *ota of the case because the trial court cannot eter*ine its clai* !ithoutresolvin+ the issue.;)

It is settle that the RT$ has >urisiction to resolve the

constitutionalit/ of a statute, presiential ecree or an e2ecutiveorer. This is clear fro* Section 5, %rticle VIII of the 16'<$onstitution, !hich provies?

S"$TION 5. The Supre*e $ourt shall have the follo!in+ po!ers?

2 2 2 2

0( Revie!, revise, reverse, *oif/, or affir* on appeal or certiorari, as the la! or the Rules of $ourt *a/ provie,final >u+*ents an orers of lo!er courts in?

0a %ll cases in !hich the constitutionalit/ or valiit/ of an/treat/, international or e2ecutive a+ree*ent, la!, presientialecree, procla*ation, orer, instruction, orinance, or re+ulationis in Auestion. 07nerscorin+ supplie

In Mirasol v. $ourt of %ppeals,;1 this $ourt reco+nie the

po!er of the RT$ to resolve constitutional issues, thus?

On the first issue. It is settle that Re+ional Trial $ourts have theauthorit/ an >urisiction to consier the constitutionalit/ of astatute, presiential ecree, or e2ecutive orer. The $onstitutionvests the po!er of >uicial revie! or the po!er to eclare a la!,treat/, international or e2ecutive a+ree*ent, presiential ecree,orer, instruction, orinance, or re+ulation not onl/ in this $ourt,

%DMIN #%-

but in all Re+ional Trial $ourts.;( co*plaint alle+e?














C5

In the recent case of "Aui3%sia Place*ent, Inc. v. Depart*ent of :orei+n %ffairs,;; this $ourt reiterate?

There is no en/in+ that re+ular courts have >urisiction over cases involvin+ the valiit/ or constitutionalit/ of a rule or re+ulation issue b/ a*inistrative a+encies. Such >urisiction,ho!ever, is not li*ite to the $ourt of %ppeals or to this $ourtalone for even the re+ional trial courts can tae co+niance of actions assailin+ a specific rule or set of rules pro*ul+ate b/a*inistrative boies. Inee, the $onstitution vests the po!er of >uicial revie! or the po!er to eclare a la!, treat/,international or e2ecutive a+ree*ent, presiential ecree, orer,instruction, orinance, or re+ulation in the courts, incluin+ there+ional trial courts.;E

4uicial revie! of official acts on the +roun of unconstitutionalit/ *a/ be sou+ht or availe of throu+h an/ of the actions co+niable b/ courts of >ustice, not necessaril/ in asuit for eclarator/ relief. Such revie! *a/ be ha in cri*inalactions, as in People v. :errer ;5 involvin+ the constitutionalit/ of the no! efunct %nti3Subversion la!, or in orinar/ actions, asin riveno v. Re+ister of Dees;C involvin+ the constitutionalit/of la!s prohibitin+ aliens fro* acAuirin+ public lans. Theconstitutional issue, ho!ever, 0a *ust be properl/ raise an presente in the case, an 0b its resolution is necessar/ to aeter*ination of the case, i.e., the issue of constitutionalit/ *ust be the ver/ lis *ota presente.;<

$ontrar/ to PPIs clai*, the constitutionalit/ of #OI No. 1EC5!as properl/ an aeAuatel/ raise in the co*plaint for collection file !ith the RT$. The pertinent portions of the

C. The $R$ of P1) per ba+ levie uner #OI 1EC5 on o*esticsales of all +raes of fertilier in the Philippines, isunla!ful,un>ust, uncalle for, unreasonable, ineAuitable an oppressive because?

2 2 2 2

0c It favors onl/ one private o*estic corporation, i.e.,efenant PPPI, an i*pose at the e2pense an isavanta+e of the other fertilier i*portersKistributors !ho !ere the*selves inti+ht business situation an !ere then e2ertin+ all efforts an*a2i*iin+ *ana+e*ent an *aretin+ sills to re*ain viable@

2 2 2 2

0e It !as a +larin+ e2a*ple of cron/ capitalis*, a force pro+ra* throu+h !hich the PPI, havin+ been presu*ptuousl/*asAuerae as BtheB fertilier inustr/ itself, !as the sole ananointe beneficiar/@

<. The $R$ !as an unla!ful@ an unconstitutional specialassess*ent an its i*position is tanta*ount to ille+al e2actiona*ountin+ to a enial of ue process since the persons of entities

!hich ha to bear the buren of pa/in+ the $R$ erive no benefit therefro*@ that on the contrar/ it !as use b/ PPI intr/in+ to re+ain its for*er espicable *onopol/ of the fertilier inustr/ to the etri*ent of other istributors an i*porters. ;'


The constitutionalit/ of #OI No. 1EC5 is also the ver/ lis *otaof the co*plaint for collection. :ertiphil file the co*plaint to

%DMIN #%-

co*pel PPI to refun the levies pai uner the statute on the+roun that the la! i*posin+ the lev/ is unconstitutional. The

Police po!er an the po!er of ta2ation are inherent po!ers of the State. These po!ers are istinct an have ifferent tests for

















CC

+ p + /thesis is that an unconstitutional la! is voi. It has no le+aleffect. 8ein+ voi, :ertiphil ha no le+al obli+ation to pa/ thelev/. Necessaril/, all levies ul/ pai pursuant to anunconstitutional la! shoul be refune uner the civil coe

principle a+ainst un>ust enrich*ent. The refun is a *ereconseAuence of the la! bein+ eclare unconstitutional. TheRT$ surel/ cannot orer PPI to refun :ertiphil if it oes noteclare the #OI unconstitutional. It is the unconstitutionalit/ of the #OI !hich tri++ers the refun. The issue of constitutionalit/is the ver/ lis *ota of the co*plaint !ith the RT$.

The P1) lev/ uner #OI No. 1EC5 is an e2ercise of the po!er of ta2ation.

%t an/ rate, the $ourt hols that the RT$ an the $% i not err in rulin+ a+ainst the constitutionalit/ of the #OI.

PPI insists that #OI No. 1EC5 is a vali e2ercise either of the police po!er or the po!er of ta2ation. It clai*s that the #OI !asi*ple*ente for the purpose of assurin+ the fertilier suppl/ anistribution in the countr/ an for benefitin+ a founationcreate b/ la! to hol in trust for *illions of far*ers their stoc o!nership in PPI.

:ertiphil counters that the #OI is unconstitutional because it !asenacte to +ive benefit to a private co*pan/. The lev/ !asi*pose to pa/ the corporate ebt of PPI. :ertiphil also ar+uesthat, even if the #OI is enacte uner the police po!er, it is stillunconstitutional because it i not pro*ote the +eneral !elfareof the people or public interest.

pvaliit/. Police po!er is the po!er of the State to enactle+islation that *a/ interfere !ith personal libert/ or propert/ inorer to pro*ote the +eneral !elfare,;6 !hile the po!er of ta2ation is the po!er to lev/ ta2es to be use for public purpose.

The *ain purpose of police po!er is the re+ulation of a behavior or conuct, !hile ta2ation is revenue +eneration. The Bla!fulsub>ectsB an Bla!ful *eansB tests are use to eter*ine thevaliit/ of a la! enacte uner the police po!er. E) The po!er of ta2ation, on the other han, is circu*scribe b/ inherent anconstitutional li*itations.

-e a+ree !ith the RT$ that the i*position of the lev/ !as ane2ercise b/ the State of its ta2ation po!er. -hile it is true thatthe po!er of ta2ation can be use as an i*ple*ent of police

po!er ,E1 the pri*ar/ purpose of the lev/ is revenue +eneration.If the purpose is pri*aril/ revenue, or if revenue is, at least, oneof the real an substantial purposes, then the e2action is properl/calle a ta2.E(

In Philippine %irlines, Inc. v. "u,E; it !as hel that thei*position of a vehicle re+istration fee is not an e2ercise b/ theState of its police po!er, but of its ta2ation po!er, thus?

It is clear fro* the provisions of Section <; of $o**on!ealth

%ct 1(; an Section C1 of the #an Transportation an Traffic$oe that the le+islative intent an purpose behin the la!reAuirin+ o!ners of vehicles to pa/ for their re+istration is*ainl/ to raise funs for the construction an *aintenance of hi+h!a/s an to a *uch lesser e+ree, pa/ for the operatin+e2penses of the a*inisterin+ a+enc/. 2 2 2 :ees *a/ be properl/ re+are as ta2es even thou+h the/ also serve as an

%DMIN #%-

instru*ent of re+ulation

.

Ta2es are e2acte onl/ for a public purpose. The P

1) lev/ isunconstitutional because it !as not for a public purpose. The
















C<

Ta2ation *a/ be *ae the i*ple*ent of the states police po!er 0#ut v. %raneta, 6' Phil. 1E'. If the purpose is pri*aril/revenue, or if revenue is, at least, one of the real an substantial purposes, then the e2action is properl/ calle a ta2. Such is the

case of *otor vehicle re+istration fees. The sa*e provisionappears as Section 560b in the #an Transportation $oe. It is patent therefro* that the le+islators ha in *in a re+ulator/ ta2as the la! refers to the i*position on the re+istration, operationor o!nership of a *otor vehicle as a Bta2 or fee.B 2 2 2 Si*pl/ put, if the e2action uner Rep. %ct E1;C !ere *erel/ are+ulator/ fee, the i*position in Rep. %ct 5EE' nee not be anBaitionalB ta2. Rep. %ct E1;C also speas of other BfeesB suchas the special per*it fees for certain t/pes of *otor vehicles0Sec. 1) an aitional fees for chan+e of re+istration 0Sec. 11.

These are not to be unerstoo as ta2es because such fees arever/ *ini*al to be revenue3raisin+. Thus, the/ are not*entione b/ Sec. 560b of the $oe as ta2es lie the *otor vehicle re+istration fee an chauffeurs license fee. Such fees areto +o into the e2penitures of the #an Transportation$o**ission as provie for in the last proviso of Sec. C1. EE


The P1) lev/ uner #OI No. 1EC5 is too e2cessive to serve a*ere re+ulator/ purpose. The lev/, no oubt, !as a bi+ buren

on the seller or the ulti*ate consu*er. It increase the price of a ba+ of fertilier b/ as *uch as five percent.E5 % plain reain+ of the #OI also supports the conclusion that the lev/ !as for revenue +eneration. The #OI e2pressl/ provie that the lev/!as i*pose Buntil aeAuate capital is raise to *ae PPIviable.B

lev/ !as i*pose to +ive unue benefit to PPI.

%n inherent li*itation on the po!er of ta2ation is public purpose. Ta2es are e2acte onl/ for a public purpose. The/

cannot be use for purel/ private purposes or for the e2clusive benefit of private persons.EC The reason for this is si*ple. The po!er to ta2 e2ists for the +eneral !elfare@ hence, i*plicit in its po!er is the li*itation that it shoul be use onl/ for a public purpose. It !oul be a robber/ for the State to ta2 its citiensan use the funs +enerate for a private purpose. %s an ol7nite States case bluntl/ put it? BTo la/ !ith one han, the po!er of the +overn*ent on the propert/ of the citien, an !iththe other to besto! it upon favore iniviuals to ai privateenterprises an buil up private fortunes, is nonetheless a

robber/ because it is one uner the for*s of la! an is calleta2ation.BE<

The ter* Bpublic purposeB is not efine. It is an elastic conceptthat can be ha**ere to fit *oern stanars. 4urispruencestates that Bpublic purposeB shoul be +iven a broainterpretation. It oes not onl/ pertain to those purposes !hichare traitionall/ vie!e as essentiall/ +overn*ent functions,such as builin+ roas an eliver/ of basic services, but alsoinclues those purposes esi+ne to pro*ote social >ustice.

Thus, public *one/ *a/ no! be use for the relocation of ille+al settlers, lo!3cost housin+ an urban or a+rarian refor*.

-hile the cate+ories of !hat *a/ constitute a public purpose arecontinuall/ e2panin+ in li+ht of the e2pansion of +overn*entfunctions, the inherent reAuire*ent that ta2es can onl/ bee2acte for a public purpose still stans. Public purpose is the

%DMIN #%-

heart of a ta2 la!. -hen a ta2 la! is onl/ a *as to e2act funsfro* the public !hen its true intent is to +ive unue benefit an

!as conitional an epenent upon PPI beco*in+ financiall/Bviable.B This su++ests that the lev/ !as actuall/ i*pose to












C'

avanta+e to a private enterprise, that la! !ill not satisf/ thereAuire*ent of Bpublic purpose.B

The purpose of a la! is evient fro* its te2t or inferable fro*

other seconar/ sources. Here, -e a+ree !ith the RT$ an that$% that the lev/ i*pose uner #OI No. 1EC5 !as not for a public purpose.

:irst, the #OI e2pressl/ provie that the lev/ be i*pose to benefit PPI, a private co*pan/. The purpose is e2plicit fro*$lause ; of the la!, thus?

;. The %*inistrator of the :ertilier Pesticie %uthorit/ toinclue in its fertilier pricin+ for*ula a capital contribution

co*ponent of not less than P1) per ba+. This capitalcontribution shall be collecte until aeAuate capital is raise to*ae PPI viable. Such capital contribution shall be applie b/:P% to all o*estic sales of fertiliers in the Philippines.E'


It is a basic rule of statutor/ construction that the te2t of a statuteshoul be +iven a literal *eanin+. In this case, the te2t of the#OI is plain that the lev/ !as i*pose in orer to raise capitalfor PPI. The fra*ers of the #OI i not even hie the insiious purpose of the la!. The/ !ere cavalier enou+h to na*e PPI asthe ulti*ate beneficiar/ of the ta2es levie uner the #OI. -efin it utterl/ repulsive that a ta2 la! !oul e2pressl/ na*e a private co*pan/ as the ulti*ate beneficiar/ of the ta2es to belevie fro* the public. This is a clear case of cron/ capitalis*.

Secon, the #OI provies that the i*position of the P1) lev/

benefit PPI. The #OI notabl/ oes not fi2 a *a2i*u* a*ount!hen PPI is ee*e financiall/ Bviable.B -orse, the liabilit/ of :ertiphil an other o*estic sellers of fertilier to pa/ the lev/ is*ae inefinite. The/ are reAuire to continuousl/ pa/ the lev/

until aeAuate capital is raise for PPI.

Thir, the RT$ an the $% hel that the levies pai uner the#OI !ere irectl/ re*itte an eposite b/ :P% to :ar "ast8an an Trust $o*pan/, the epositar/ ban of PPI. E6 This proves that PPI benefite fro* the #OI. It is also proves that the*ain purpose of the la! !as to +ive unue benefit anavanta+e to PPI.

:ourth, the lev/ !as use to pa/ the corporate ebts of PPI. %

reain+ of the #etter of 7nerstanin+5) ate Ma/ 1', 16'5si+ne b/ then Pri*e Minister $esar Virata reveals that PPI !asin eep financial proble* because of its hu+e corporate ebts.There !ere penin+ petitions for rehabilitation a+ainst PPI before the Securities an "2chan+e $o**ission. The+overn*ent +uarantee pa/*ent of PPIs ebts to its forei+ncreitors. To fun the pa/*ent, Presient Marcos issue #OI No. 1EC5. The pertinent portions of the letter of unerstanin+rea?

Republic of the PhilippinesOffice of the Pri*e Minister

Manila

#"TT"R O: 7ND"RT%IN9

Ma/ 1', 16'5

%DMIN #%-

TO? TH" 8%NIN9 %ND :IN%N$I%# INSTIT7TIONS#IST"D IN %NN" % H"R"TO -HI$H %R"$R"DITORS 0$O##"$TIV"#& TH" B$R"DITORSB

(. 7pon the effective ate of this #etter of 7nertain+, theRepublic shall cause :P% to inclue in its fertilier pricin+

f l it l t

th f hi h











C6

$R"DITORS 0$O##"$TIV"#&, TH" B$R"DITORSBO: P#%NT"RS PROD7$TS, IN$. 0BP#%NT"RSB

9entle*en?

This has reference to Planters !hich is the principal i*porter an istributor of fertilier, pesticies an a+ricultural che*icalsin the Philippines. %s re+ars Planters, the Philippine9overn*ent confir*s its a!areness of the follo!in+? 01 thatPlanters has outstanin+ obli+ations in forei+n currenc/ anKor pesos, to the $reitors, 0( that Planters is currentl/ e2periencin+financial ifficulties, an 0; that there are presentl/ penin+!ith the Securities an "2chan+e $o**ission of the Philippinesa petition file at Planters o!n behest for the suspension of

pa/*ent of all its obli+ations, an a separate petition file b/Manufacturers Hanover Trust $o*pan/, Manila Offshore8ranch for the appoint*ent of a rehabilitation receiver for Planters.

In connection !ith the fore+oin+, the Republic of the Philippines0the BRepublicB confir*s that it consiers an continues toconsier Planters as a *a>or fertilier istributor. %ccorin+l/,for an in consieration of /our e2presse !illin+ness toconsier an participate in the effort to rehabilitate Planters, the

Republic hereb/ *anifests its full an unAualifie support of thesuccessful rehabilitation an continuin+ viabilit/ of Planters, anto that en, hereb/ bins an obli+ates itself to the creitors anPlanters, as follo!s?

2 2 2 2

for*ula a capital recover/ co*ponent, the procees of !hich!ill be use initiall/ for the purpose of funin+ the unpai portion of the outstanin+ capital stoc of Planters presentl/hel in trust b/ Planters :ounation, Inc. 0BPlanters

:ounationB, !hich unpai capital is esti*ate atappro2i*atel/ P()C *illion 0sub>ect to valiation b/ Plantersan Planters :ounation such unpai portion of the outstanin+capital stoc of Planters bein+ hereafter referre to as theB7npai $apitalB, an subseAuentl/ for such capital increases as*a/ be reAuire for the continuin+ viabilit/ of Planters.

2 2 2 2

The capital recover/ co*ponent shall continue to be char+e an

collecte until pa/*ent in full of 0a the 7npai $apital anKor 0b an/ shortfall in the pa/*ent of the Subsi/ Receivables, 0can/ carr/in+ cost accruin+ fro* the ate hereof on the a*ounts!hich *a/ be outstanin+ fro* ti*e to ti*e of the 7npai$apital anKor the Subsi/ Receivables, an 0 the capitalincreases conte*plate in para+raph ( hereof. :or the purpose of the fore+oin+ clause 0c, the Bcarr/in+ costB shall be at such rateas !ill represent the full an reasonable cost to Planters of servicin+ its ebts, tain+ into account both its peso an forei+ncurrenc/3eno*inate obli+ations.

R"P78#I$ O: TH" PHI#IPPIN"S

8/?

0si+ne$"S%R ". %. VIR%T%

%DMIN #%-

Pri*e Minister an Minister of :inance51

It i l f th # tt f 7 t i th t th l

ensurin+ the continue suppl/ an istribution of fertilier in thecountr/ is an unertain+ i*bue !ith public interest. Ho!ever,the *etho b/ !hich #OI 1EC5 sou+ht to achieve this is b/ no





<)

It is clear fro* the #etter of 7nerstanin+ that the lev/ !asi*pose precisel/ to pa/ the corporate ebts of PPI. -e cannota+ree !ith PPI that the lev/ !as i*pose to ensure the stabilit/of the fertilier inustr/ in the countr/. The letter of

unerstanin+ an the plain te2t of the #OI clearl/ inicate thatthe lev/ !as e2acte for the benefit of a private corporation.

%ll tol, the RT$ an the $% i not err in holin+ that the lev/i*pose uner #OI No. 1EC5 !as not for a public purpose. #OI No. 1EC5 faile to co*pl/ !ith the public purpose reAuire*entfor ta2 la!s.

The #OI is still unconstitutional even if enacte uner the police po!er@ it i not pro*ote public interest.

"ven if -e consier #OI No. 1C65 enacte uner the police po!er of the State, it !oul still be invali for failin+ to co*pl/!ith the test of Bla!ful sub>ectsB an Bla!ful *eans.B4urispruence states the test as follo!s? 01 the interest of the public +enerall/, as istin+uishe fro* those of particular class,reAuires its e2ercise@ an 0( the *eans e*plo/e are reasonabl/necessar/ for the acco*plish*ent of the purpose an not unul/oppressive upon iniviuals.5(

:or the sa*e reasons as iscusse, #OI No. 1C65 is invali because it i not pro*ote public interest. The la! !as enacteto +ive unue avanta+e to a private corporation. -e Auote !ithapproval the $% ratiocination on this point, thus?

It is upon appl/in+ this establishe tests that -e sustain the trialcourts holin+ #OI 1EC5 unconstitutional.6a!phil To be sure,

the *etho b/ !hich #OI 1EC5 sou+ht to achieve this is b/ no*eans a *easure that !ill pro*ote the public !elfare. The+overn*ents co**it*ent to support the successfulrehabilitation an continue viabilit/ of PPI, a private

corporation, is an un*istaable atte*pt to *as the sub>ectstatutes i*partialit/. There is no !a/ to treat the self3interest of a favore entit/, lie PPI, as ientical !ith the +eneral interest of the countr/s far*ers or even the :ilipino people in +eneral.-ell to stress, substantive ue process e2acts fairness an eAual protection isallo!s istinction !here none is neee. -hen astatutes public purpose is spoile b/ private interest, the use of police po!er beco*es a travest/ !hich *ust be struc o!n for bein+ an arbitrar/ e2ercise of +overn*ent po!er. To rule infavor of appellant !oul contravene the +eneral principle that

revenues erive fro* ta2es cannot be use for purel/ private purposes or for the e2clusive benefit of private iniviuals.07nerscorin+ supplie

The +eneral rule is that an unconstitutional la! is voi@ theoctrine of operative fact is inapplicable.

PPI also ar+ues that :ertiphil cannot see a refun even if #OI No. 1EC5 is eclare unconstitutional. It bans on the octrine of operative fact, !hich provies that an unconstitutional la! has

an effect before bein+ eclare unconstitutional. PPI !ants toretain the levies pai uner #OI No. 1EC5 even if it issubseAuentl/ eclare to be unconstitutional.

-e cannot a+ree. It is settle that no Auestion, issue or ar+u*ent!ill be entertaine on appeal, unless it has been raise in thecourt a Auo.5; PPI i not raise the applicabilit/ of the octrine

%DMIN #%-

of operative fact !ith the RT$ an the $%. It cannot belatel/raise the issue !ith 7s in orer to e2tricate itself fro* the ireeffects of an unconstitutional la!

accuse in ouble >eopar/5< or !oul put in li*bo the acts one b/ a *unicipalit/ in reliance upon a la! creatin+ it.5'











<1

effects of an unconstitutional la!.

%t an/ rate, -e fin the octrine inapplicable. The +eneral ruleis that an unconstitutional la! is voi. It prouces no ri+hts,

i*poses no uties an affors no protection. It has no le+aleffect. It is, in le+al conte*plation, inoperative as if it has not been passe.5E 8ein+ voi, :ertiphil is not reAuire to pa/ thelev/. %ll levies pai shoul be refune in accorance !ith the+eneral civil coe principle a+ainst un>ust enrich*ent. The+eneral rule is supporte b/ %rticle < of the $ivil $oe, !hich provies?

%RT. <. #a!s are repeale onl/ b/ subseAuent ones, an their violation or non3observance shall not be e2cuse b/ isuse or

custo* or practice to the contrar/.

-hen the courts eclare a la! to be inconsistent !ith the$onstitution, the for*er shall be voi an the latter shall +overn.

The octrine of operative fact, as an e2ception to the +eneralrule, onl/ applies as a *atter of eAuit/ an fair pla/. 55 It nullifiesthe effects of an unconstitutional la! b/ reco+niin+ that thee2istence of a statute prior to a eter*ination of unconstitutionalit/ is an operative fact an *a/ have

conseAuences !hich cannot al!a/s be i+nore. The past cannotal!a/s be erase b/ a ne! >uicial eclaration.5C

The octrine is applicable !hen a eclaration of unconstitutionalit/ !ill i*pose an unue buren on those !hohave relie on the invali la!. Thus, it !as applie to a cri*inalcase !hen a eclaration of unconstitutionalit/ !oul put the

Here, -e o not fin an/thin+ iniAuitous in orerin+ PPI torefun the a*ounts pai b/ :ertiphil uner #OI No. 1EC5. Itunul/ benefite fro* the lev/. It !as proven urin+ the trial

that the levies pai !ere re*itte an eposite to its ban account. Fuite the reverse, it !oul be ineAuitable an un>ust notto orer a refun. To o so !oul un>ustl/ enrich PPI at thee2pense of :ertiphil. %rticle (( of the $ivil $oe e2plicitl/ provies that Bever/ person !ho, throu+h an act of perfor*ance b/ another co*es into possession of so*ethin+ at the e2pense of the latter !ithout >ust or le+al +roun shall return the sa*e tohi*.B -e cannot allo! PPI to profit fro* an unconstitutionalla!. 4ustice an eAuit/ ictate that PPI *ust refun the a*ounts pai b/ :ertiphil.

-H"R":OR", the petition is D"NI"D. The $ourt of %ppealsDecision ate Nove*ber (', ()); is %::IRM"D.

SO ORD"R"D.

RUEN T. REYES

%ssociate 4ustice

%DMIN #%-

Pl)%#( P(o-u$% I$ ' ;#(%&+&l Co( G.R. No. 100

M)($+ 14, 200

e2ercise of the ta2ation po!er of the state. -hile it is true thatthe po!er to ta2 can be use as an i*ple*ent of police po!er,the pri*ar/ purpose of the lev/ !as revenue +eneration If the










<(

:%$TS? Petitioner PPI an responent :ertiphil are privatecorporations incorporate uner Philippine la!s, both en+a+ein the i*portation an istribution of fertiliers, pesticies an

a+ricultural che*icals.Marcos issue #etter of Instruction 0#OI1EC5, i*posin+ a capital recover/ co*ponent of Php1).)) per ba+ of fertilier. The lev/ !as to continue until aeAuate capital!as raise to *ae PPI financiall/ viable. :ertiphil re*itte tothe :ertilier an Pesticie %uthorit/ 0:P%, !hich !as thenre*itte the epositor/ ban of PPI. :ertiphil pai PC,C'6,1EE to:P% fro* 16'5 to 16'C. %fter the 16'C "sa Revolution, :P%voluntaril/ stoppe the i*position of the P1) lev/. :ertiphile*ane fro* PPI a refun of the a*ount it re*itte, ho!ever PPI refuse. :ertiphil file a co*plaint for collection an

a*a+es, Auestionin+ the constitutionalit/ of #OI 1EC5,clai*in+ that it !as un>ust,unreasonable, oppressive, invali anan unla!ful i*position that a*ounte to a enial of ue process.PPI ar+ues that :ertiphil has no locus stani to Auestionthe constitutionalit/ of #OI No. 1EC5 because it oes not have aBpersonal an substantial interest in the case or !ill sustainirect in>ur/ as a result of its enforce*ent.B It asserts that:ertiphil i not suffer an/ a*a+e fro* the i*position becauseBincience of the lev/ fell on the ulti*ate consu*er or the far*ers the*selves, not on the seller fertilier co*pan/.

ISS7"? -hether or not :ertiphil has locus stani to Auestion theconstitutionalit/ of #OI No. 1EC5.-hat is the po!er of ta2ation

R7#IN9? :ertiphil has locus stani because it suffere irectin>ur/@ octrine of stanin+ is a *ere proceural technicalit/!hich *a/ be !aive.The i*position of the lev/ !as an

the pri*ar/ purpose of the lev/ !as revenue +eneration. If the purpose is pri*aril/ revenue, or if revenue is, at least, one of thereal an substantial purposes, then the e2action is properl/ callea ta2. Police po!er an the po!er of ta2ation are inherent

po!ers of the State. These po!ers are istinct an have ifferenttests for valiit/. Police po!er is the po!er of the State to enactle+islation that *a/ interfere !ith personal libert/ or propert/ inorer to pro*ote the +eneral !elfare, !hile the po!er of ta2ation is the po!er to lev/ ta2es to be use for public purpose.The *ain purpose of police po!er is the re+ulation of a behavior or conuct, !hile ta2ation is revenue +eneration. The Bla!fulsub>ectsB anBla!ful *eansB tests are use to eter*ine thevaliit/ of a la! enacte uner the police po!er. The po!er of ta2ation, on the other han, is circu*scribe b/ inherent an

constitutional li*itations.

%DMIN #%-

YNARESSANTIAGO, J .:

Pursuant to its rule3*ain+ an re+ulator/ po!ers the National



<;


Manila

:IRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 15190 Au6u% 12, 2003

SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 8SMART )-

PILIPINO TELEPONE CORPORATION 8PILTEL, petitioners,vs.NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

8NTC, responent.

23333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333332

G.R. No. 15203 Au6u% 12, 2003

GLOE TELECOM, INC. 8GLOE )- ISLACOMMUNICATIONS CO., INC. 8ISLACOM, petitioners,vs.COURT O; APPEALS 8T+# ;o(#( %+ D&'&&o )- %+#

NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,

responents.

Pursuant to its rule3*ain+ an re+ulator/ po!ers, the NationalTeleco**unications $o**ission 0NT$ issue on 4une 1C,())) Me*oranu* $ircular No. 1;3C3())), pro*ul+atin+ rulesan re+ulations on the billin+ of teleco**unications services.

%*on+ its pertinent provisions are the follo!in+?

01 The billin+ state*ents shall be receive b/ the subscriber of the telephone service not later than ;) a/s fro* the en of each billin+ c/cle. In case the state*ent is receive be/on this perio, the subscriber shall have a specifie +race perio !ithin!hich to pa/ the bill an the public teleco**unications entit/0PT"s shall not be allo!e to isconnect the service !ithin the+race perio.

0( There shall be no char+e for calls that are iverte to a voice*ailbo2, voice pro*pt, recore *essa+e or si*ilar facilit/e2cluin+ the custo*ers o!n eAuip*ent.

0; PT"s shall verif/ the ientification an aress of each purchaser of prepai SIM cars. Prepai call cars an SIMcars shall be vali for at least ( /ears fro* the ate of first use.Holers of prepai SIM cars shall be +iven E5 a/s fro* theate the prepai SIM car is full/ consu*e but not be/on (/ears an E5 a/s fro* ate of first use to replenish the SIM

car, other!ise the SIM car shall be renere invali. Thevaliit/ of an invali SIM car, ho!ever, shall be installe uponreAuest of the custo*er at no aitional char+e e2cept the presentation of a vali prepai call car.

0E Subscribers shall be upate of the re*ainin+ value of their cars before the start of ever/ call usin+ the cars.

%DMIN #%-

05 The unit of billin+ for the cellular *obile telephone service!hether postpai or prepai shall be reuce fro* 1 *inute per pulse to C secons per pulse. The authorie rates per *inute

. share all necessar/ infor*ation of stolen cellphone units to allother $MTS operators in orer to prevent the use of stolencellphone units@ an



<E

p p p pshall thus be ivie b/ 1).1

The Me*oranu* $ircular provie that it shall tae effect 15

a/s after its publication in a ne!spaper of +eneral circulationan three certifie true copies thereof furnishe the 7P #a!$enter. It !as publishe in the ne!spaper, The Philippine Star,on 4une ((, ())).( Mean!hile, the provisions of theMe*oranu* $ircular pertainin+ to the sale an use of prepaicars an the unit of billin+ for cellular *obile telephone servicetoo effect 6) a/s fro* the effectivit/ of the Me*oranu*$ircular.

On %u+ust ;), ())), the NT$ issue a Me*oranu* to all

cellular *obile telephone service 0$MTS operators !hichcontaine *easures to *ini*ie if not totall/ eli*inate theincience of stealin+ of cellular phone units. The Me*oranu*irecte $MTS operators to?

a. strictl/ co*pl/ !ith Section 801 of M$ 1;3C3())) reAuirin+the presentation an verification of the ientit/ an aresses of prepai SIM car custo*ers@

b. reAuire all /our respective prepai SIM cars ealers to

co*pl/ !ith Section 801 of M$ 1;3C3()))@

c. en/ acceptance to /our respective net!ors prepai anKor postpai custo*ers usin+ stolen cellphone units or cellphoneunits re+istere to so*ebo/ other than the applicant !hen properl/ infor*e of all infor*ation relative to the stolencellphone units@

p @

e. reAuire all /our e2istin+ prepai SIM car custo*ers tore+ister an present vali ientification cars.;

This !as follo!e b/ another Me*oranu* ate October C,())) aresse to all public teleco**unications entities, !hichreas?

This is to re*in /ou that the valiit/ of all prepai cars solon )< October ())) an be/on shall be vali for at least t!o0( /ears fro* ate of first use pursuant to M$ 1;3C3())).

In aition, all $MTS operators are re*ine that all SIM pacs

use b/ subscribers of prepai cars sol on )< October ()))an be/on shall be vali for at least t!o 0( /ears fro* ate of first use. %lso, the billin+ unit shall be on a si2 0C secons pulseeffective )< October ())).

:or strict co*pliance.E

On October (), ())), petitioners Isla $o**unications $o., Inc.an Pilipino Telephone $orporation file a+ainst the NationalTeleco**unications $o**ission, $o**issioner 4oseph %.Santia+o, Deput/ $o**issioner %urelio M. 7*ali an Deput/$o**issioner Nestor $. Dacana/, an action for eclaration of nullit/ of NT$ Me*oranu* $ircular No. 1;3C3())) 0the8illin+ $ircular an the NT$ Me*oranu* ate October C,())), !ith pra/er for the issuance of a !rit of preli*inar/in>unction an te*porar/ restrainin+ orer. The co*plaint !asocete as $ivil $ase No. F3))3E(((1 at the Re+ional Trial

%DMIN #%-

$ourt of Fueon $it/, 8ranch <<.5

Petitioners Islaco* an Piltel alle+e, inter alia, that the NT$

ispositive portion of !hich reas?

-H"R":OR", pre*ises consiere, the efenants *otion to



<5

+ , ,has no >urisiction to re+ulate the sale of consu*er +oos suchas the prepai call cars since such >urisiction belon+s to theDepart*ent of Trae an Inustr/ uner the $onsu*er %ct of

the Philippines@ that the 8illin+ $ircular is oppressive,confiscator/ an violative of the constitutional prohibitiona+ainst eprivation of propert/ !ithout ue process of la!@ thatthe $ircular !ill result in the i*pair*ent of the viabilit/ of the prepai cellular service b/ unul/ prolon+in+ the valiit/ ane2piration of the prepai SIM an call cars@ an that thereAuire*ents of ientification of prepai car bu/ers an call balance announce*ent are unreasonable. Hence, the/ pra/ethat the 8illin+ $ircular be eclare null an voi ab initio.

Soon thereafter, petitioners 9lobe Teleco*, Inc an S*art$o**unications, Inc. file a >oint Motion for #eave toIntervene an to %*it $o*plaint3in3Intervention.C This !as+rante b/ the trial court.

On October (<, ())), the trial court issue a te*porar/restrainin+ orer en>oinin+ the NT$ fro* i*ple*entin+Me*oranu* $ircular No. 1;3C3())) an the Me*oranu*ate October C, ())).<

In the *eanti*e, responent NT$ an its co3efenants file a*otion to is*iss the case on the +roun of petitioners failure toe2haust a*inistrative re*eies.

SubseAuentl/, after hearin+ petitioners application for preli*inar/ in>unction as !ell as responents *otion to is*iss,the trial court issue on Nove*ber (), ())) an Orer, the

, p ,is*iss is hereb/ enie for lac of *erit. The plaintiffsapplication for the issuance of a !rit of preli*inar/ in>unction ishereb/ +rante. %ccorin+l/, the efenants are hereb/ en>oine

fro* i*ple*entin+ NT$ Me*oranu* $ircular 1;3C3())) anthe NT$ Me*oranu*, ate October C, ())), penin+ theissuance an finalit/ of the ecision in this case. The plaintiffsan intervenors are, ho!ever, reAuire to file a bon in the su*of :IV" H7NDR"D THO7S%ND P"SOS 0P5)),))).)),Philippine currenc/.

SO ORD"R"D.'

Defenants file a *otion for reconsieration, !hich !as enie

in an Orer ate :ebruar/ 1, ())1.6

Responent NT$ thus file a special civil action for certiorarian prohibition !ith the $ourt of %ppeals, !hich !as oceteas $%39.R. SP. No. CE(<E. On October 6, ())1, a ecision !asrenere, the ecretal portion of !hich reas?

-H"R":OR", pre*ises consiere, the instant petition for certiorari an prohibition is 9R%NT"D, in that, the orer of thecourt a )uo en/in+ the petitioners *otion to is*iss as !ell asthe orer of the court a )uo +rantin+ the private responents pra/er for a !rit of preli*inar/ in>unction, an the !rit of preli*inar/ in>unction issue thereb/, are hereb/ %NN7##"Dan S"T %SID". The private responents co*plaint anco*plaint3in3intervention belo! are hereb/ DISMISS"D,!ithout pre>uice to the referral of the private responents+rievances an isputes on the assaile issuances of the NT$

%DMIN #%-

!ith the sai a+enc/.

SO ORD"R"D.1)

D.

TH" HONOR%8#" $O7RT O: %PP"%#S "RR"D IN



<C

Petitioners *otions for reconsieration !ere enie in aResolution ate 4anuar/ 1), ())( for lac of *erit.11

Hence, the instant petition for revie! file b/ S*art an Piltel,!hich !as ocete as 9.R. No. 1516)', anchore on thefollo!in+ +rouns?

%.

TH" HONOR%8#" $O7RT O: %PP"%#S 9R%V"#&"RR"D IN HO#DIN9 TH%T TH" N%TION%#T"#"$OMM7NI$%TIONS $OMMISSION 0NT$ %ND NOTTH" R"97#%R $O7RTS H%S 47RISDI$TION OV"R TH"$%S".

8.

TH" HONOR%8#" $O7RT O: %PP"%#S %#SO 9R%V"#&"RR"D IN HO#DIN9 TH%T TH" PRIV%T" R"SPOND"NTS:%I#"D TO "H%7ST %N %V%I#%8#" %DMINISTR%TIV"R"M"D&.

$.

TH" HONOR%8#" $O7RT O: %PP"%#S "RR"D IN NOTHO#DIN9 TH%T TH" 8I##IN9 $IR$7#%R ISS7"D 8&TH" R"SPOND"NT NT$ IS 7N$ONSTIT7TION%# %ND$ONTR%R& TO #%- %ND P78#I$ PO#I$&.

HO#DIN9 TH%T TH" PRIV%T" R"SPOND"NTS :%I#"DTO SHO- TH"IR $#"%R POSITIV" RI9HT TO -%RR%NTTH" ISS7%N$" O: % -RIT O: PR"#IMIN%R&

IN47N$TION.1(

#ie!ise, 9lobe an Islaco* file a petition for revie!,ocete as 9.R. No. 15()C;, assi+nin+ the follo!in+ errors?

1. TH" HONOR%8#" $O7RT O: %PP"%#S SO 9R%V"#&"RR"D 8"$%7S" TH" DO$TRIN"S O: PRIM%R&47RISDI$TION %ND "H%7STION O: %DMINISTR%TIV"R"M"DI"S DO NOT %PP#& SIN$" TH" INST%NT $%S" IS:OR #"9%# N7##I:I$%TION 08"$%7S" O: #"9%#

IN:IRMITI"S %ND VIO#%TIONS O: #%- O: % P7R"#&%DMINISTR%TIV" R"97#%TION PROM7#9%T"D 8& %N%9"N$& IN TH" ""R$IS" O: ITS R7#" M%IN9PO-"RS %ND INVO#V"S ON#& F7"STIONS O: #%-.

(. TH" HONOR%8#" $O7RT O: %PP"%#S SO 9R%V"#&"RR"D 8"$%7S" TH" DO$TRIN" ON "H%7STION O:%DMINISTR%TIV" R"M"DI"S DO"S NOT %PP#& -H"NTH" F7"STIONS R%IS"D %R" P7R"#& #"9%#F7"STIONS.

;. TH" HONOR%8#" $O7RT O: %PP"%#S SO 9R%V"#&"RR"D 8"$%7S" TH" DO$TRIN" O: "H%7STION O:%DMINISTR%TIV" R"M"DI"S DO"S NOT %PP#& -H"R"TH" %DMINISTR%TIV" %$TION IS $OMP#"T" %ND"::"$TIV", -H"N TH"R" IS NO OTH"R R"M"D&, %NDTH" P"TITION"R ST%NDS TO S7::"R 9R%V" %ND

%DMIN #%-

IRR"P%R%8#" IN47R&.

E. TH" HONOR%8#" $O7RT O: %PP"%#S SO 9R%V"#&

purposes of the la!, an be not in contraiction to, but inconfor*it/ !ith, the stanars prescribe b/ la!.1< The/ *ustconfor* to an be consistent !ith the provisions of the enablin+

i f h l l i b li



<<

"RR"D 8"$%7S" P"TITION"RS IN :%$T "H%7ST"D%## %DMINISTR%TIV" R"M"DI"S %V%I#%8#" TOTH"M.

5. TH" HONOR%8#" $O7RT O: %PP"%#S SO 9R%V"#&"RR"D IN ISS7IN9 ITS F7"STION"D R7#IN9S IN THIS$%S" 8"$%7S" 9#O8" %ND IS#% H%V" % $#"%R RI9HT TO %N IN47N$TION.1;

The t!o petitions !ere consoliate in a Resolution ate:ebruar/ 1<, ());.1E

On March (E, ());, the petitions !ere +iven ue course an the

parties !ere reAuire to sub*it their respective *e*orana.15

-e fin *erit in the petitions.

%*inistrative a+encies possess Auasi3le+islative or rule3*ain+ po!ers an Auasi3>uicial or a*inistrative a>uicator/ po!ers.Fuasi3le+islative or rule3*ain+ po!er is the po!er to *aerules an re+ulations !hich results in ele+ate le+islation thatis !ithin the confines of the +rantin+ statute an the octrine of non3ele+abilit/ an separabilit/ of po!ers.1C

The rules an re+ulations that a*inistrative a+encies pro*ul+ate, !hich are the prouct of a ele+ate le+islative po!er to create ne! an aitional le+al provisions that have theeffect of la!, shoul be !ithin the scope of the statutor/authorit/ +rante b/ the le+islature to the a*inistrative a+enc/.It is reAuire that the re+ulation be +er*ane to the ob>ects an

statute in orer for such rule or re+ulation to be vali.$onstitutional an statutor/ provisions control !ith respect to!hat rules an re+ulations *a/ be pro*ul+ate b/ an

a*inistrative bo/, as !ell as !ith respect to !hat fiels aresub>ect to re+ulation b/ it. It *a/ not *ae rules an re+ulations!hich are inconsistent !ith the provisions of the $onstitution or a statute, particularl/ the statute it is a*inisterin+ or !hichcreate it, or !hich are in ero+ation of, or efeat, the purposeof a statute. In case of conflict bet!een a statute an ana*inistrative orer, the for*er *ust prevail.1'

Not to be confuse !ith the Auasi3le+islative or rule3*ain+ po!er of an a*inistrative a+enc/ is its Auasi3>uicial or

a*inistrative a>uicator/ po!er. This is the po!er to hear aneter*ine Auestions of fact to !hich the le+islative polic/ is toappl/ an to ecie in accorance !ith the stanars lai o!n b/ the la! itself in enforcin+ an a*inisterin+ the sa*e la!.The a*inistrative bo/ e2ercises its Auasi3>uicial po!er !henit perfor*s in a >uicial *anner an act !hich is essentiall/ of ane2ecutive or a*inistrative nature, !here the po!er to act insuch *anner is inciental to or reasonabl/ necessar/ for the perfor*ance of the e2ecutive or a*inistrative ut/ entruste toit. In carr/in+ out their Auasi3>uicial functions, the

a*inistrative officers or boies are reAuire to investi+ate factsor ascertain the e2istence of facts, hol hearin+s, !ei+hevience, an ra! conclusions fro* the* as basis for their official action an e2ercise of iscretion in a >uicial nature. 16

In Auestionin+ the valiit/ or constitutionalit/ of a rule or re+ulation issue b/ an a*inistrative a+enc/, a part/ nee not

%DMIN #%-

e2haust a*inistrative re*eies before +oin+ to court. This principle applies onl/ !here the act of the a*inistrative a+enc/concerne !as perfor*e pursuant to its Auasi3>uicial function,

t h th il t t i t it l i

In lie *anner, the octrine of pri*ar/ >urisiction applies onl/!here the a*inistrative a+enc/ e2ercises its Auasi3>uicial or a>uicator/ function. Thus, in cases involvin+ specialiei t th ti h b t f th t



<'

an not !hen the assaile act pertaine to its rule3*ain+ or Auasi3le+islative po!er. In ssociation o# Philippine Coconut

/essicators v. Philippine Coconut uthorit$,() it !as hel?

The rule of reAuirin+ e2haustion of a*inistrative re*eies before a part/ *a/ see >uicial revie!, so strenuousl/ ur+e b/the Solicitor 9eneral on behalf of responent, has obviousl/ noapplication here. The resolution in Auestion !as issue b/ theP$% in the e2ercise of its rule3 *ain+ or le+islative po!er.Ho!ever, onl/ >uicial revie! of ecisions of a*inistrativea+encies *ae in the e2ercise of their Auasi3>uicial function issub>ect to the e2haustion octrine.

"ven assu*in+ ar+ueno that the principle of e2haustion of a*inistrative re*eies appl/ in this case, the recors revealthat petitioners sufficientl/ co*plie !ith this reAuire*ent."ven urin+ the raftin+ an eliberation sta+es leain+ to theissuance of Me*oranu* $ircular No. 1;3C3())), petitioners!ere able to re+ister their protests to the propose billin++uielines. The/ sub*itte their respective position paperssettin+ forth their ob>ections an sub*ittin+ propose sche*esfor the billin+ circular.(1 %fter the sa*e !as issue, petitioners!rote successive letters ate 4ul/ ;, ()))(( an 4ul/ 5, ())),(;

asin+ for the suspension an reconsieration of the so3calle8illin+ $ircular. These letters !ere not acte upon until October C, ())), !hen responent NT$ issue the secon assaileMe*oranu* i*ple*entin+ certain provisions of the 8illin+$ircular. This !as taen b/ petitioners as a clear enial of thereAuests containe in their previous letters, thus pro*ptin+ the*to see >uicial relief.

isputes, the practice has been to refer the sa*e to ana*inistrative a+enc/ of special co*petence pursuant to theoctrine of pri*ar/ >urisiction. The courts !ill not eter*ine a

controvers/ involvin+ a Auestion !hich is !ithin the >urisictionof the a*inistrative tribunal prior to the resolution of thatAuestion b/ the a*inistrative tribunal, !here the Auestione*ans the e2ercise of soun a*inistrative iscretionreAuirin+ the special no!le+e, e2perience an services of thea*inistrative tribunal to eter*ine technical an intricate*atters of fact, an a unifor*it/ of rulin+ is essential to co*pl/!ith the pre*ises of the re+ulator/ statute a*inistere. Theob>ective of the octrine of pri*ar/ >urisiction is to +uie acourt in eter*inin+ !hether it shoul refrain fro* e2ercisin+ its

>urisiction until after an a*inistrative a+enc/ has eter*ineso*e Auestion or so*e aspect of so*e Auestion arisin+ in the proceein+ before the court. It applies !here the clai* isori+inall/ co+niable in the courts an co*es into pla/!henever enforce*ent of the clai* reAuires the resolution of issues !hich, uner a re+ulator/ sche*e, has been place !ithinthe special co*petence of an a*inistrative bo/@ in such case,the >uicial process is suspene penin+ referral of such issuesto the a*inistrative bo/ for its vie!.(E

Ho!ever, !here !hat is assaile is the valiit/ or constitutionalit/ of a rule or re+ulation issue b/ thea*inistrative a+enc/ in the perfor*ance of its Auasi3le+islativefunction, the re+ular courts have >urisiction to pass upon thesa*e. The eter*ination of !hether a specific rule or set of rulesissue b/ an a*inistrative a+enc/ contravenes the la! or theconstitution is !ithin the >urisiction of the re+ular courts.

%DMIN #%-

Inee, the $onstitution vests the po!er of >uicial revie! or the po!er to eclare a la!, treat/, international or e2ecutivea+ree*ent, presiential ecree, orer, instruction, orinance, or re+ulation in the courts incluin+ the re+ional trial courts (5 This

$ourt appellate >urisiction over final >u+*ents an orers of lo!er courts in all cases in !hich the constitutionalit/ or valiit/of an/ treat/, international or e2ecutive a+ree*ent, la!,presiential ecree procla*ation orer instruction orinance



<6

re+ulation in the courts, incluin+ the re+ional trial courts. (5 Thisis !ithin the scope of >uicial po!er, !hich inclues theauthorit/ of the courts to eter*ine in an appropriate action the

valiit/ of the acts of the political epart*ents.(C

4uicial po!er inclues the ut/ of the courts of >ustice to settle actualcontroversies involvin+ ri+hts !hich are le+all/ e*anable anenforceable, an to eter*ine !hether or not there has been a+rave abuse of iscretion a*ountin+ to lac or e2cess of >urisiction on the part of an/ branch or instru*entalit/ of the9overn*ent.(<

In the case at bar, the issuance b/ the NT$ of Me*oranu*$ircular No. 1;3C3())) an its Me*oranu* ate October C,

())) !as pursuant to its Auasi3le+islative or rule3*ain+ po!er.%s such, petitioners !ere >ustifie in invoin+ the >uicial po!er of the Re+ional Trial $ourt to assail the constitutionalit/ anvaliit/ of the sai issuances. In /rilon v. =i",(' it !as hel?

-e stress at the outset that the lo!er court ha >urisiction toconsier the constitutionalit/ of Section 1'<, this authorit/ bein+e*brace in the +eneral efinition of the >uicial po!er toeter*ine !hat are the vali an binin+ la!s b/ the criterion of their confor*it/ to the funa*ental la!. Specificall/, 8.P. 1(6

vests in the re+ional trial courts >urisiction over all civil casesin !hich the sub>ect of the liti+ation is incapable of pecuniar/esti*ation, even as the accuse in a cri*inal action has the ri+htto Auestion in his efense the constitutionalit/ of a la! he ischar+e !ith violatin+ an of the proceein+s taen a+ainst hi*, particularl/ as the/ contravene the 8ill of Ri+hts. Moreover,%rticle , Section 50(, of the $onstitution vests in the Supre*e

presiential ecree, procla*ation, orer, instruction, orinance,or re+ulation is in Auestion.(6

In their co*plaint before the Re+ional Trial $ourt, petitionersaverre that the $ircular contravene $ivil $oe provisions onsales an violate the constitutional prohibition a+ainst theeprivation of propert/ !ithout ue process of la!. These are!ithin the co*petence of the trial >u+e. $ontrar/ to the finin+of the $ourt of %ppeals, the issues raise in the co*plaint o notentail hi+hl/ technical *atters. Rather, !hat is reAuire of the >u+e !ho !ill resolve this issue is a basic fa*iliarit/ !ith the!orin+s of the cellular telephone service, incluin+ prepaiSIM an call cars an this is >uiciall/ no!n to be !ithin

the no!le+e of a +oo percenta+e of our population ane2pertise in funa*ental principles of civil la! an the$onstitution.

Hence, the Re+ional Trial $ourt has >urisiction to hear anecie $ivil $ase No. F3))3E(((1. The $ourt of %ppeals errein settin+ asie the orers of the trial court an in is*issin+ thecase.

ERE;ORE, in vie! of the fore+oin+, the consoliate

petitions are 9R%NT"D. The ecision of the $ourt of %ppealsin $%39.R. SP No. CE(<E ate October 6, ())1 an itsResolution ate 4anuar/ 1), ())( are R"V"RS"D an S"T%SID". The Orer ate Nove*ber (), ())) of the Re+ionalTrial $ourt of Fueon $it/, 8ranch <<, in $ivil $ase No. F3))3E(((1 is R"INST%T"D. This case is R"M%ND"D to the courta Auo for continuation of the proceein+s.

%DMIN #%-

SO ORDERED.

/avide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, and Carpio, JJ., concur.

J too no part

Fuasi3>uicial or a*inistrative a>uicator/ po!er is the po!er to hear an eter*ine Auestions of fact to !hich the le+islative polic/ is to appl/ an to ecie in accorance !ith the stanarslai o!n b/ la! itself in enforcin+ an a*inisterin+ the sa*e



')

zcuna, J., too no part.

@UASILEGISLATI/E @UASIJUDICIAL POERS

RULE ON EAUSTION O; ADMINISTRATI/EREMEDIES DOCTRINE O; PRIMARY

JURISDICTIONEN APPLICALE

SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. ET AL. /.

NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

8NTC

G.R. 15190, Au6u% 12, 2003

:acts? The NT$ issue 8illin+ $ircular 1;3C3())) !hich pro*ul+ate rules an re+ulations on the billin+ of teleco**unications services. Petitioners file !ith the RT$ a petition to eclare the circular as unconstitutional. % *otion tois*iss !as file b/ the NT$ on the +roun of petitioners toe2haust a*inistrative re*eies. The RT$ enie the *otion tois*iss but on certiorari, the $% reverse RT$.

Hel? 1. %*inistrative boies ha 0a Auasi3le+islative or rule3*ain+ po!ers an 0b Auasi3>uicial or a*inistrativea>uicator/ po!ers. Fuasi3le+islative or rule3*ain+ po!er is

the po!er to *ae rules an re+ulations !hich results inele+ate le+islation that is !ithin the confines of the +rantin+statute an the octrine of non3ele+abilit/ an separabilit/ of po!ers. To be vali, such rules an re+ulations *ust confor* to,an be consistent !ith, the provisions of enablin+ statute.

lai o!n b/ la! itself in enforcin+ an a*inisterin+ the sa*ela!. In carr/in+ out their Auasi3>uicial functions, thea*inistrative officers or boies are reAuire to investi+ate facts

or ascertain the e2istence of facts, hol hearin+s, !ei+hevience, an ra! conclusions fro* the* for their officialaction an e2ercise of iscretion in a >uicial.

(. The eter*ination of !hether a specific rule or set of rulesissue b/ an a*inistrative bo/ contravenes the la! or theconstitution is !ithin the >uicial po!er as efine b/ the$onstitution !hich is the ut/ of the $ourts of >ustice to settleactual controversies involvin+ ri+hts !hich are le+all/

e*anable an enforceable, an to eter*ine !hether or notthere ha! been a +rave abuse of iscretion a*ountin+ to lac or e2cess of >urisiction on the part of an/ branch or instru*entalit/ of the 9overn*ent.U The NT$ circular !asissue pursuant to its Auasi3le+islative or rule3*ain+ po!er.Hence, the action *ust be file irectl/ !ith the re+ular courts!ithout reAuirin+ e2haustion of a*inistrative re*eies.

;. -here the act of a*inistrative a+enc/ !as perfor*e pursuant to its Auasi3>uicial function, e2haustion of a*inistrative re*e/ is reAuire, before +oin+ to court.

E. The octrine of pri*ar/ >urisiction applies onl/ !here thea*inistrative a+enc/ e2ercises its Auasi3>uicial or a>uicator/function. Thus, in cases involvin+ specialie isputes, the sa*e*ust be referre to an a*inistrative a+enc/ of special

%DMIN #%-

co*petence pursuant to the octrine of pri*ar/ >urisiction. Thisoctrine of pri*ar/ >urisiction applies !here the clai* reAuiresthe resolution of issues !hich, uner a re+ulator/ sche*e, hasbeen place !ithin the special co*petence of an a*inistrative

have 6urisdiction to pass upon the same. The determination o whether a speciic rule or set o rules issued "# an administrativeagenc# contravenes the law or the constitution is within the ?urisdictiono the regular courts 7ndeed, the onstitution vests the power o ?udicial review or the power to declare a law treat# international or



'1

been place !ithin the special co*petence of an a*inistrative bo/. In such case, the >uicial process is suspene penin+referral of such issues to the a*inistrative bo/ for its vie!.

Smart Communications vs NC G.R. No. $!$%/8 $0 "u#ust 0//

Facts: %etitioners 7sla ommunications o, 7nc and %ilipinoTelephone orporation iled against the ational Telecommunicationsommission, an action or declaration o nullit# o T emorandumircular o .*-B-3/// (the 2illing ircular) %etitioners allege that theT has no ?urisdiction to regulate the sale o consumer goods suchas the prepaid call cards since such ?urisdiction "elongs to the

Department o Trade and 7ndustr# under the onsumer Act o the%hilippines6 that the 2illing ircular is oppressive, coniscator# andviolative o the constitutional prohi"ition against deprivation o propert#without due process o law6 that the ircular will result in theimpairment o the via"ilit# o the prepaid cellular service "# undul#prolonging the validit# and e9piration o the prepaid !7 and callcards6 and that the requirements o identiication o prepaid card"u#ers and call "alance announcement are unreasona"le&ence, the#pra#ed that the 2illing ircular "e declared null and void a" initio

7ssue :8' the CT has ?urisdiction over the case

&eld: %etitions are granted The issuance "# the T o emorandumircular o .*-B-3/// and its emorandum dated 'cto"er B, 3///was pursuant to its quasi-legislative or rule-ma$ing power As such,petitioners were ?ustiied in invo$ing the ?udicial power o the CegionalTrial ourt to assail the constitutionalit# and validit# o the saidissuances 1hat is assailed is the validit2 or constitutionalit2 of arule or re#ulation issued 32 the administrative a#enc2 in theperformance of its 4uasi5le#islative function, the re#ular courts

?udicial review or the power to declare a law, treat#, international or e9ecutive agreement, presidential decree, order,instruction, ordinance,or regulation in the courts, including the regional trial courtsThis iswithin the scope o ?udicial power, which includes the authorit# o the

courts to determine in an appropriate action the validit# o the acts o the political departments udicial power includes the dut# o thecourts o ?ustice to settle actual controversies involving rights whichare legall# demanda"le and enorcea"le, and to determine whether or not there has "een a grave a"use o discretion amounting to lac$ or e9cess o ?urisdiction on the part o an# "ranch or instrumentalit# o the;overnment

ot to "e conused with the quasi-legislative or rule-ma$ing power o an administrative agenc# is its quasi-?udicial or administrativead?udicator# powerThis is the power to hear and determine questions

o act to which the legislative polic# is to appl# and to decide inaccordance with the standards laid down "# the law itsel in enorcingand administering the same law

The administrative "od# e9ercises its quasi-?udicial power when itperorms in a ?udicial manner an act which is essentiall# o ane9ecutive or administrative nature, where the power to act in suchmanner is incidental to or reasona"l# necessar# or the perormanceo the e9ecutive or administrative dut# entrusted to it 7n carr#ing outtheir quasi-?udicial unctions, the administrative oicers or "odies arerequired to investigate acts or ascertain the e9istence o acts, holdhearings,weigh evidence, and draw conclusions rom them as "asis

or their oicial action and e9ercise o discretion in a ?udicial nature

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

%DMIN #%-

S"$OND DIVISION

G.R. No. 1445 No'##( 11, 2005

investi+ators fro* its Fualit/ $ontrol an InspectionDepart*ent 0F$ID an Securit/ Division to conuctsurveillance operations in the area. On %u+ust (, 166E, Vial8usa, a raio technician, !as cau+ht in #lagrante delicto !hile



'(

PILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPONE

COMPANY, INC., Petitioner,

vs.ANTONIO @. TIAMSON, Responent.

D " $ I S I O N

CALLEJO, SR ., J.:

8ein+ Auestione in this petition for revie! on certiorari is theDecision1 of the $ourt of %ppeals 0$% ate %pril 1C, ())E in$%39.R. SP Nos. 51'55 an 5((E<, an the Resolution ate

4ul/ (<, ())E en/in+ the *otion for reconsieration thereof.

On %pril 1C, 16'C, the Philippine #on+ Distance Telephone$o*pan/, Inc. 0P#DT e*plo/e %ntonio F. Tia*son as aRaio Technician II 049E. He !as assi+ne at the co*pan/s North #uon Toll Net!or Division, $lar Trans*issionMaintenance $enter 0$lar3TM$ in Pa*pan+a. %fter thee2piration of the probationar/ perio, he !as e2tene re+ular appoint*ent for the sa*e position.

In a #etter ( ate 4ul/ (6, 166E, %nthon/ D/ Dee, the Presientof the %n+eles $it/ Telephone S/ste* an Datelco*$orporation, infor*e P#DT of his co*plaint a+ainst itse*plo/ees assi+ne in $lar3TM$, statin+ therein that hesuspecte the* to be in cohorts !ith the local subscribers ineffectin+ ille+al overseas calls. %ctin+ on the letter3co*plaint,P#DT i**eiatel/ ispatche a tea* of inspectors an

8usa, a raio technician, !as cau+ht in #lagrante delicto !hile*onitorin+ an ille+all/ connecte overseas call usin+ the raiofacilities of the co*pan/s $lar3TM$ Raio Roo*.;

The F$ID, lie!ise, reAueste the S!itchin+ Net!or Divisionat P#DTs Sa*paloc National Toll $enter to print the $%M%E

tape recorin+ of all lon+ istance calls ori+inatin+ fro* theP#DT $lar "2chan+e Trafficfor the perio of 4ul/ (6 to %u+ust (, 166E. The printoutreveale that a total of EC6 frauulent overseas an local calls!ere connecte an co*plete at the P#DT $lar3TM$ RaioRoo* for the sai perio. Three overseas calls to Saui %rabia*ae on %u+ust 1, 166E !ere i*pute to Tia*son !ho appeare

to be on ut/ fro* 1)?)) p.*. to C?)) a.*.5

The F$ID conucte its initial investi+ation on %u+ust (, 166E,!here 8usa reail/ a*itte his involve*ent in the ille+alconnection of overseas calls. In his s!orn state*ent, hespecificall/ na*e %rnel $a/anan, his Shift Supervisor, %ntonioTia*son an Paul $ruaa, both raio technicians, as the other e*plo/ees activel/ en+a+e in the ille+al practice. He state thathe ne! about this because !henever he !oul relieve the*fro* their tour of ut/, he !oul see that the circuit !as

en+a+e.C

On %u+ust ;, 166E, urin+ a confrontation bet!een 8usa anTia*son, the for*er reiterate his earlier state*ent that the latter !as involve in the ille+al act of connectin+ overseas calls.< :or his part, Tia*son a*itte that he ne! ho! to *ae anoverseas call usin+ the co*pan/s raio eAuip*ent an that he

%DMIN #%-

learne ho! to o so throu+h hans3on e2peri*entation anintensive reain+ of operatin+ *anuals. He, ho!ever, eniehavin+ actuall/ *ae an ille+al connection of overseas calls. Heeclare that he ne! of the !ron+oin+s of 8usa an even

sca* !as co*plaine an notifie b/ Mr. %. D/ to Mrs. 8. 9.9enrano $lar "2chan+e Division Hea on 4ul/ (C, 166E.

;. The co*plainant reAueste assistance to N8I an P#DT F$I

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/nov2005/gr_164684-85_2005.html#fnt1

















';

+ +isconnecte the latters overseas telephone calls !henever he0Tia*son !as on ut/. Tia*son clai*e that he faile to report

the actuations of 8usa because the latter !as his supervisor an!as afrai to anta+onie hi*.'

On %u+ust 5, 166E, there !as another confrontation proceein+ bet!een 8usa, Tia*son, $ruaa an $a/anan. In their s!ornstate*ents, 8usa an $ruaa testifie that, so*eti*es !henthe/ relieve $a/anan fro* his ut/, the/ !oul iscover anille+al connection an an on3+oin+ conversation in the line.6

Tia*son *aintaine that he isconnecte the ille+al calls of 8usa, !hile $a/anan i*plicate his suborinates.

The F$ID reco**ene that a*inistrative action for serious*isconuct be institute a+ainst the sai e*plo/ees.$onseAuentl/, the co*pan/ issue to Tia*son an Inter3OfficeMe*oranu* ate %u+ust 1(, 166E, char+in+ hi* !ithviolation of the co*pan/s isciplinar/ rules an re+ulations. He!as, lie!ise, reAuire to e2plain !ithin <( hours !h/ he shoulnot be is*isse, thus?

Investi+ation of the co*plaint inicate hereuner isclose

that?

1. $o*plainant Mr. %nthon/ D/, Presient D%T"#$OM$orp.

(. The ecrease of toll revenue for D%T"#$OM%n+elesKMabalacat "2chan+e ue to frauulent overseas call

;. The co*plainant reAueste assistance to N8I an P#DT F$Ito apprehen the personnel responsible for the ille+alconnection.

E. % clue !as provie b/ Mr. %nthon/ D/ that the ille+aloverseas call !as co*in+ fro* $lar3TM$ throu+h tape aneAuip*ent *onitorin+.

5. In the F$I investi+ation, /ou !ere i*plicate b/ /our fello!Raio Technician Mr. Vial $. 8usa as involve in the case. &oua*itte /ou no! ho! to operate the #enurt (CC)) Si+nallin+Test Set to initiate a call but enie oin+ it for personal +ain or interest but /ou faile to report the ano*al/ to /our superior as

one of /our supervisors !as involve in the frauulent case.

The acts escribe above are in violation of the $o*pan/s rulesan re+ulations an is punishable !ith is*issal fro* theservice.

In vie! of the above, please e2plain in !ritin+ !ithin <( hoursfro* receipt hereof !h/ /ou shoul not be is*isse fro* theservice for the acts escribe above. &ou *a/ elect to be hear if /ou so esire. L1)

Mean!hile, Tia*son !as place uner preventive suspension on%u+ust 1C, 166E.11

On %u+ust 1', 166E, Tia*son sub*itte his !ritten e2planationen/in+ an/ participation in the ille+al activities at P#DTs$lar3TM$. He averre that 8usas state*ent a+ainst hi* !as

%DMIN #%-

*alicious an untrue an that he !as the one relievin+ 8usafro* his tour of ut/ an not the other !a/ aroun. He insistethat on %u+ust 1, 166E, his tour of ut/ !as fro* C?)) a.*. to1)?)) p.*.1(

SO ORD"R"D.1E

The #abor %rbiter eclare that the co*plainant coul not have*ae an/ ille+al connection on %u+ust 1, 166E fro* 1)?)) p.*.
















'E

p

P#DT foun his e2planation unsatisfactor/ an inaeAuate in

substance. Thus, it issue an Inter3Office Me*o1;

ate October 5, 166E, ter*inatin+ Tia*sons e*plo/*ent effective October <,166E on the +roun of serious *isconuct anKor frau.

Tia*son file a co*plaint a+ainst P#DT for ille+al suspension,ille+al is*issal, a*a+es an other *onetar/ clai*s, oceteas N#R$ $ase No. R%83III3)<3CE1E365.

The #abor %rbiter resolve the case in favor of Tia*son?

-H"R":OR", pre*ises consiere, >u+*ent is hereb/renere eclarin+ responent P#DT +uilt/ of ille+al is*issalan it is hereb/ orere to reinstate co*plainant to his for*er position !ithout loss of seniorit/ ri+hts an !ith full bac!a+esrecone fro* the ate of his is*issal up to his actual or pa/roll reinstate*ent at the option of the responent, !hich as of this ate is in the a*ount of Three Hunre Sevent/3T!oThousan "i+ht Hunre T!ent/3:ive an ;(K1))0P;<(,'(5.;( Pesos.

:urther, responent is orere to pa/ co*plainant attorne/s feein the a*ount of Thirt/3Seven Thousan T!o Hunre "i+ht/3T!o an 5;K1)) 0P;<,('(.5; Pesos.

The clai*s for *oral an e2e*plar/ a*a+es are is*isse for lac of evience.

/ + + , pto C?)) a.*. because he !as off3ut/.

P#DT elevate the case to the National #abor Relations$o**ission 0N#R$. On %u+ust ;1, 166', the N#R$ rule that!hile there !as >ust cause for Tia*sons is*issal, the penalt/of is*issal !as too harsh. Hence, the N#R$ orere thatTia*son be reinstate to his for*er position !ithout loss of seniorit/ ri+hts, but !ithout bac!a+es.15

8oth parties *ove to reconsier the ecision, but the N#R$enie the *otions for lac of *erit.1C

P#DT file a petition for certiorari before the $%, assailin+ the N#R$s orer of reinstate*ent espite a cate+orical finin+ thatTia*son !as +uilt/ of ille+al connection of overseas calls. The petition !as ocete as $%39.R. SP No. 51'55. Tia*son filea si*ilar petition, assailin+ the eletion of the a!ar of bac!a+es an attorne/s fees. This !as ocete as $%39.R.SP No. 5((E<. The $%, thereafter, orere the consoliation of the t!o petitions.

On %pril 1C, ())E, the $% reinstate the ecision of the #abor

%rbiter, thus?

ERE;ORE, the petition b/ the P#DT uner $%39.R. SP No. 51'55 is DENIED DUE COURSE an DISMISSED!hilethe petition b/ %ntonio Tia*son uner $%39.R. SP No. 5((E< isGI/EN DUE COURSE an GRANTED, an the Decisionate October 15, 166< of the #abor %rbiter !hich !as set asie

%DMIN #%-

b/ the N#R$, is hereb/REINSTATED in its fullness an!ithout *oifications.

SO ORDERED.1<

evience to prove that the responent !as involve in the ille+alconnection of overseas calls. The petitioner avers that the $%erre in holin+ that 8usas s!orn state*ent !as not creible.%ccorin+ to the $%, it !oul have been i*possible for 8usa to












'5

The $% hel that 8usas s!orn state*ent !as not !orth/ of

creence, a *ere afterthou+ht, the contents of !hich !ereseriousl/ fla!e. The appellate court foun it ifficult to believe8usas assertion that, on several occasions !hen he ca*e torelieve the responent, a circuit !as in use !hich the latter !oul turn off before leavin+. In this re+ar, the appellate courtnote that 8usas !or shift precee that of the responent,such that it !oul be i*possible for hi* to see the responent*ae an ille+al connection.1'

The $% lie!ise opine that the responent !as enie ue

process !hen he !as not apprise of nor +iven the opportunit/to confute the char+e that urin+ his ut/ on %u+ust 1, 166E,three overseas calls to Saui %rabia !ere recore in the $%M%tape.16

The petitioner ti*el/ file a *otion for reconsieration, !hichthe $% enie in its Resolution() ate 4ul/ (<, ())E.

The petitioner no! co*es before this $ourt, alle+in+ that?

L TH" $O7RT O: %PP"%#S $OMMITT"D S"RIO7S"RROR IN R"INST%TIN9 TH" D"$ISION O: TH"%R8IT"R + %S S%ID D"$ISION -%S NOT IN%$$ORD -ITH #%- %ND $ONTR%R& TO TH""VID"N$" ON R"$ORD.(1

The petitioner sub*its that it has presente *ore than substantial

see the responent *ain+ an ille+al connection since his tour of ut/ precee that of the responent. The petitioner, ho!ever,

asserts that there !as a rotation of the e*plo/ees tour of ut/such that, at ti*es, it !as 8usa !ho !oul tae over fro* theresponent@ hence, 8usa ha the occasion to personall/ see theresponent connectin+ ille+al calls. In support of this, the petitioner proffers the cop/ of lo+boo entries fro* 4ul/ 1; to%u+ust ;, 166E, !hich !as attache to its Me*oranu* of %ppeal file !ith the N#R$. The lo+boo sho!s that on severaloccasions, it !as 8usa !ho too over fro* the responent.((

The petitioner further asserts that the responent faile to sho!

that 8usa !as actuate an i*pelle b/ i*proper *otive an ba faith in e2ecutin+ his s!orn state*ent.(; The recors sho!that 8usa, fro* the ver/ start, ha cate+oricall/ anuneAuivocall/ na*e the responent as one of those en+a+e inthe ille+al connection of overseas calls.(E Moreover, 8usass!orn state*ent ha been corroborate b/ the printout of the$%M% tapes 0!hich isclose that urin+ the responents%u+ust 1, 166E ut/, three frauulent calls to Saui %rabia !ereille+all/ *ae,(5 as !ell as $a/anans s!orn state*enti*plicatin+ the responent.(C

The petitioner sub*its that the responents offense !as seriousin character an *erits the penalt/ of is*issal fro*e*plo/*ent. It contens that the responent !as accore thefull *easure of ue process before he !as is*isse? he !as+iven a notice !hich apprise hi* of the char+e a+ainst hi* anreAuire hi* to e2plain !h/ he shoul not be is*isse, an

%DMIN #%-

later, a notice of ter*ination. The petitioner clai*s that the#abor $oe si*pl/ reAuires that the e*plo/ee be +iven a !rittennotice containin+ a state*ent of the causes of ter*ination. Itinsists that the printout of the recorin+ of the $%M% tapesh i h h ill l i % 1

failure to o so !oul necessaril/ *ean that the is*issal !asille+al.;; The e*plo/ers case succees or fails on the stren+th of its evience an not on the !eaness of the e*plo/ees efense.If oubt e2ists bet!een the evience presente b/ the e*plo/er

h l h l f > i b il i f f

























'C

sho!in+ that three ille+al connections !ere *ae on %u+ust 1,166E is a *ere evientiar/ *atter that nee not be *entione in

the notice.

(<

:or his part, the responent avers that 8usas state*ent !asuncorroborate an hearsa/ for lac of cross3e2a*ination. Heinsists that 8usa coul not have seen hi* *ae ille+alconnections since the latters shift ca*e before his.('

The petitioner replies that an affiavit *a/ be a*issible even if the !itness is not presente urin+ trial because technical rulesare not strictl/ follo!e in proceein+s before the #abor %rbiter

an the N#R$.(6

The petition has no *erit.

It is a settle rule that factual finin+s of labor officials, !ho areee*e to have acAuire e2pertise in *atters !ithin their respective >urisictions, are +enerall/ accore not onl/ respect but even finalit/.;) Moreover, in a petition for revie! oncertiorari uner Rule E5, the Supre*e $ourt revie!s onl/ errorsof la! an not errors of facts.;1 Ho!ever, !here there is

iver+ence in the finin+s an conclusions of the N#R$, on theone han, fro* those of the #abor %rbiter an the $ourt of %ppeals, on the other, the $ourt is constraine to e2a*ine theevience.;(

In ter*ination cases, the buren of proof rests upon thee*plo/er to sho! that the is*issal is for >ust an vali cause@

an the e*plo/ee, the scales of >ustice *ust be tilte in favor of the latter.;E Moreover, the Auantu* of proof reAuire in

eter*inin+ the le+alit/ of an e*plo/ees is*issal is onl/substantial evience. Substantial evience is *ore than a *erescintilla of evience or relevant evience as a reasonable *in*i+ht accept as aeAuate to support a conclusion, even if other *ins, eAuall/ reasonable, *i+ht conceivabl/ opine other!ise.;5

In this case, the appellate court rule for responent Tia*son,ratiocinatin+ as follo!s?

The issues pose b/ both parties involve the evaluation of the

finin+s of facts b/ the a+encies a )uo. -hile the +eneral rule isthat factual issues coul not be properl/ raise an consiere ina petition for certiorari, it ho!ever a*its of this e2ception thata dishar"on$ bet!een the #actual #indings o# the =abor rbiter

and those o# the ;=3C opens the door to revie! thereo# b$ theSupre"e Court 0%suncion vs. National #abor Relations$o**ission, ;C( S$R% 5C, incluin+, of course, the $ourt of %ppeals.

The cru2 of both petitions is !hether the N#R$ !ith its finin+s

Auote belo!, !as correct in settin+ asie the isposition of the#abor %rbiter?

-e isa+ree that responent faile to present evience linin+co*plainant to the ille+al connection sca*. %s pointe out b/the responent, co3e*plo/ee 8usa an $a/anan in the course of their investi+ation i*plicate co*plainants participation in

%DMIN #%-

ille+al overseas connection. $o*plainant also faile to refuteresponents evience that on %u+ust 1, 166E, !hile he !as onut/, three 0; overseas calls to Saui %rabia !ere recore inca*a tape 0%nne2 E, p. ;), recors.

%u+ust 1, 166E !hile he !as on ut/, three 0; overseas calls toSaui %rabia !ere recore in the ca*a tape. This !as notinicate in the *e*oranu* sent to hi* on %u+ust 1(, 166E,the full te2t of !hich reas?




















'<

Ho!ever, !e consier the penalt/ of is*issal too harsh

consierin+ that responent i*pose a si2t/ 0C)3a/ suspensionon Paul $ruaa, a co3e*plo/ee of co*plainant !ho sub*itte0 sic culpabilit/. :or !here a lesser punitive penalt/ !oulsuffice, the supre*e penalt/ of is*issal shoul be visite0%l*ira vs. 8.:. 9oorich, 5' S$R% 1(). 7ner thecircu*stances, reinstate*ent but !ithout bac!a+es isappropriate 0pp. ;63E), 3ollo

Our revie! of the recors reveals that a*on+ the threee*plo/ees !ho issue s!orn state*ents, na*el/, 8usa, $a/anan

an $ruaa, it !as onl/ 8usa !ho irectl/ i*plicate Tia*sonan it !as one ine2plicabl/ onl/ in his secon s!orn state*ent.It oes not inspire creence as it co*es as an afterthou+ht anthe contents are seriousl/ fla!e on *aterial points. #oo*in+lar+e is the clai* of 8usa that on several occasions !hen heca*e to relieve Tia*son, he observe that his circuit !as lo++eon an in use, an Tia*son !oul then put it off before leavin+.This is a canar because the shift of 8usa !as fro* 1?)) p.*. toC?)) a.*. an of course ahea of the C?)) a.*. to (?)) p.*. shiftof Tia*son !ho ca*e in as his reliever. Their tours of ut/ !as

in the converse orer of !hat 8usa clai*e, an so he spoe!ith a fore ton+ue !hen he state that Tia*son at the precein+ shift ha his circuit lo++e on an s!itche this off !hen he left.

% no less i*portant point is the unispute fact that Tia*son!as not +iven the opportunit/ to confute the char+e that on

%u+ust 1(, 166E

TO ? MR. %NTONIO F. TI%MSON Raio Tech II $lar TM$

:ROM ? Division Hea, North #uon Toll Net!or

S784"$T? %DMINISTR%TIV" $%S"

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Investi+ation of the co*plaint inicate hereuner isclose

that?

1. $o*plainant Mr. %nthon/ D/, Presient D%T"#$OM $orp.

(. The ecrease of toll revenue for D%T"#$OM%n+elesKMabalacat "2chan+e ue to frauulent overseas callsca* !as co*plaine an notifie b/ Mr. %. D/ to Mrs. H. 9.9enrano $lar "2chan+e Division Hea on 4ul/ (C, 166E.

;. The co*plainant reAueste assistance to N8I an P#DT F$Ito apprehen the personnel responsible for the ille+alconnection.

E. % clue !as provie b/ Mr. %nthon/ D/ that the ille+aloverseas call !as co*in+ fro* $lar3TM$ throu+h tape aneAuip*ent *onitorin+.

%DMIN #%-

5. In the F$I investi+ation, /ou !ere i*plicate b/ /our fello!Raio Technician Mr. Vial $. 8usa as involve in the case. &oua*itte /ou no! ho! to operate the #enurt (CC)) Si+nallin+Test Set to initiate a call but enie oin+ it for personal +ain or interest but /ou faile to report the ano*al/ to /our superior as

unerlinin+ supplie. Procedural due process re)uires that the

e"plo$er serve the e"plo$ees to be dis"issed t!o 01: !ritten

notices be#ore the ter"ination o# their e"plo$"ent is e##ected?0a: the #irst, to apprise the" o# the particular acts or o"ission

#or !hich their dis"issal is sought

< and 0b: second to in#or"



''

interest but /ou faile to report the ano*al/ to /our superior asone of /our supervisors !as involve in the frauulent case.

The acts escribe above are in violation of the $o*pan/s rulesan re+ulations an is punishable !ith is*issal fro* theservice.

In vie! of the above, please e2plain in !ritin+ !ithin <( hoursfro* receipt hereof !h/ /ou shoul not be is*isse fro* theservice for the acts escribe above. &ou *a/ elect to be hear if /ou so esire.

Please be infor*e also that /ou !ill be place uner preventivesuspension !hich !ill tae effect on %u+ust 1C, 166E penin+resolution of the case.

If no !ritten e2planation is receive fro* /ou !ithin the sai perio of <( hours, this case !ill be ecie on the basis of theevience on han. 0p. ((<, 3ollo

0S9D.

%RM%NDO %. %8"S%MIS

Procedural due process re)uires that an e"plo$ee be apprised

o# the charge against hi", given reasonable ti"e to ans!er the

sa"e, allo!ed a"ple opportunit$ to be heard and de#endhi"sel#, and assisted b$ a representative i# the e"plo$ee so

desires 0$oncore Hotel vs. $ourt of %ppeals, ;C( S$R% 5';@

#or !hich their dis"issal is sought < and 0b: second, to in#or"

the" o# the decision o# the e"plo$er that the$ are beingdis"issed 0Perpetual Help $reit $ooperative, Inc. vs. :aburaa,;CC S$R% C6;@ unerlinin+ supplie. The #abor %rbiter,therefore, !as correct in rulin+ that Tia*son !as inee ille+all/is*isse fro* his e*plo/*ent.;C

The petitioner *aintains that contrar/ to the finin+s anconclusions of the appellate court, it has establishe throu+hsubstantial evience that there !as >ust cause for theresponents is*issal. To bolster such contention, the petitioner auces the follo!in+ ocu*entar/ eviences? 01 the s!orn

state*ents of Vial 8usa specificall/ i*plicatin+ the responent@

0( the s!orn state*ent of %rnel $a/anan@ an 0; the printoutof the $%M% tape, recorin+ the unauthorie overseas callsori+inatin+ fro* $lar3TM$ urin+ the responents tour of ut/.

The responent isputes the a*issibilit/ of 8usas s!ornstate*ents for bein+ hearsa/ since the latter !as not presentefor cross3e2a*ination. This ar+u*ent, ho!ever, is not

persuasive because the rules of evience are not strictl/ observein proceein+s before a*inistrative boies lie the N#R$!here ecisions *a/ be reache on the basis of position papersonl/.;<

The $ourt a+rees !ith the contentions of the responent an thefinin+s an rulin+s of the $%.

%DMIN #%-

The petitioner inee faile to auce substantial evience to prove that the is*issal of the responent !as for a >ust cause.In his first s!orn state*ent, 8usa i*plicate the responent inthe ille+al connections of overseas calls in this *anner?

for*er lie!ise *ae the follo!in+ state*ents?

T ; 3 %/on sa i/o, +ina+a!a rin ni Mr. Tia*son an+ *a+u3uneta n+ *+a ille+al na ta!a+ overseas sa pa*a*a+itan n+pa+ +a*it n+ in/on+ Raio "Auip*ent Ta*a ba ito







'6

T (5 3 8uo sa i/o, sinu3sino pa sa *+a asa*ahan *o an+

tinuruan ni Mr. $a/anan n+ siste*an+ ito

S 3 Sina %ntonio Tia*son at Paul $ruaa na pa!an+ *+aRaio Technicians in.

T (C 3 %n+ ibi+ *o sabihin, +ina+a!a in nina Mr. Tia*son at$ruaa

an+ *a+pa3patch n+ *+a ta!a+ sa abroa o overseas

S 3 Opo.

T (< 3 Paano *o na*an nasisi+uro ito

S 3 Naiita o po.

T (' 3 Paano *o na*an naita sa*antalan+ *a+a3iba an+ tour of ut/

nin/o

S 3 Pa+ na+3rel/ebo a*i a/ naaabutan on+ naa3en+a+e an+circuit at pa+ tinanon+ o a/ sinasabi n+a nilan+ *a/ ta!a+ silaat asaluu/an+ na+3uusap an+ *a+abilan+ parties.;'

Durin+ the confrontation bet!een 8usa an the responent, the

pa+3+a*it n+ in/on+ Raio "Auip*ent. Ta*a ba ito

S 3 Ta*a po, Sir.

T E 3 Paano *o nala*an na +ina+a!a rin ni Mr. Tia*son ito

S 3 Dahil naiita o si/an+ na+uuneta at ilan+ beses o rin+naatnan apa+ na+3rel/ebo a*i na +u*a+ana an+ circuit naan+ ibi+ sabihin a/ *a/ na+3uusap. %t ba+o si/a aalis a/inilala+a/ ni/a sa nor*al position an+ lin/an+ +ina*it ni/a.

T 5 3 ailan pa ito +in+a!a ni Mr. Tia*son un+ natatanaan

*o pa

S 3 Sa natatanaan o +ina+a!a ni/a ito *a+*ula noon+ 166( pa.

T C 3 %/on pa rin sa i/o, ala* in ni Mr. Tia*son na +ina+a!arin ni Mr. $a/anan iton+ *+a ille+al activities na ito. Paano *onasabi na ala* ni Mr. Tia*son iton+ +ina+a!a ni Mr. $a/anan

S 3 asi *a+aasa*a a*i at a*in+ apat lan+ nina Mr.$a/anan, Mr.Tia*son, Mr. $ruaa at ao an+ naaa3ala*ni/an+ operation na i/an.;6

On the other han, urin+ the confrontation a*on+ all four e*plo/ees i*plicate in the *atter, $a/anan testifie that he!as a!are that his BsuborinatesB !ere en+a+e in ille+al

%DMIN #%-

activities. Ho!ever, he faile to specificall/ *ention !ho thesesuborinates !ere.E)

%lthou+h a*issible in evience, affiavits bein+ self3servin+*ust be receive !ith caution This is because the averse part/

a*inistrative actions?

L It is true that a*inistrative an Auasi3>uicial boies lie the N#R$ are not boun b/ the technical rules of proceure in thea>uication of cases Ho!ever this proceural rule shoul not









6)

*ust be receive !ith caution. This is because the averse part/is not affore an/ opportunit/ to test their veracit/.E1 8/

the*selves, +eneralie an pro for*a affiavits cannotconstitute relevant evience !hich a reasonable *in *a/accept as aeAuate.E( There *ust be so*e other relevantevience to corroborate such affiavits.

On this point, the petitioner sub*its that the printout of the$%M% tapes corroborate 8usas s!orn state*ent. % perusal of the printout, ho!ever, sho!s that it is not authenticate b/ the proper officer of the co*pan/. Moreover, the na*e of theresponent an the other annotations in the sai printout are

han!ritten an unsi+ne.

The rulin+ in suncion v. ;ational =abor 3elations

Co""issionE; is instructive on ho! such ocu*ent shoul betreate. In that case, the e*plo/er sub*itte a han!rittenlistin+ an co*puter printouts to establish the char+es a+ainstthe e*plo/ee. The han!ritten listin+ !as not si+ne, an !hilethere !as a co*puter3+enerate listin+, the entries of ti*e another annotations therein !ere also han!ritten an unsi+ne.The $ourt rule that the han!ritten listin+ an unsi+ne

co*puter printouts !ere unauthenticate, hence, unreliable.Mere self3servin+ evience 0of !hich the listin+ an printoutsare of that nature shoul be re>ecte as evience !ithout an/rational probative value even in a*inistrative proceein+s.EE

Thus, in ichico v. ;ational =abor 3elations Co""ission,E5 the$ourt eluciate the e2tent of the liberalit/ of proceure in

a>uication of cases. Ho!ever, this proceural rule shoul not be construe as a license to isre+ar certain funa*ental

evientiar/ rules. Dhile the rules o# evidence prevailing in thecourts o# la! or e)uit$ are not controlling in proceedings be#ore

the ;=3C, the evidence presented be#ore it "ust at least have a

"odicu" o# ad"issibilit$ #or it to be given so"e probative value.EEC

The ecisions of this $ourt, !hile aherin+ to a liberal vie! inthe conuct of proceein+s before a*inistrative a+encies, havenonetheless consistentl/ reAuire so*e proof of authenticit/ or reliabilit/ as a conition for the a*ission of ocu*ents.E<

%bsent an/ such proof of authenticit/, the printout of the $%M%tape shoul be consiere ina*issible, hence, !ithout an/ probative !ei+ht.

To conclue, the petitioner has not establishe b/ substantialevience that there !as >ust cause for the responentster*ination fro* his e*plo/*ent. The s!orn state*ents of 8usaan $a/anan alone are not sufficient to establish that theresponent !as +uilt/ of serious *isconuct. In li+ht of suchfinin+, there is no nee to elve into !hether or not the

responent !as affore ue process !hen he !as is*isse b/the petitioner.

ERE;ORE, pre*ises consiere, the petition is DENIED

DUE COURSE. The Decision of the $ourt of %ppeals ate%pril 1C, ())E, an its Resolution ate 4ul/ (<, ())E in $%39.R. SP Nos. 51'55 an 5((E< are A;;IRMED.

%DMIN #%-

P#DT vs. Tia*son, 9.R. No. 1CEC'E3'5, Nov. 11, ())5

;ACTUAL ;INDINGS INDING UPON COURTS:

=abor =a! =abor 3elations %er"ination o# >"plo$"ent

%!in ;otice 3ule

Grounds #or %er"ination Substantial >vidence





















61

It is a settle rule that factual finin+s of labor officials, !ho are

ee*e to have acAuire e2pertise in *atters !ithin their respective >urisictions, are +enerall/ accore not onl/ respect but even finalit/. Moreover, in a petition for revie! on certiorariuner Rule E5, the Supre*e $ourt revie!s onl/ errors of la!an not errors of facts. Ho!ever, !here there is iver+ence inthe finin+s an conclusions of the N#R$, on the one han,fro* those of the #abor %rbiter an the $ourt of %ppeals, on theother, the $ourt is constraine to e2a*ine the evience.

URDEN O; PROO;:

In ter*ination cases, the buren of proof rests upon thee*plo/er to sho! that the is*issal is for >ust an vali cause@failure to o so !oul necessaril/ *ean that the is*issal !asille+al. The e*plo/ers case succees or fails on the stren+th of its evience an not on the !eaness of the e*plo/ees efense.If oubt e2ists bet!een the evience presente b/ the e*plo/er an the e*plo/ee, the scales of >ustice *ust be tilte in favor of the latter. Moreover, the Auantu* of proof reAuire ineter*inin+ the le+alit/ of an e*plo/ees is*issal is onl/substantial evience. Substantial evience is *ore than a *erescintilla of evience or relevant evience as a reasonable *in*i+ht accept as aeAuate to support a conclusion, even if other *ins, eAuall/ reasonable, *i+ht conceivabl/ opine other!ise. F2F SC3 246 Political =a! Constitutional =a! /ue Process< Private >ntities Procedural /ue Process

%ntonio Tia*son !as a raio technician at P#DT 0Philippine

#on+ Distance Telephone $o*pan/, Inc.. In 166E, P#DTiscovere that there !ere so*e ille+al lon+ istance calls bein+*ae b/ e*plo/ees. Tia*son an his !or*ates !eresu**one. One e*plo/ee na*e Vial 8usa a*itte to the!ron+oin+s but he i*plicate his other !or*ates incluin+Tia*son. P#DT then *ae the investi+ation for*al an 8usa!as *ae to sub*it an affiavit containin+ his earlier stor/@notices !ere sent to the e*plo/ees to e2plain@ an investi+ation!as one@ an later ter*ination notices !ere sent. %*on+ thoseter*inate !as Tia*son.

Tia*son later sue P#DT for ille+al is*issal as he clai*e thet!in notice rule !as not full/ co*plie !ith.

ISSUE: -hether or not Tia*son !as enie ue process.

ELD: &es. In ter*ination cases, the buren of proof rests uponthe e*plo/er to sho! that the is*issal is for >ust an valicause@ failure to o so !oul necessaril/ *ean that the is*issal!as ille+al. The e*plo/ers case succees or fails on the

stren+th of its evience an not on the !eaness of thee*plo/ees efense. If oubt e2ists bet!een the evience presente b/ the e*plo/er an the e*plo/ee, the scales of >ustice *ust be tilte in favor of the latter. Moreover, theAuantu* of proof reAuire in eter*inin+ the le+alit/ of ane*plo/ees is*issal is onl/ substantial evience. Substantialevience is *ore than a *ere scintilla of evience or relevant

%DMIN #%-

evience as a reasonable *in *i+ht accept as aeAuate tosupport a conclusion, even if other *ins, eAuall/ reasonable,*i+ht conceivabl/ opine other!ise.

In this case, it appears that althou+h Tia*son !as sent a first

ter*ination of their e*plo/*ent is effecte? 0a the first, toapprise the* of the particular acts or o*ission for !hich their is*issal is sou+ht@ an 0b secon, to infor* the* of theecision of the e*plo/er that the/ are bein+ is*isse. %+ain, inthis case, the first notice !as not full/ co*plie !ith hence,



6(

In this case, it appears that althou+h Tia*son !as sent a firstnotice 0asin+ hi* to e2plain his sie an then a secon notice0ter*ination notice an he !as also invite in a confrontation!ith the *ana+e*ent, still, the !in notice rule !as not full/co*plie !ith. The recors sho! that 8usa an his other !or*ates sub*itte affiavits that i not i*plicate Tia*son.Ho!ever, 8usa !as *ae to sub*it a secon affiavit !hichno! i*pliacte Tia*son !hich is Auite irre+ular aninconsistent this !oul alrea/ create oubt in a reasonable*in as to !hether or not Tia*son reall/ co**itte the!ron+oin+.

Recors further sho! that P#DT base its ter*ination of Tia*sons services on the +roun that 8usa !itnesse Tia*sonafter the latter alle+el/ >ust finishe *ain+ ille+al lon+istance calls. This alle+ation b/ 8usa !as never co**unicateto Tia*son 0as sho!n b/ the recors. Hence, Tia*son !asnever notifie of the char+es a+ainst hi* in short, the firstnotice sent to Tia*son !as inco*plete as to the char+es a+ainsthi*.

Proceural ue process reAuires that an e*plo/ee be apprise of

the char+e a+ainst hi*, +iven reasonable ti*e to ans!er thesa*e, allo!e a*ple opportunit/ to be hear an efenhi*self, an assiste b/ a representative if the e*plo/ee soesires.

Proceural ue process reAuires that the e*plo/er serve thee*plo/ees to be is*isse t!o 0( !ritten notices before the

, / p ,Tia*son !as ille+all/ is*isse b/ P#DT.

%DMIN #%-

admin cases wave 2

Documents