admin digested cases

8/9/2019 Admin Digested Cases

1/50

1. ABELLA vs. CSC

Facts:

"Petitioner Francisco A. Abella, Jr., a lawyer,retired from the Export Processing Zone

Authority EPZA!, now the Philippine EconomicZone Authority PEZA!, on July , ##$ as

%epartment &anager of the 'egal (er)ices%epartment. *e held a ci)il ser)ice eligibility forthe position of %epartment &anager, ha)ingcompleted the training program for Executi)e'eadership and &anagement in #+ underthe -i)il (er)ice Academy, pursuant to -(-esolution /o. +01 dated April $, #2#, whichwas then the re3uired eligibility for saidposition.

"4t appears, howe)er, that on &ay 5,

##6, the -i)il (er)ice -ommissionissued &emorandum -ircular /o. ,series of ##6, the pertinent pro)isionsof which read7

8. Positions -o)ered by the -areer Executi)e(er)ice

"9wo years after his retirement,petitioner was hired by the (ubic :ay&etropolitan Authority (:&A! on a

contractual basis. ;n January , ###,petitioner was issued by (:&A apermanent employment as %epartment&anager 444, 'abor and Employment-enter. *owe)er, when saidappointment was submitted torespondent -i)il (er)ice -ommissionegional ;ffice /o. 444, it wasdisappro)ed on the ground thatpetitioner8s eligibility was notappropriate. Petitioner was ad)ised by

(:&A of the disappro)al of hisappointment. 4n )iew thereof, petitionerwas issued a temporary appointment as%epartment &anager 444, 'abor andEmployment -enter, (:&A on July #,###.

"Petitioner appealed the disappro)al of hispermanent appointment by respondent to the-i)il (er)ice -ommission, which issuedesolution /o. 11110#, dated January 1,

111, affirming the action taurisdiction in ruling thatpetitioner lac


2/50

=hile there is >ustification to allow theappointing authority to challenge the -(-disappro)al, there is none to preclude theappointee from taured by the operation of a law or by official

action ta


3/50

identified positions and other positions of thesame category which had been pre)iouslyclassified and included in the -E(, all otherthird

le)el positions in all branches andinstrumentalities of the nationalgo)ernment, including

go)ernmentBowned or controlledcorporations with original chartersare embraced within the -areerExecuti)e (er)ice pro)ided thatthey meet the following criteria7

". the position is a careerposition?

". the position is abo)edi)ision chief le)el?

"5. the duties andresponsibilities of theposition re3uire theperformance of executi)eor managerial functions."

"6. (tatus of Appointment of 4ncumbentsof Positions Cnder the -o)erage of the-E(. 4ncumbents of positions which aredeclared to be -areer Executi)e (er)ice

positions for the first time pursuant tothis esolution who hold permanentappointments thereto shall remain underpermanent status in their respecti)epositions. *owe)er, upon promotion ortransfer to other -areer Executi)e(er)ice -E(! positions, theseincumbents shall be under temporarystatus in said other -E( positions untilthey 3ualify."

Petitioner argues that his eligibility, through theExecuti)e 'eadership and &anagement E'&!training program, could no longer be affectedby a new eligibility re3uirement. *e claims thathe was eligible for his pre)ious position asdepartment manager of the 'egal (er)ices%epartment, PEZA? hence, he should retain hiseligibility for the position of departmentmanager 444, 'abor and Employment -enter,(:&A, notwithstanding the classification of thelatter as a -E( position.

9he -onstitution mandates that, as "the centralpersonnel agency of the go)ernment,"62the-(- should "establish a career ser)ice andadopt measures to promote the morale,efficiency, integrity, responsi)eness,progressi)eness, and courtesy in the -i)il(er)ice."6+4t further re3uires that appointmentsin the ci)il ser)ice be made only through merit

and fitness to be determined by competiti)eexamination.6#-i)il (er)ice laws ha)eexpressly empowered the -(- to issue andenforce rules and regulations to carry out itsmandate.

4n the exercise of its authority, the -(-deemed it appropriate to clearly define and

identify positions co)ered by the -areerExecuti)e (er)ice.01'ogically, the -(- had toissue guidelines to meet this ob>ecti)e,specifically through the issuance of thechallenged -ircular.

9he challenged -ircular protects the rights ofincumbents as long as they remain in thepositions to which they were pre)iouslyappointed. 9hey are allowed to retain theirpositions in a permanent capacity,

notwithstanding the lac< of -(EE. -learly, the-ircular recognies the rule of prospecti)ity ofregulations?05hence, there is no basis to arguethat it is an ex post facto law06or a bill ofattainder.009hese terms, which ha)e settledmeanings in criminal >urisprudence, are clearlyinapplicable here.

9he go)ernment ser)ice of petitioner endedwhen he retired in ##$? thus, his right toremain in a -E( position, notwithstanding his

lac< of eligibility, also ceased. Cpon hisreemployment0$years later as departmentmanager 444 at (:&A in 11, it was necessaryfor him to comply with the eligibility prescribedat the time for that position.

Petitioner contends that his due process rights,as enunciated in Ang 9ibay ). -ourt of

Appeals,0+were )iolated.0#=e are notcon)inced. *e points in particular to the -(-8salleged failure to notify him of a hearing

relating to the issuance of the challenged-ircular.

9he classification of positions in career ser)icewas a 3uasiBlegislati)e, not a 3uasiB>udicial,issuance. 9his distinction determines whetherprior notice and hearing are necessary.

4n exercising its 3uasiB>udicial function, anadministrati)e body ad>udicates the rights ofpersons before it, in accordance with the

standards laid down by the law.$1

9hedetermination of facts and the applicable law,as basis for official action and the exercise of

>udicial discretion, are essential for theperformance of this function.$;n theseconsiderations, it is elementary that dueprocess re3uirements, as enumerated in Ang9ibay, must be obser)ed. 9hese re3uirementsinclude prior notice and hearing.$

3
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt62http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt47http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt48http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt49http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt50http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt53http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt54http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt55http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt56http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt58http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt59http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt60http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt61http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt62


4/50

;n the other hand, 3uasiBlegislati)e power isexercised by administrati)e agencies throughthe promulgation of rules and regulations withinthe confines of the granting statute and thedoctrine of nonBdelegation of certain powersflowing from the separation of the greatbranches of the go)ernment.$5Prior notice toand hearing of e)ery affected party, as

elements of due process, are not re3uiredsince there is no determination of past e)entsor facts that ha)e to be established orascertained. As a general rule, prior notice andhearing are not essential to the )alidity of rulesor regulations promulgated to go)ern futureconduct.$6

(ignificantly, the challenged -ircular was aninternal matter addressed to heads ofdepartments, bureaus and agencies. 4t needed

no prior publication, since it had been issuedas an incident of the administrati)e body8spower to issue guidelines for go)ernmentofficials to follow in performing their duties.

(isa!!oval o" A!!oint%ent

(ince petitioner had no -E( eligibility, the -(-correctly denied his permanent appointment.9he appointee need not ha)e been pre)iouslyheard, because the nature of the action did not

in)ol)e the imposition of an administrati)edisciplinary measure.$$9he -(-, in appro)ingor disappro)ing an appointment, merelyexamines the conformity of the appointmentwith the law and the appointee8s possession ofall the minimum 3ualifications and none of thedis3ualification.$2

4n sum, while petitioner was able todemonstrate his standing to appeal the -(-esolutions to the courts, he failed to pro)e his

eligibility to the position he was appointed to.

=*EEF;E, the Petition is HA/9E%insofar as it see

4
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt67http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt63http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt64http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt66http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152574_2004.html#fnt67


5/50

8#9 inte!eting la6s and ules outside o" its%andate and declaing Section 1$ Rule II o"Ad%inistative 0de )o. & null and void$and

8+9 disallo6ing the !ay%ent o" honorariaon the gound o" lac? o" authoity o"e!esentatives to attend the )AC %eetings

in ehal" o" the ex officio%e%es.

=e hold that the position of petitioner /A- isagainst the law and >urisprudence. 9he -;A iscorrect that there is no legal basis to grantperdiem, honorariaor any allowance whatsoe)erto the /A- ex officio members8 officialrepresentati)es. Article 4IB% of the -onstitutionordains the -;A to exercise exclusi)e andbroad auditing powers o)er all go)ernmententities or trustees, without any exception. 4t is

in accordance with this constitutional mandatethat the -;A issued &emorandum /o. #2B15+.

-ontrary to petitioner8s claim, -;A&emorandum /o. #2B15+ does not need, for)alidity and effecti)ity, the publication re3uiredby Article of the -i)il -ode. -;A&emorandum /o. #2B15+ is merely an internaland interpretati)e regulation or letter ofinstruction which does not need publication tobe effecti)e and )alid

9he /A- ex officiomembers8 representati)eswho were all appointi)e officials with ran


6/50

prohibitionD6 under (ection 2D0ofAdministrati)e ;rder /o. $+ A; $+K!,en>oining the grant of producti)ity incenti)ebenefits without prior appro)al of the President.(ection 6 of A; # directed Dall departments,offices and agencies which authoried paymentof -L ## Producti)ity 4ncenti)e :onus inexcess of the amount authoried under (ection

hereof Dare hereby directed to immediatelycause the returnMrefund of the excess within aperiod of six months to commence fifteen 0!days after the issuance of this ;rder.K 4ncompliance therewith, the heads of thedepartments or agencies of the go)ernmentconcerned, who are the herein respondents,caused the deduction from petitionersN salariesor allowances of the amounts needed to co)erthe alleged o)erpayments. 9o pre)ent therespondents from ma


7/50

9hirdly, the disallowance of the Auditor, P9rAhas already been resol)ed when this-ommission circularied thru -;A&emorandum O#B20+ dated April 5, ## the(upplemental to ules 4mplementing A $#2otherwise ournal of the*ouse of epresentati)es to buttress itssubmission that P9A is within the co)erage of

A $#2, to wit7

-hairman @eloso7 9he intent of includinggo)ernmentBowned and controlled corporationswithin the co)erage of the Act is the recognitionof the principle that when go)ernment goesinto business, it di)ests! itself of its immunityfrom suit and goes down to the le)el ofordinary pri)ate enterprises and sub>ects itselfto the ordinary laws of the land >ust liust li


8/50

collecti)ely!. 9hose in go)ernmentcorporations with special charter, which aresub>ect to -i)il (er)ice 'aws, ha)e no right tobargain collecti)ely!, except where the termsand conditions of employment are not fixed bylaw.D0 9heir rights and duties are notcomparable with those in the pri)ate sector.

(ince the terms and conditions of go)ernmentemployment are fixed by law, go)ernmentwor


9/50

and regulations, it bears stressing that thepower of administrati)e officials to promulgaterules in the implementation of the statute isnecessarily limited to what is pro)ided forin the legislati)e enactment.KD$ 4n the caseunder scrutiny, the (upplementary ules4mplementing A $#2 issued by the(ecretary of 'abor and Employment and the

(ecretary of Finance accord with theintendment and pro)isions of A $#2.-onse3uently, not being co)ered by A $#2,

A; # applies to the petitioner.

Ruling "o the Main Issue:

9he President is the head of the go)ernment.Ho)ernmental power and authority areexercised and implemented through him. *ispower includes the control o)er executi)e

departments BB

9he president shall ha)e control of all theexecuti)e departments, bureaus, and offices.*e shall ensure that the laws be faithfullyexecuted.K (ection 2, Article @44, #+2-onstitution!

-ontrol means the power of an officer to alteror modify or set aside what a subordinateofficer had done in the performance of his

duties and to substitute the >udgment of theformer for that of the latter.KD5 4t has beenheld that Dthe President can, by )irtue of hispower of control, re)iew, modify, alter or nullifyany action, or decision, of his subordinate inthe executi)e departments, bureaus, or officesunder him. *e can exercise this power motuproprio without need of any appeal from anyparty.KD55

=hen the President issued A; # limiting the

amount of incenti)e benefits, en>oining headsof go)ernment agencies from grantingincenti)e benefits without prior appro)al fromhim, and directing the refund of the excesso)er the prescribed amount, the President was

>ust exercising his power of control o)erexecuti)e departments. 9his is decisi)ely clearfrom the =*EEA( -'AC(E( of A; $+ and

A; #, to wit7

A%&4/4(9A94@E ;%E /;. $+

x x x=*EEA(, the producti)ity incenti)e benefitsgranted by the different agencies are of )aryingamounts, causing dissensionMdemoraliationon the part of those who had recei)ed less andthose who ha)e not yet recei)ed any suchbenefit, thereby defeating the purpose forwhich the same should be granted? and

=*EEA(, there exists the need to regulatethe grant of the producti)ity incenti)e benefitsor other similar allowances in conformity withthe policy on standardiation of compensationpursuant to epublic Act /o. $20+?x x x.K

A%&4/4(9A94@E ;%E /;. #x x x

=*EEA(, the faithful implementation ofstatutes, including the Administrati)e -ode of#+2 and all laws go)erning all forms ofadditional compensation and personnelbenefits is a -onstitutional prerogati)e )estedin the President of the Philippines under(ection 2, Article @44 of the #+2 -onstitution?

=*EEA(, the -onstitutional prerogati)eincludes the determination of the rates, thetiming and schedule of payment, and final

authority to commit limited resources ofgo)ernment for the payment of personnelincenti)es, cash awards, producti)ity bonus,and other forms of additional compensationand fringe benefits?

=*EEA(, some go)ernment agencies ha)eo)erlooect Administrati)e;rders to regulate the grant of producti)ityincenti)e benefits and to pre)entdiscontentment, dissatisfaction anddemoraliation among go)ernment personnelby committing limited resources of go)ernment

9


10/50

for the e3ual payment of incenti)es andawards. 9he President was only exercisinghis power of control by modifying the acts ofthe respondents who granted incenti)e benefitsto their employees without appropriateclearance from the ;ffice of the President,thereby resulting in the une)en distribution ofgo)ernment resources. 4n the )iew of the

President, respondents did a mista


11/50

=*EEF;E, the Petitions in H.. /os.1#61$, 1$6, 6#6, and 10$ arehereby %4(&4((E%, and as abo)eratiocinated, further deductions from thesalaries and allowances of petitioners arehereby E/J;4/E%.

4n H.. /o. #0#2, the assailed %ecision of

respondent -ommission on Audit isAFF4&E%. /o pronouncement as to costs.

(; ;%EE%.

CASE )0. #: RC4I 5S B0AR( 0F

C0MM2)ICATI0)S

FACTS:

4n H /o. 'B65$05, %iego &oralesN daughter

sent him a telegram while he was in &anila,

informing him that his wife has died. 9he

telegram was sent through petitioner -P4.

9he telegram, howe)er, ne)er reached &orales

because of the failure of the -P4 to transmit

said telegram to him. espondent allegedly

suffered incon)enience and additional

expenses and prays for damages.

&eanwhile, in H /o. 'B6052+, complainant

Pacifico 4nnocencio claims that his sister,

'ourdes, sent him a telegram on July 5, #20

through petitioner for the purpose of informing

him of the death of their father. *owe)er, the

telegram was ne)er recei)ed by Pacifico but

the sender, 'ourdes, was ne)er notified of such

failure. Pacifico claims to ha)e suffered mental

anguish and personal incon)eniences and thus

prays for damages.

After hearing, respondent board in both cases

imposed upon petitioner in each case a

disciplinary fine of P11.11.

ISS2E:

=;/ the :oard of -ommunications has

>urisdiction to taury caused by breach of obligation arising

from negligence.

EL(:

/;. As pro)ided under (ection # of the

Public (er)ice Act go)erning the organiation

of the (pecialied egulatory :oard, the :;-

has the power to issue certificates of public

con)enience. :ut this power to issue

certificates of public con)enience does not

carry with it the power or super)ision o)er

matters not related to the issuance of the

certificate of public con)enience or in the

performance therewith in a manner suitable to

promote public interest. 9he :;- has power to

impose fine only where public ser)ice )iolatesor fails to comply with terms or conditions of

the certificate of public con)enience or the

orders, decisions and regulations of the board.

&oreo)er, the proper forum for complaints of

in>ury caused by breach of obligation should be

in the courts.

%E-4(4;/ of :;-, re)ersed, set aside,

declared null and )oid for lac< of >urisdiction to

taoined the -ity Ho)ernment onJanuary 5, #$ as Assistant 'icense -ler


12/50

mo)ed for reconsideration, contending that thestatutory prohibition against nepotism was notapplicable to the appointment of @ictoria asHeneral (er)ices ;fficer. 9hey also assertedthat the -ommission had depri)ed @ictoria ofher right to due process by unilaterally re)o


13/50


14/50

-;/HE(( 9; APP;P4A9EPC:'4- FC/%( F;EIPE/%49CE.

-. 9*E 4&P'E&E/9A94;/ ;FA.;. /;. 51+ 4/(4%4;C('L'AL( 9*E H;C/%=; F;

A (L(9E& =*4-* =4''

@4;'A9E 9*E :4'' ;F 4H*9(E/(*4/E% 4/ 9*E-;/(949C94;/.

4ssue7

. =;/ the petition is a >usticiable aswould warrant a >udicial re)iew.Les

. =;/ the issuance of A.;. /o. 51+encroaches on the legislati)e powers ofthe -ongress.Les

5. =;/ A.;. /o. 51+ protects theindi)idualNs interest in pri)acy. /o

uling7

the petition is granted and Adminisrati)e ;rder/o. 51+ entitled "Adoption of a /ational-omputeried 4dentification eference (ystem"declared null and )oid for beingunconstitutional.

4. 9he petition is a >usticiable case asto warrant a >udicial re)iew bNco7

a. Petitioner, (en. ;ple, has legalstanding to sue. As a (enator, he is possessed of

the re3uisite to bring suit raisingthe issue that the issuance of

A.;. 51+ is a usurpation oflegislati)e power.

. As a taxpayer ad member of theH(4(, he can impugn the legalityof the misalignment of the publicfunds and the misuse of H(4(funds to implement A.;. 51+.

b. Petition at bar is ripe for ad>udicationregardless of the fact thatimplementing rules of A.;. 51+ ha)eyet been promulgated because suchrules does not cure the fatal defect ofsaid A.;.

44. 9he issuance of A.;. 51+encroaches on the legislati)e powersof the -ongress bNco7

a. A.;. 51+ in)ol)es a sub>ect thatis not appropriate to be co)eredby an A.;.

A.;.B is an ordinance issuedby the President which relatesto (PE-4F4- aspects in theadministrati)e operation ofgo)ernment. And it must be7

a. 4n harmony with the law,andb. for the sole purpose ofimplementing the law andcarrying out the legislati)epolicy.

9o simply argue that A.;. 51+

merely implements theadministrati)e -ode of #+2 isnot enough because. 9he code is a general law,

and A; 51+ does not specifywhich aspect of said code itrelates.

. 4t ought to be e)ident that A;51+ deals with a sub>ect thatshould be co)ered by law.

b. :eing a law, A; 51+ erodes the

plenary power of -ongress tomaoyinghis pri)ileges. Hi)en this reality,the contention that A.;. /o. 51+

gi)es no right and imposes noduty cannot stand.

. Fisher7 egulations are notsupposed to be a substitute forthe general policyBma


15/50

stored in the computer shallbe handled.

A.;. /o. 51+ does not statewhat specific biologicalcharacteristics and whatparticular biometricstechnology shall be used toidentify people who will seeustified by some compellingstate interest and that it isnarrowly drawn. 4t will not dofor the authorities to in)o


16/50

PA!. 9he application was docudice to its reinstatementshould the re3uisite fre3uencies be made

a)ailable.

&arch #, 111, /9- issued &- /o. #B5B111reallocating fre3uencies for assignment toexisting -&9( operators and to publictelecommunication entities which shall beauthoried to install, operate and maintain-&9( networudgement or discretion and findings of fact.06 Am. Jur. 00+B00#! xxx.

9he established exception to the rule is wherethe issuing authority has gone beyond itsstatutory authority, exercised unconstitutionalpowers or clearly acted arbitrarily and withoutregard to his duty or with gra)e abuse ofdiscretion. /one of these obtains in the case

at bar.

9his -ourt has consistently held that the courtswill not interfere in matters which areaddressed to the sound discretion of thego)ernment agency entrusted with theregulation of acti)ities coming under thespecial and technical training and


17/50

which ha)e ac3uired expertise because their>urisdiction is confined to specific matters aregenerally accorded not only respect but e)enfinality and are binding e)en upon the (upreme-ourt if they are supported by substantiale)idence.

Administrati)e agencies are gi)en a wide

latitude in the e)aluation of e)idence and in theexercise of its ad>udicati)e functions. 9hislatitude includes the authority to taudicialnotice of facts within its special competence.

4n the case at bar, we find no reason to disturbthe factual findings of the /9- which formedthe basis for awarding the pro)isional authorityto :ayantel.

5! 4n the regulatory telecommunications

industry, the /9- has the sole authority toissue -ertificates of Public -on)enience and/ecessity -P-/! for the installation,operation, and maintenance of communications facilities and ser)ices, radiocommunications systems, telephone andtelegraphy systems. (uch power includes theauthority to determine the areas of operationsof applicants for telecommunications ser)ices.(pecifically, (ection $ of the Public (er)ice

Act Authories the then P(-, upon notice and

hearing, to issue -ertificates of Public-on)enience for the operation of publicser)ices within the Philippines "whene)er the-ommission finds that the operation of thepublic ser)ice proposed and the authoriationto do business will promote the public interestsin a proper and suitable manner." 9heprocedure go)erning the issuance of suchauthoriations is set forth in (ection # of thesaid Act, the pertinent portion of which states7

"All hearings and in)estigations before the-ommission shall be go)erned by rules andadopted by the -ommission, and in theconduct thereof, the -ommission shall not bebound by the technical rules of legale)idence.xxx.

9he /9- was correct when it applied the #2+ules of practice and procedure, particularlyule 0, (ec. 5 Pro)isional elief. Cpon thefiling of an application, complaint or petition or

at any stage thereafter, the :oard may grant onmotion of the pleader or on its own initiati)e,the relief prayed for, based on the pleading,together with the affida)its and supportingdocuments attached thereto, without pre>udiceto a final decision after completion of thehearing which shall be called within thirty 51!days from grant of authority asunction issued by the -ourt of

Appeals is '4F9E%. 9he ;rders of the /9-dated February , 111 and &ay 5, 111 areE4/(9A9E%. /o pronouncement as to costs.

(; ;%EE%.

%a)ide, Jr., -.J., -hairman!, Puno, apunan,and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Case ': Macos vs. Mangla!us

=e recall that in February #+$, Ferdinand E.

&arcos was deposed from the presidency )ia

the nonB)iolent "people power" re)olution and

forced into exile.

/ow, &r. &arcos, in his deathbed, has signifiedhis wish to return to the Philippines to die. :ut

&rs. A3uino, considering the dire

conse3uences to the nation of his return at a

time when the stability of go)ernment is

threatened from )arious directions and the

economy is >ust beginning to rise and mo)e

forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar

the return of &r. &arcos and his family.

9his petition for mandamus and prohibition

asoin

the implementation of the President8s decision

to bar their return to the Philippines.

;ur resolution of the issue will in)ol)e a twoBtiered approach. =e shall7

a. First resol)e whether or not the President

has the power under the -onstitution, to bar

the &arcoses from returning to the Philippines.

17


18/50

b. 9hen, we shall determine, pursuant to the

express power of the -ourt under the

-onstitution in Article @444, (ection , whether

or not the President acted arbitrarily or with

gra)e abuse of discretion amounting to lac< or

excess of >urisdiction when she determinedthat the return of the &arcoses to the

Philippines poses a serious threat to national

interest and welfare and decided to bar their

return.

A. 9he power under the constitution.

=e hold the )iew that although the #+2-onstitution imposes limitations on the

exercise of specific powers of the President, it

maintains intact what is traditionally considered

as within the scope of "executi)e power."

-orollarily, the powers of the President cannot

be said to be limited only to the specific powers

enumerated in the -onstitution. 4n other words,

executi)e power is more than the sum of

specific powers so enumerated.

4t has been ad)anced that whate)er power

inherent in the go)ernment that is neither

legislati)e nor >udicial has to be executi)e.

9he -onstitution declares among the guiding

principles that "Dthe prime duty of the

Ho)ernment is to ser)e and protect the people"and that "Dthe maintenance of peace and

order, the protection of life, liberty, and

property, and the promotion of the general

welfare are essential for the en>oyment by all

the people of the blessings of democracy." DArt.

44, (ecs. 6 and 0.

Faced with the problem of whether or not the

time is right to allow the &arcoses to return to

the Philippines, the President is, under the

-onstitution, constrained to consider these

basic principles in arri)ing at a decision. &ore

than that, ha)ing sworn to defend and uphold

the -onstitution, the President has the

obligation under the -onstitution to protect the

people, promote their welfare and ad)ance the

national interest.

9o the President, the problem is one of

balancing the general welfare and the common

good against the exercise of rights of certain

indi)iduals.

:. Extent of e)iew

Pursuant to the principle of separation of

powers underlying our system of go)ernment,

the Executi)e is supreme within his own

sphere. *owe)er, the separation of powers,

under the -onstitution, is not absolute. =hat is

more, it goes hand in hand with the system of

chec


19/50

bolsters the conclusion that the return of the

&arcoses at this time would only exacerbate

and intensify the )iolence directed against the

(tate and instigate more chaos.

=ith these before her, the President cannot be

said to ha)e acted arbitrarily and capriciously

and whimsically in determining that the return

of the &arcoses poses a serious threat to the

national interest and welfare and in prohibiting

their return.

=*EEF;E, and it being our wellB

considered opinion that the President did not

act arbitrarily or with gra)e abuse of discretionin determining that the return of former

President &arcos and his family at the present

time and under present circumstances poses a

serious threat to national interest and welfare

and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines,

the instant petition is hereby %4(&4((E%.

1/.9 &//ection from*enson, @alencia leased the property for fi)e0! years to Fr. Andres Flores under a ci)il law

lease concept beginning August #21 oruntil 51 June #20 after which the lease wascancelled and inscribed as Entry /o. 02+ in9-9 /o. *B9B52. 9he lease agreementbetween @alencia and Fr. Flores was sub>ect toa prohibition against subleasing orencumbering the land without @alenciaNswritten consent. 9his was admitted by theparties as reflected in the %A 4n)estigationeport and ecommendations.D 9heprohibition against subleasing or encumbering

of the land apparently included the prohibitionagainst installing a leasehold tenant thereon.4ncidentally, it may be mentioned that in theprior lease agreement with *enson no suchprohibition was stipulated.

%uring the period of his lease, *ensoninstituted -rescenciano Frias and &arcianoFrias to wor< on the property, although only-rescenciano Frias apparently remained in theland while &arciano Frias must ha)e

abandoned his cause if any, as he was notimpleaded in this case? neither did he appearon record to ha)e been issued a -'9 in hisname.

%uring the lease of Fr. Andres Flores, hedesignated Francisco ;bang as o)erseer!,ogelio 9amayo, Federico Jare, Feliciano'obresco, &elchor &oncada, osendo

19


20/50

'obresco, @ictoriano &ontefalcon, (antosHargaya, -atalino &antac, *erodita (emillano,Ernesto 'obresco, /ati)idad 'obresco and

Alfredo %emerin, along with -rescenciano and&arciano Frias, to culti)ate the land. 9hesefarmhands shared their produce with Fr.Flores. (ubse3uently, Francisco ;bang,(antos Hargaya, -rescenciano Frias, Federico

Jare, osendo 'obresco, Juliano &agdayao,Ernesto 'obresco, Feliciano 'obresco,-atalino &antac, @ictoriano &ontefalcon,

Ambrosio (emillano, ogelio 9amayo andEdilberto 'obresco, became recipients of -'9sand are collecti)ely referred to herein aspri)ate respondents.

=hen the lease agreement between @alenciaand Fr. Flores expired on 51 June #20,@alencia demanded that pri)ate respondents

)acate the premises. 4nstead of complyingwith the demand, they refused and continuedculti)ating the land despite the demand forthem to )acate. @alencia wanted to regainpossession of his property so he could wor< itby administration, ha)ing in fact appointed:ernie :autista as o)erseer until petitionercould retire from the go)ernment ser)ice.

4n his initial step in his long and agoniing>ourney, @alencia filed a letter of protest with

the &inister of Agrarian eform to taect of the ci)il law lease agreement. ;n1 &arch #2$ his letter was referred to the%A egional ;ffice in -ebu -ity.

&eanwhile, without the


21/50

President, affirmed the order of the %A of July ## sub>ect to the modification that thearea ac3uired by petitioner @alencia ashomestead be excluded from the co)erage ofP. %. /o. 2.

@alencia then brought his case to the -ourt ofAppeals contending that the Executi)e

(ecretary erred in recogniing pri)aterespondents as tenants and disallowing himand his se)en 2! "compulsory heirs" fromexercising their right of retention under . A./o. $$02. *owe)er, in a decision promulgatedon 2 July ##0 the -ourt of Appealsdismissed the case on a technical ground, i.e.,that his appeal was filed out of time.D# 9heappellate court ruled that petitioner shouldha)e filed with it a petition for re)iew withinfifteen 0! days from receipt of the order of the

%A (ecretary pursuant to (ec. 06 of . A./o. $$02 and (upreme -ourt Adm. -irc. /o. B#0, instead of ele)ating the case to the ;fficeof the President pursuant to %A &emo. -irc./o. 5, series of ##6. *ence, according to the-ourt of Appeals, the petition of @alencia wasfiled out of time.

ISS2ES:. %A &emo. -irc. /o. 5, series of ##6, is

)alid not being contrary to law and>urisprudence, and should be accorded respectbeing the Agrarian eform (ecretaryNsconstruction of the law that his %epartmentadministers and implements

. 4s an appeal to the ;ffice of the Presidentfrom the %epartment (ecretary pursuant to%A &emo. -irc. /o. 5, series of ##6, properunder the doctrine of exhaustion ofadministrati)e remediesS

5. (ubstanti)e issue! -an a contract of ci)illaw lease prohibit a ci)il law lessee fromemploying a tenant on the land sub>ect matterof the lease agreementS ;therwise stated,can petitionerNs ci)il law lessee, Fr. Flores,install tenants on the sub>ect premises withoutexpress authority to do so under Art. $6# ofthe -i)il -ode, more so when the lessee isexpressly prohibited from doing so, as in theinstant caseS

R2LI)*:

F4(9 4((CE7=e agree with petitioner. 4nterpreting andharmoniing laws with laws is the best methodof interpretation. 4nterpretare et concordareleges legibus est optimus interpretandi modus.

D$ 9his manner of construction would pro)idea complete, consistent and intelligible systemto secure the rights of all persons affected bydifferent legislati)e and 3uasiBlegislati)e acts.=here two ! rules on the same sub>ect, or onrelated sub>ects, are apparently in conflict witheach other, they are to be reconciled byconstruction, so far as may be, on any fair and

reasonable hypothesis. @alidity and legaleffect should therefore be gi)en to both, if thiscan be done without destroying the e)identintent and meaning of the later act. E)erystatute should recei)e such a construction aswill harmonie it with the preBexisting body oflaws.

*armoniing %A &emo. -irc. /o. 5, series of##6, with (- Adm. -irc. /o. B#0 and (ec. 06of . A. /o. $$02 would be consistent with

promoting the ends of substantial >ustice for allparties seeurisdictional ambit of the%epartment of Agrarian eform Ad>udication:oard %AA:! under . A. /o. $$02 andcorrect technical errors of the administrati)e

agency. 4n such exceptional cases, the%epartment (ecretary has established a modeof appeal from the %epartment of Agrarianeform to the ;ffice of the President as aplain, speedy, ade3uate and inexpensi)eremedy in the ordinary course of law. 9hiswould enable the ;ffice of the President,through the Executi)e (ecretary, to re)iewtechnical matters within the expertise of theadministrati)e machinery before >udicial re)iewcan be resorted to by way of an appeal to the

-ourt of Appeals under ule 65 of the ##2ules on -i)il Procedure.

(E-;/% 4((CE7Petitioner contends that an appeal to the ;fficeof the President from the (ecretary of Agrarianeform is proper under the doctrine ofexhaustion of administrati)e remedies. ;n theother hand, it is the contention of publicrespondent, the ;ffice of the (olicitor Heneral,that an exception to this wellBsettled principle is

the doctrine of 3ualified political agency.=here the respondent is a %epartment(ecretary, whose acts as an alter ego of thePresident bear the implied or assumedappro)al of the latter, unless the Presidentactually disappro)es them, administrati)eremedies ha)e already been exhausted.ecourse to the court may be made at thatpoint, according to pri)ate respondents, a )iew

21


22/50

that was sustained by the -ourt of Appeals. 4nthis case, the appellate court ruled that theappeal before it was filed beyond thereglementary period as petitioner appealed tothe ;ffice of the President, and not to the -ourtof Appeals, where it should ha)e been brought.4n 9an ). %irector of Forestry this -ourt ruledthat e)en if the respondent was a %epartment

(ecretary, an appeal to the President wasproper where the law expressly pro)ided forexhaustion.D1

As a )alid exercise of the (ecretaryNs ruleBmaustice for re)iew. 9he power of

>udicial re)iew may therefore be exercised onlyif an appeal is first made by the highest

administrati)e body in the hierarchy of theexecuti)e branch of go)ernment.

4n -alo ). Fuertes this -ourt held that anadministrati)e appeal to the President was thefinal step in the administrati)e process andthus a condition precedent to a >udicial appeal.D *ence, an appeal to the ;ffice of thePresident from the decision of the %epartment(ecretary in an administrati)e case is the laststep that an aggrie)ed party should taureen>oying tenurial security guaranteed by the

Agricultural 9enancy 'aw, now by theAgricultural 'and eform -ode, as amended.9his is not the case before us.

4t must be noted that @alencia ne)er extendedthe term of the ci)il law lease, nor did henegotiate with respondents for "better terms"upon the expiration of the lease. *e wantedprecisely to reco)er possession of the propertyupon the expiration of the contract on 51 June#20, except from &antac with whom healready entered into a tenancy contract as

22


23/50

herein before stated. @alencia appointed ano)erseer to prepare for his e)entual ta


24/50

landholding due to absence of personalculti)ation.

(ince pri)ate respondents with the exception of-atalino &antac cannot be deemed tenants incontemplation of law, they are therefore notentitled to -ertificates of 'and 9ransfer -'9s!under the ;peration 'and 9ransfer ;'9!

Program pursuant to Pres. %ecree /o. 2 and'.;.4. /o. 626. All other persons found in theland in 3uestion are considered unlawfuloccupants of the property unless otherwiseauthoried by the landowner to possess thesame in a lawful capacity.

=ith respect to the retention limits of landownership by @alencia and his "directdescendants," the -omprehensi)e Agrarianeform 'aw allows landowners whose lands

ha)e been co)ered by Pres. %ecree /o. 2 toustice must always

be dispensed with an e)en hand, regardless ofa personNs economic station in life.

=*EEF;E, the petition is HA/9E%. 9heassailed %ecision of the -ourt of Appeals in-ABH.. (P /o. 5$$# dated 2 July ##0 andits esolution dated (eptember ##0denying the &otion for econsideration areE@E(E% and (E9 A(4%E, and a new oneis entered as follows7

. 9he area ac3uired by petitioner @ictor H.@alencia under his *omestead Application /o.*AB5$1 with Final Proof and 9ax%eclaration /o. 100 is EI-'C%E% from theco)erage of Pres. %ecree /o. 2, hence, mustbe retained by him?

. 9he -ertificates of 'and 9ransfer -'9s!issued to pri)ate respondents (antos Hargaya

-'9 /o. 1B12$1!, Juliano &agdayao -'9s/os. 1B12$, 1B12$5, 1B12$$ G 1B1220!, -rescenciano Frias -'9 /o. 1B12$6!, Federico Jare -'9s /os. 1B122 G1B122!, osendo 'obresco -'9s /os. 1B12+# G 1B12+!, Ernesto 'obresco -'9s/os. 1B12+0 G 1B12+2!, Feliciano'obresco -'9 /o. 1B12++!, @ictoriano

&ontefalcon -'9 /o. 1B12#1!, Francisco;bang -'9 /o. 1B12$+!, Ambrosio(emillano -'9s /os. 1B12$0, 1B122$ G 1B1222!, ogelio 9amayo -'9 /o. 1B12#6!and Edilberto 'obresco -'9 /o. 1B1225!are -A/-E''E% and /C''4F4E% for ha)ingbeen issued without factual and legal basis?

5. 9he agricultural leasehold of respondent-atalino &antac -'9 /o. 1B12$! co)eringan area of 1.160 hectare sub>ect of tenancy

agreement with petitioner @ictor H. @alencia ismaintained and respected?

6. All unlawful occupants of the property under9-9 /o. *B9B52 and *omestead Application/o. *AB5$1 with Final Proof, and 9ax%eclaration /o. 100 including but not limitedto the pri)ate respondents mentioned in par. hereof are ;%EE% to 4&&E%4A9E'L@A-A9E and E9C/ peacefully to the lawfulowner, petitioner @ictor H. @alencia, the parcels

of land respecti)ely possessed or occupied bythem.

/o pronouncement as to costs.

Case no. 11

4A)(I vs. CA

Facts:

;n August #, ##5, &acacua, in her capacityas egional %irector6and as (ecretary0of the%epartment of *ealth of the Autonomousegion in &uslim &indanao "%;*" and"A&&", respecti)ely, for bre)ity!, issued a&emorandum designating Pandi, who wasthen %;*BA&& Assistant egional(ecretary, as ;fficerBinB-harge of the 4P*;B

APH*, 'anao del (ur. 4n the same&emorandum, &acacua detailed %r. &amasao

(ani "(ani" for bre)ity!, then the pro)incialhealth officer of the 4P*;BAPH*, 'anao del(ur, to the %;*BA&& egional ;ffice in-otabato -ity.

;n (eptember 0, ##5, 'anao del (urPro)incial Ho)ernor &ahid &. &utilan issued;ffice ;rder /o. 12 designating (aber also as

24
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_116850_2002.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_116850_2002.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_116850_2002.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2002/apr2002/gr_116850_2002.html#fnt5


25/50

;fficerBinB-harge of the 4P*;BAPH*, 'anaodel (ur.

;n August , ##5, (ani filed acomplaint$with the egional 9rial -ourt of'anao del (ur, :ranch 1, &arawi -itychallenging the August #, ##5 &emorandumtransferring him to the %;*BA&& egional

;ffice in -otabato -ity, alleging that he is theholder of a permanent appointment aspro)incial health officer of the 4P*;BAPH*,'anao del (ur.

;n ;ctober 0, ##5, (aber filed with the -ourtof Appeals a petition for $!o %arrantowithprayer for preliminary in>unction, claiming thathe is the lawfully designated ;fficerBinB-hargeof the 4P*;BAPH*, 'anao del (ur. ;n ;ctober6, ##5, the -ourt of Appeals issued a

temporary restraining order en>oining Pandifrom further discharging the functions andduties as ;fficerBinB-harge of the 4P*;BAPH*,'anao del (ur. ;n ;ctober 0, ##5, Pandiand &acacua filed their comment on thepetition and opposition to the application forwrit of preliminary in>unction.

;n ;ctober #, ##5, then President Fidel @.amos issued Executi)e ;rder /o. 55transferring the powers and functions of the

%epartment of *ealth in the region to theegional Ho)ernment of the A&&. ;n/o)ember $, ##5, &acacua, again in hercapacity as %;*BA&& (ecretaryB%esignate,issued a &emorandum reiterating PandiNsdesignation as ;fficerBinB-harge of the 4P*;B

APH*, 'anao del (ur, as well as (aniNs detailto the egional ;ffice of the %;*BA&& in-otabato -ity.

;n /o)ember #, ##5, the -ourt of Appeals

issued a writ of preliminary in>unction upon thefiling by (aber of a P11,111.11 bond. ;n/o)ember 6, ##5, Pandi and &acacua fileda motion for reconsideration or recall of the writof preliminary in>unction. =ith an offer of aP11,111.11 counterBbond, Pandi and&acacua mo)ed on %ecember 5, ##5 todissol)e the writ of preliminary in>unction. 9he-ourt of Appeals denied both motions.

;n %ecember +, ##5, (ani filed with the -ourt

of Appeals a motion for inter)entionaccompanied by a complaint in inter)ention.Pandi, &acacua and (aber opposed the same.

;n &arch , ##6, Pandi and &acacua filed amotion see


26/50


27/50

functions and acti)ities of the %epartment of*ealth in the A&&. 9he designation of Pandi,howe)er, while )alid is only temporary innature, good until a new designation or apermanent appointment is made.

As egional (ecretary of *ealth, &acacuawas, as of /o)ember $, ##5, the official

)ested by law to exercise super)ision andcontrol o)er all pro)incial health offices in the

A&&. 9he egional (ecretary, by )irtue ofExecuti)e ;rder /o. 55, assumed theadministrati)e powers and functions of the(ecretary of *ealth of the /ationalHo)ernment with respect to pro)incial healthoffices within the A&&. 9he official exercisingsuper)ision and control o)er an office has theadministrati)e authority to designate, in theinterest of public ser)ice, an ;fficerBinB-harge

if the office becomes )acant. &acacua,therefore, had the authority on /o)ember $,##5 to designate an ;fficerBinB-harge in thepro)incial health office of 'anao del (urpending the appointment of the permanentpro)incial health officer. After the effecti)ity ofthe A&& 'ocal -ode, the egional (ecretaryof *ealth lost the authority to ma


28/50

:eing the successor of the P&--,P*4'*EA'9*, in compliance with themandate of .A. 2+20,D2 promulgatedthe rules and regulations implementingsaid act.

4nstead of gi)ing due course topetitionerNs claims, only ;/E &4''4;/

9*EE *C/%E% (4I9LBF4@E9*;C(A/% F4@E *C/%E% F4F9LB(4I and 5M11 Pesos ,5$0,00$.5!was paid to petitioner, representing itsclaims from #+# to ## sic!.

Petitioner again filed its claimsrepresenting ser)ices rendered to itspatients from ##+ to ###. For beingallegedly filed beyond the sixty $1!day period allowed by theimplementing rules and regulations,

(ection 0 thereof, petitionerNs claimswere denied by the -laims e)iew Cnitof Philhealth.

PetitionerNs claim was denied withfinality by P*4'*EA'9* in its assaileddecision dated June $, 111.

Issue:

1. Whethe o not thee should e a

stict inte!etation o" the sity 8,/9day !eiod o" "iling as stated inSection +& o" R.A. -+.

&. Whethe o not the es!ondent "ailedto ehaust ad%inistative e%ediese"oe esoting to Gudicialintevention.

4n a petition for re)iew the -ourt of Appeals

ordered herein petitioner Philippine *ealth4nsurance -orporation Philhealth! to pay theclaims principally on the ground of liberalapplication of the $1Bday rule.

.9he state policy in creating anational health insurance program is togrant discounted medical co)erage toall citiens, with priority to the needs ofthe underpri)ileged, sic


29/50

complying with the $1Bday rule. Furthermore,implicit in the wording of the circulars was thecognition of the fact that the fault was notalways attributable to the health care pro)idersliusticefor re)iew.

9his doctrine, howe)er, is a relati)e oneand its flexibility is conditioned on the peculiar

circumstances of a case.

D2

9here are anumber of instances when the doctrine hasbeen held to be inapplicable. Among theestablished exceptions are7

! when the 3uestion raised ispurely legal?

! when the administrati)e bodyis in estoppel?

5! when the act complained ofis patently illegal?

6! when there is urgent need for>udicial inter)ention?

0! when the claim in)ol)ed issmall?

$! when irreparable damage willbe suffered?

2! when there is no other plain,speedy and ade3uate remedy?

+! when strong public interest isin)ol)ed?

#! when the sub>ect of thecontro)ersy is pri)ate land?

1! in $!o%arrantoproceedings.D+

9here is no need to belabor the fact thatthe baseless denial of respondentNs claims willbe gra)ely disturbing to the health careindustry, specially the pro)iders whose claims

will be unpaid. A refund is made only if theirclaim is first paid, due to the apprehension ofnot being reimbursed.

=*EEF;E, the assailed decision of the-ourt of Appeals is hereby AFF4&E%.Petitioner is hereby ordered to payrespondentNs claims representing ser)icesrendered to its members from #+# to ##.

/o costs.

(; ;%EE%.

1#.9 &//+5#'+D LA)( BA)H 0F TE4ILI44I)ES$ 4etitione$ vesus 0). ELI*. C. )ATI5I(A($ 4esiding 3udge o" theRegional Tial Cout$ Banch #-$ SanFenando$ 4a%!anga$ and 30SE R.

CA*2IAT e!esented y Attoneys;in;"act30SE T. BART0L0ME and 5ICT0RI0MA)*ALI)(A)$ Res!ondents.&//+ May1,&nd (ivision*.R. )o. 1&1'-( E C I S I 0)

9inga, J.79his is a Petition for e)iewD dated%ecember $, ##$ assailing the %ecisionD of

the egional 9rial -ourtD5 dated July 0, ##$which ordered the %epartment of Agrarianeform %A! and petitioner 'and :an< of thePhilippines 'and :anust compensation for the (tateNsac3uisition of pri)ate respondentsN propertiesunder the land reform program.

The "acts "ollo6.

;n &ay 6, ##5, pri)ate respondents filed apetition before the trial court for thedetermination of >ust compensation for theiragricultural lands situated in Arayat,Pampanga, which were ac3uired by thego)ernment pursuant to Presidential %ecree/o. 2 P% 2!. 9he petition named asrespondents the %A and 'and :anudgment is hereby rendered infa)or of petitioners and against respondents,ordering respondents, particularly, respondents%epartment of Agrarian eform and the 'and:an< of the Philippines, to pay these lands

owned by petitioners and which are the sub>ectof ac3uisition by the (tate under its land reformprogram, the amount of 9*49L PE(;(P51.11! per s3uare meter, as the >ustcompensation due for payment for same landsof petitioners located at (an @icente or-amba!, Arayat, Pampanga.

29
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/163123.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/163123.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/163123.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/apr2005/163123.htm#_ftn18


30/50

espondent %epartment of Agrarian eform isalso ordered to pay petitioners the amount ofF4F9L 9*;C(A/% PE(;( P01,111.11! as

AttorneyNs Fee, and to pay the cost of suit.

(; ;%EE%.D6

%A and 'and :an< filed separate motions for

reconsideration which were denied by the trialcourt in its ;rderD0 dated July 51, ##$ forbeing pro forma as the same did not contain anotice of hearing. 9hus, the prescripti)e periodfor filing an appeal was not tolled. 'and :anust compensation with the trial court.

9he records re)eal that 'and :anecting to the land )aluationsummary submitted by the &unicipal Agrarianeform ;ffice and re3uesting a conference forthe purpose of fixing >ust compensation. 9heletter, howe)er, was left unanswered promptingpri)ate respondents to file a petition directlywith the trial court.

At any rate, in Philippine @eterans :an< ).-ourt of Appeals,D# we declared that there isnothing contradictory between the %ANs

primary >urisdiction to determine and ad>udicateagrarian reform matters and exclusi)e original

>urisdiction o)er all matters in)ol)ing theimplementation of agrarian reform, whichincludes the determination of 3uestions of >ustcompensation, and the original and exclusi)e

>urisdiction of regional trial courts o)er allpetitions for the determination of >ustcompensation. 9he first refers toadministrati)e proceedings, while the secondrefers to >udicial proceedings.

4n accordance with settled principles ofadministrati)e law, primary >urisdiction is)ested in the %A to determine in a preliminarymanner the >ust compensation for the landstaect to challengebefore the courts. 9he resolution of >ustcompensation cases for the taudicial function.D1

9hus, the trial did not err in taustcompensation is a function addressed to thecourts of >ustice.

(ection 2 of A $$02 which is particularlyrele)ant, pro)iding as it does the guideposts forthe determination of >ust compensation, readsas follows7

(ec. 2. %etermination of Just -ompensation.U4n determining >ust compensation, the cost ofac3uisition of the land, the current )alue of liustcompensation for a considerable length oftime. 9hat >ust compensation should bedetermined in accordance with A $$02,and not P% 2 or E; +, is especiallyimperati)e considering that >ust compensationshould be the full and fair e3ui)alent of theproperty taustcompensation due pri)ate respondents for theirproperty, taurisprudence.

=*EEF;E, the petition is %E/4E%. -ostsagainst petitioner.(; ;%EE%.

CASE )0.1+: CABAL 5S HA42)A)

FACTS:

-ol. Jose -. &aristela filed with the (ecretary

of /ational %efense a letterBcomplaint charging

petitioner &anuel -abal, then -hief of (taff of

the AFP, with "graft, corrupt practices,

unexplained wealth, and other e3ually

reprehensible acts". 9he President of the

Philippines created a committee to in)estigate

the charge of unexplained wealth. 9he

-ommittee ordered petitioner herein to taected to the order of the -ommittee,

in)o


32/50

petitioner taect to his right to refuse to answer such

3uestions as may be incriminatory. 9his

notwithstanding, petitioner respectfully refused

to be sworn to as a witness to ta


33/50

hectares, which had been brought under theland transfer program of the go)ernment.-orporation was declared in default for failureto file its answer within the reglementary periodwhile the ':P filed an answer alleging that thecomplaint states no cause of action since thereis no pri)ity of contract between Honales anditself and that it deals only with the landowner

whose land was sub>ected to operation landtransfer of the go)ernment under P% 2 inorder to sa)e time and effort in ascertaining theidentities of additional claimants. ;n ;ctober0, #+0, the lower court found Honalesentitled to the issuance of the 'and :anect? and

! Post a performance bond e3ui)alentto 1T of the in)estment re3uired forthe first two years of the appro)ed

pro>ect but not to exceed P011 &illion.

within such period to be determined by the/ational 9elecommunications -ommission.

/o pronouncement as to costs.

(; ;%EE%.

espondent now see


35/50

9he /9-, being the go)ernment agencyentrusted with the regulation of acti)itiescoming under its special and technical forte,and possessing the necessary ruleBmaecti)es, is in the bestposition to interpret its own rules, regulationsand guidelines. 9he -ourt has consistentlyyielded and accorded great respect to the

interpretation by administrati)e agencies oftheir own rules unless there is an

a. error of law,b. abuse of power,c. lac< of >urisdiction or gra)e abuse of

discretion clearly conflicting with theletter and spirit of the law.

9hus, the -ourt holds that the interpretation of

the /9- that (ection 2 of /9- &- /o. B#B#5 regarding the escrow deposit andperformance bond shall pertain only to a localexchange operatorNs original rollBout obligationunder E.;. /o. 1#, and not to rollBoutobligations made under subse3uent or)oluntary applications outside E.;. /o. 1#,should be sustained.

-ases cited by the (- in -ity Ho)ernment of

&a


36/50

0de )o. 1+, 8E0 1+,9 unconstitutional.

(aid executi)e issuance prohibits the

importation into the country, inclusi)e of the

(pecial Economic and Freeport Zone or the

(ubic :ay Freeport (:F or Freeport!, of used

motor )ehicles, sub>ect to a few exceptions.

=e now come to the substanti)e issues, which

are7 ! whether there is statutory basis for the

issuance of E; 0$? and ! if the answer is in

the affirmati)e, whether the application of

Article , (ection 5. of E; 0$, reasonable

and within the scope pro)ided by law.

9o be )alid, an administrati)e issuance, suchas an executi)e order, must comply with the

following re3uisites7

! 4ts promulgation must be authoried by

the legislature?

! 4t must be promulgated in accordance

with the prescribed procedure?

5! 4t must be within the scope of the

authority gi)en by the legislature? and

6! 4t must be reasonable.D+

-ontrary to the conclusion of the -ourt of

Appeals, E; 0$ actually satisfied the first

re3uisite of a )alid administrati)e order. 4t has

both constitutional and statutory bases.

Anent the second re3uisite, that is, that theorder must be issued or promulgated in

accordance with the prescribed procedure, it is

necessary that the nature of the administrati)e

issuance is properly determined. As in the

enactment of laws, the general rule is that, the

promulgation of administrati)e issuances

re3uires pre)ious notice and hearing, the only

exception being where the legislature itself

re3uires it and mandates that the regulation

shall be based on certain facts as determined

at an appropriate in)estigation.D5 9his

exception pertains to the issuance of legislati)e

rules as distinguished from interpretati)e rules

which gi)e no real conse3uence more than

what the law itself has already prescribed?D6and are designed merely to pro)ide guidelines

to the law which the administrati)e agency is in

charge of enforcing.D0 A legislati)e rule, on

the other hand, is in the nature of subordinate

legislation, crafted to implement a primary

legislation.

4n the present case, respondents neither3uestioned before this -ourt nor with the

courts below the procedure that pa)ed the way

for the issuance of E; 0$. =hat they

challenged in their petitions before the trial

court was the absence of substanti)e due

processK in the issuance of the E;.D51 9heir

main contention before the court a 3uo is that

the importation ban is illogical and unfair

because it unreasonably dri)es them out of

business to the pre>udice of the nationaleconomy.

-onsidering the settled principle that in the

absence of strong e)idence to the contrary,

acts of the other branches of the go)ernment

are presumed to be )alid,D5 and there being

no ob>ection from the respondents as to the

procedure in the promulgation of E; 0$, the

presumption is that said executi)e issuance

duly complied with the procedures and

limitations imposed by law.

9o determine whether E; 0$ has complied

with the third and fourth re3uisites of a )alid

administrati)e issuance, to wit, that it was

issued within the scope of authority gi)en by

the legislature and that it is reasonable, anexamination of the nature of a Freeport under

A 22 and the primordial purpose of the

importation ban under the 3uestioned E; is

necessary. please browse the discussion in

the case proper!

36


37/50

9aect matter of the

laws authoriing the President to regulate or

forbid importation of used motor )ehicles, is the

domestic industry. E; 0$, howe)er,

exceeded the scope of its application by

extending the prohibition on the importation of

used cars to the Freeport, which A 22,

considers to some extent, a foreign territory.

9he domestic industry which the E; seeury or harm sought to be pre)ented or

remedied will not arise.

4f the aim of the E; is to pre)ent the entry ofused motor )ehicles from the Freeport to the

customs territory, the solution is not to forbid

entry of these )ehicles into the Freeport, but to

intensify go)ernmental campaign and

measures to thwart illegal ingress of used

motor )ehicles into the customs territory.

4n sum, the -ourt finds that Article , (ection

5. of E; 0$ is )oid insofar as it is made

applicable to the presently secured fencedBin

former (ubic /a)al :ase area as stated in

(ection . of E; #2BA. Pursuant to the

separability clauseD6+ of E; 0$, (ection 5.

is declared )alid insofar as it applies to the

customs territory or the Philippine territory

outside the presently secured fencedBin former

(ubic /a)al :ase area as stated in (ection .

of E; #2BA. *ence, used motor )ehicles thatcome into the Philippine territory )ia the

secured fencedBin former (ubic /a)al :ase

area may be stored, used or traded therein, or

exported out of the Philippine territory, but they

cannot be imported into the Philippine territory

outside of the secured fencedBin former (ubic

/a)al :ase area.

(aid pro)ision is declared @A'4% insofar as it

applies to the Philippine territory outside the

presently fencedBin former (ubic /a)al :ase

area and @;4% with respect to its application to

the secured fencedBin former (ubic /a)al :ase

area.

37


38/50

&1.9 &//,5,#&D The 0)0RABLESECRETAR 5I)CE)T S. 4ERE$ in hisca!acity as the Secetay o" the (e!at%ento" Enegy$ 4etitione$ vesus L4*REFILLERS ASS0CIATI0) 0F TE4ILI44I)ES$ I)C.$ Res!ondent.&//, 3un&,


39/50

9he trial court denied for lac< of meritpetitionerNs motion for reconsideration. *encethis petition.

ISS2E:=hether the egional 9rial -ourt of Pasigerred in declaring the pro)isions of the -ircularnull and )oid, and prohibiting the -ircularNs

implementation.

=e resol)e to grant the petition.

For an administrati)e regulation, such asthe -ircular in this case, to ha)e the force ofpenal law, ! the )iolation of the administrati)eregulation must be made a crime by thedelegating statute itself? and ! the penalty forsuch )iolation must be pro)ided by the statuteitself.D$

9he -ircular satisfies the first

re3uirement. :.P. :lg. 55, as amended,criminalies illegal trading, adulteration,underfilling, hoarding, and o)erpricing ofpetroleum products. Cnder this generaldescription of what constitutes criminal actsin)ol)ing petroleum products, the -ircularmerely lists the )arious modes by which thesaid criminal acts may be perpetrated, namely7no price display board, no weighing scale, no

tare weight or incorrect tare weight mar


40/50

with an accessible ban< designated byrespondent %A in the names of thefollowing petitioners the following amountsin cash and in go)ernment financialinstruments U within the parameters of(ec. + ! of A $$027

P ,600,12.5 Pedro '. Lap

P 50,6+. *eirs of Emiliano (antiago

P 0,#6,2.22 A&A%-;?

c! 9he %ABdesignated ban< is orderedto allo% the petitioners to %ithdra% theabo)eBdeposited amounts without pre>udiceto the final determination of >ustcompensation by the proper authorities?and

d! espondent %A is ordered to! immediatel0 conduct s!mmar0 administrati)e proceedings to determine the >ustcompensation for the lands of thepetitioners gi)ing the petitioners 75 da0sfrom notice within which to submit e)idenceand to ! decide the cases %ithin 89da0s after they are submitted for decision.#

'iected to transfer schemes to 3ualifiedbeneficiaries under the -omprehensi)e

Agrarian eform 'aw -A', epublic Act /o.$$02!.

Aggrie)ed by the alleged lapses of the%A and the 'andban< with respect tothe )aluation and payment of compensation for their land pursuant tothe pro)isions of A $$02, pri)aterespondents filed with this -ourt aPetitionfor Certiorari and -andam!s with prayerfor preliminary mandatory in>unction.Pri)ate respondents 3uestioned the)alidity of %A Administrati)e ;rder /o.

$, (eries of ##,

and %AAdministrati)e ;rder /o. #, (eries of##1,and sought to compel the %A toexpedite the pending summaryadministrati)e proceedings to finallydetermine the >ust compensation of theirproperties, and the 'andban< to depositin cash and bonds the amountsrespecti)ely "earmara, registered in the name of the lateEmiliano F. (antiago? that in /o)ember and%ecember ##1, without notice to thepetitioners, the 'andban< re3uired and thebeneficiaries executed Actual tillers %eed ofCnderta


41/50

%eed of Cndertaurisdiction and with gra)e abuse of discretionbecause it permits the opening of trustaccounts by the 'andban


42/50

e! Cpon receipt by the landowner of thecorresponding payment or, in case ofre>ection or no response from thelandowner, uponthe deposit %ith anaccessi"le "an designated "0 the DA*of the compensation in cash or in L12"ondsin accordance with this Act, the%A shall taudicial department if there is anerror of law, a gra)e abuse of power or lac< of

>urisdiction or gra)e abuse of discretion clearlyconflicting with either the letter or the spirit of alegislati)e enactment.1-4n this regard, it mustbe stressed that the function of promulgatingrules and regulations may be legitimatelyexercised only for the purpose of carrying thepro)isions of the law into effect. 9he power ofadministrati)e agencies is thus confined to

implementing the law or putting it into effect.-orollary to this is that administrati)eregulations cannot extendthe law and amend a legislati)eenactment,1'for settled is the rule thatadministrati)e regulations must be in harmonywith the pro)isions of the law. And in casethere is a discrepancy between the basic lawand an implementing rule or regulation, it is theformer that pre)ails.

4n the present suit, the %A clearlyo)erstepped the limits of its power to enactrules and regulations when it issued

Administrati)e -ircular /o. #. 9here is no basisin allowing the opening of a trust account inbehalf of the landowner as compensation forhis property because, as heretofore discussed,(ection $e! of A $$02 is )ery specific thatthe deposit must be made only in "cash" or in

"':P bonds". 4n the same )ein, petitionerscannot in)o


43/50


44/50

of ##5 of the Sangg!niang 1a0an of /au>anfailed to comply with (ection 5 of 'ocal :udget-ircular /o. 05 outlining the conditions for thegrant of allowances to >udges and othernational officials or employees by the localgo)ernment units 'HCs!.

Petitioner >udge appealed the unfa)orable

resolution of the egional %irector to the-ommission on Audit. 4n the meantime, adisallowance of the payment of the P,$11monthly allowance to petitioner was issued. ;n(eptember 6, ###, the -;A issued itsdecision affirming the resolution of egional%irector

Issue:

Whethe o not the Munici!ality o" )auGan$

0iental Mindoo can validly !ovide RATAto its Munici!al 3udge$ in addition to that!ovided y the Su!e%e Cout.

Henerally, the grant of A9A! Dsic to 3ualifiednational go)ernment officials and employeespursuant to (ection 5$ of .A. 2$60 DHeneral

Appropriations Act of ##5 and /-- /o. $2dated 1 January ## is sub>ect to thefollowing conditions to wit7

. Payable from the programmed Mappropriatedamount and others from personal ser)icessa)ings of the respecti)e offices where theofficials or employees draw their salaries?

. /ot exceeding the rates prescribed by theAnnual Heneral Appropriations Act?

5. ;fficials Memployees on detail with otheroffices or assigned to ser)e other offices oragencies shall be paid from their parent

agencies?

6. /o one shall be allowed to collect A9A frommore than one source.

;n the other hand, the municipal go)ernmentmay pro)ide additional allowances and otherbenefits to >udges and other nationalgo)ernment officials or employees assigned orstationed in the municipality, pro)ided, that thefinances of the municipality allow the grant

thereof pursuant to (ection 662, Par. xi!,.A. 2$1, and pro)ided further, that similarallowanceMadditional compensation are notgranted by the national go)ernment to theofficialMemployee assigned to the localgo)ernment unit as pro)ided under (ection5e! of 'ocal :udget -ircular /o. 05, dated 1(eptember ##5.

-onse3uently, the sub>ect (: esolution /o.1 dated &ay ##5 of the (angguniang:ayan of /au>an, ;riental &indoro, ha)ingfailed to comply with the inherent preconditionas defined in (ection 5 e!. . . is null and )oid.Furthermore, the *onorable Judge 9omas -.'eynes, being a national go)ernment official isprohibited to recei)e additional A9A from the

local go)ernment fund pursuant to (ection 5$of the Heneral Appropriations Act .A. 2$60for ##5! and /ational -ompensation -ircular/o. $2 dated January ##.D+ emphasisours!

Petitioner >udge filed a motion for reconsideration of the abo)e decision but itwas denied by the -ommission. Aggrie)ed,petitioner filed the instant petition.

espondent -ommission on Auditopposes the grant by the &unicipality of/au>an of the P,$11 monthly allowance topetitioner Judge 'eynes for the reason that themunicipality could not grant A9A to >udges inadditionto the A9A already recei)ed from the(upreme -ourt

Petitioner >udge, on the other hand,asserts that the municipality is expressly andune3ui)ocally empowered by A 2$1 the

'ocal Ho)ernment -ode of ##! to enactappropriation ordinances granting allowancesand other benefits to >udges stationed in itsterritory. Petitioner also asserts that the %:&cannot amend or modify a substanti)e law li


45/50

9*E PA9 ;F 9*E ';-A' H;@E/&E/9C/49(?

. 9*A9 PAL&E/9 ;F 9*E A:;@E (*A''A'=AL( :E (C:JE-9 9; 9*E A@A4'A:4'49L;F ';-A' FC/%(?

5. 9*A9 49 (*A'' :E &A%E ;/'L 4/

-;&P'4A/-E =49* 9*E P;'4-L ;F /;/B%4&4/C94;/ ;F -;&PE/(A94;/E-E4@E% :L 9*E E-4P4E/9 JC%HE:EF;E 9*E 4&P'E&E/9A94;/ ;F 9*E(A'AL (9A/%A%4ZA94;/?

6. 9*A9 9*E (C:JE-9 A'';=A/-E (*A'':E H4@E/ ;/'L 9; JC%HE( =*; =EEE-E4@4/H 9*E (A&E A( ;F JC/E 51,#+# A/% (*A'' :E -;B9E&4/;C( =49*9*E 4/-C&:E/9 JC%HE(? A/%

0. 9*A9 9*E (C:JE-9 A'';=A/-E (*A''AC9;&A94-A''L 9E&4/A9E CP;/9A/(FE ;F A JC%HE F;& ;/E ';-A'H;@E/&E/9 C/49 9; A/;9*E ';-A'H;@E/&E/9 C/49. E&P*A(4( ;C(!

/ (T$#!0 12 T3/ A425/!*$!#"A$ * 1A12"/, /T A". 5(.!2A .6789 / $#"/1 T3/$/ T3AT T3/"2!A" 25/$/T !21/ 2F 72(* A

>$23*4*T*2 T3AT 1*1 2T J*4/ *T3T3/ "2!A" 25/$/T !21/ 2F7/$5*(*2 25/$ "#(,6)&9 / $#"/T3AT (/!T*2 B, >A$A$A>3 ?/@T3/$/2F *( *5A"*1. $A %7+, T3/"2!A" 25/$/T !21/ 2F 7$25*!*A",!*T= A1 #*!*>A" 25/$/T(

D

D

D

D

D

D

45
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2002/dec2002/125350.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2002/dec2002/125350.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2002/dec2002/125350.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2002/dec2002/125350.php


46/50

A= $AT A""2A!/( T2 J#1/(A( "2 A( T3/*$ F*A!/( A""2.(/!T*2 B, >A$A$A>3 ?/@ 2F "4! 2.'B, 4= 2#T$*3T"= >$23*4*T* "#(F$2 $AT* A""2A!/( T2J#1/( 3//5/$ (#!3 A""2A!/(

A$/ ?7@ A"(2 $AT/1 4= T3/AT*2A" 25/$/T 2$ ?)@ (**"A$

T2 T3/ A""2A!/( $AT/1 4= T3/AT*2A" 25/$/T, 5*2"AT/((/!T*2 88%?A@?"@?*@ 2F T3/ "2!A"25/$/T !21/ 2F 7 7,+2T3"= A""2A!/ T2 >/T*T*2/$J#1/ F#""= !2>"*/1 *T3 T3/ "A.

T3#(, / #>32"1 *T( 5A"*1*T=.

4/ (C&, =E *EE:L AFF4& 9*E P;=E;F 9*E &C/4-4PA'49L ;F /ACJA/ 9;HA/9 9*E RCE(94;/E% A'';=A/-E 9;PE9494;/E JC%HE 'EL/E( 4/

D

D

A--;%A/-E =49* 9*E-;/(949C94;/A''L &A/%A9E% P;'4-L;F ';-A' AC9;/;&L A/% 9*EP;@4(4;/( ;F 9*E ';-A'H;@E/&E/9 -;%E ;F ##. =E A'(;(C(9A4/ 9*E @A'4%49L ;F E(;'C94;//;. 1, (E4E( ;F ##5, ;F 9*ESA?#?A? 1A:A? ;F /ACJA/ F;

:E4/H 4/ A--;%A/-E =49* 9*E 'A=.

WEREF0RE, 9*E PE9494;/ 4( *EE:LHA/9E%. 9*E A((A4'E% %E-4(4;/ ;F9*E -;&&4((4;/ ;F AC%49 4( *EE:L(E9 A(4%E A/% (E-94;/ 5, PAAHAP*E! ;F ':- /;. 05 4( *EE:L %E-'AE%/C'' A/% @;4%.

/; -;(9(.

(; ;%EE%.

Case )o. &+&//


47/50

a uniform cutBoff date, a)oid unfairness on thepart of taxB payers if they are re3uired to paythe tax on past transactions, and so as to gi)emeaning to the express pro)isions of (ection6$ of the 9ax -ode, pawnshop owners oroperators shall become liable to the lendingin)estorNs tax on their gross income beginningJanuary , ##. (ince the deadline for the

filing of percentage tax return :4 Form /o.0#AB1! and the payment of the tax onlending in)estors co)ering the first calendar3uarter of ## has already lapsed, taxpayersare gi)en up to June 51, ## within which topay the said tax without penalty. 4f the tax ispaid after June 51, ##, the correspondingpenalties shall be assessed and computedfrom April , ##.

(ince pawnshops are considered as lending

in)estors effecti)e January , ##, they alsobecome sub>ect to documentary stamp taxesprescribed in 9itle @44 of the 9ax -ode. :4uling /o. 50B++ dated July 5, #++ ishereby re)oect to the 0T lendingin)estorNs tax. *e in)oect to the 0Tlending in)estorNs tax. -orollary to this issueare the following 3uestions7 ! Are &; /o.0B# and &- /o. 65B# )alidS ! =erethey issued to implement (ection $ of the/4- of #22, as amendedS 5! Arepawnshops considered "lending in)estors" for

47


48/50

the purpose of the imposition of the lendingin)estorNs taxS 6! 4s publication necessary forthe )alidity of &; /o. 0B# and &- /o.65B#.

=e rule in the negati)e.

&; /o. 0B# and &- /o. 65B# were

issued in accordance with the power of the -4to maectsdifferently. (ection 20 of the latter -ode readas follows7

(ec. 20. Percentage tax on dealers insecurities, lending in)estors. BB %ealers insecurities shall pay a tax e3ui)alent to six $T!percent of their gross income. 'ending

in)estors shall pay a tax e3ui)alent to fi)e 0T!percent of their gross income. As amended byP.%. /o. 25#, P.%. /o. #0# and P.%. /o.##6!.

=e note that the definition of lending in)estorsfound in (ection 02 u! of the /4- of #+$ isnot found in the /4- of #22, as amended byE.;. /o. 25, where (ection $ in)oectsdifferently. *ence, we must liects topercentage tax dealers in securities andlending in)estors only. 9here is no mention of

pawnshops. Cnder the maxim expressio uniusest exclusio alterius, the mention of one thingimplies the exclusion of another thing notmentioned. 9hus, if a statute enumerates thethings upon which it is to operate, e)erythingelse must necessarily and by implication beexcluded from its operation and effect.D# 9hisrule, as a guide to probable legislati)e intent, is

48


49/50

based upon the rules of logic and naturalworect to the0T percentage tax imposed by (ection $ ofthe /4- of #22, as amended by E.;. /o.

25. 9his was e)en admitted by the -4 in&; /o. 0B# itself. -onsidering that (ection$ of the /4- of #22, as amended, waspractically lifted from (ection 20 of the /4-of #+$, as amended, and there being nochange in the law, the interpretation thereofshould not ha)e been altered.

Adding to the in)alidity of the &- /o. 65B#and &; /o. 0B# is the absence ofpublication. =hile the ruleBmaudicial to the go)ernment andthe public interests, and to submit properrecommendations to the President of thePhilippines.

c. 9o in)estigate cases of graft and corruptionand )iolations of epublic Acts /os. 52# and

51#, and gather necessary e)idence toestablish prima facie, acts of graft andac3uisition of unlawfully amassed wealth ... .

h. 9o recei)e and e)aluate, and to conduct factBfinding in)estigations of sworn complaintsagainst the acts, conduct or beha)ior of anypublic official or employee and to file andprosecute the proper charges with theappropriate agency.

For a realistic performance of these functiuons,President also )ested in the Agency all thepowers of an in)estigating committee under(ections 2 and 0+1 of the e)ised

Administrati)e -ode, including the power tosummon witnesses by subpoena orsubpoena d!ces tec!m, administer oaths, ta


50/50

Petitioner Ruirico E)angelista, asCndersecretary of the Agency, issued torespondent Fernando &analastas, then Acting-ity Public (er)ice ;fficer of &anila, asubpoena ad testificand!mcommanding him"to be and appear as witness at the ;ffice ofthe PE(4%E/94A' AHE/-L ;/ EF;&(

A/% H;@E/&E/9 ;PEA94;/( ... then

and there to declare and testify in a certainin)estigation pending therein."

4nstead of obeying the subpoena, respondentFernando &analastas filed on June 0, #$+with the -ourt of First 4nstance of &anila an

Amended Petition forprohibition, certiorariandMor in>unction withpreliminary in>unction andMor restraining orderdocunction prayed for by thepetitioner Dpri)ate respondent be issuedrestraining the respondents Dpetitioners, theiragents, representati)es, attorneys andMor otherpersons acting in their behalf from further

issuing subpoenas in connection with the fact(findingin)estigations to the petitioner Dpri)aterespondent and from instituting contemptproceedings against the petitioner Dpri)aterespondent under (ection 051 of the e)ised

Administrati)e -ode. (tress supplied!.

:ecause of this, petitioners 0 ele)ated thematter direct to Cs without a motion forreconsideration first filed on the fundamentalsubmission that the ;rder is a patent nullity.,

ISS2E:

=;/ the Agency, acting thru its officials,en>oys the authority to issue subpoenas in itsconduct of factBfinding in)estigations.

EL(:

Les. Administrati)e agencies may enforcesubpoenas issued in the course of in)estigations, whether or not ad>udication is

in)estigation be for a lawfully authoriedpurpose. 9he purpose of the subpoena is todisco)er e)idence, not to pro)e a pendingcharge, but upon which to maustifies. 4ts obligationcannot rest on a trial of the )alue of testimonysought? it is enough that the proposedin)estigation be for a lawfully authoried

purpose, and that the proposed witness beclaimed to ha)e information that might shedsome helpful light. :ecause >udicial power isreluctant if not unable to summon e)idenceuntil it is shown to be rele)ant to issues onlitigations it does not follow that anadministrati)e agency charged with seeing thatthe laws are enforced may not ha)e andexercise powers of original in3uiry. 9headministrati)e agency has the power ofin3uisition which is not dependent upon a case

or contro)ersy in order to get e)idence, but canin)estigate merely on suspicion that the law isbeing )iolated or e)en >ust because it wantsassurance that it is not. =hen in)estigati)e andaccusatory duties are delegated by statute toan administrati)e body, it, too may ta

admin digested cases

Documents