first 25 cases in administrative law (without ruperto vs. torre)

7/23/2019 First 25 Cases in Administrative Law (Without Ruperto vs. Torre)

1/268

G.R. No. 90336 August 12, 1991

RUPERTO TAULE, petitioner,

vs.

SECRETARY LUIS T. SANTOS and GOERNORLEAN!RO ERCELES, respondents.

Balgos & Perez and Bugaring, Tugonon & Associates

Law Ofces or petitioner.

Juan G. Atencia or private respondent.

GANCAYCO,J.:p

The extent of authority of the Secretary of Local

Government over the atipunan ng !ga "aranga#or

the barangay councils is brought to the fore in this

case.

On June 1,1!!, the "ederation of #ssociations of

$arangay %ouncils &"#$%' of %atanduanes, composed

of eleven &11' members, in their capacities as(residents of the #ssociation of $arangay %ouncils in

their respective municipalities, convened in )irac,

%atanduanes *ith six members in attendance for the

purpose of holding the election of its o+cers.

(resent *ere petitioner uperto Taule of San -iguel,

#llan #uino of )iga, )icente #vila of )irac, "idel Jacob

of (anganiban, Leo Sales of %aramoran and -anuel

Torres of $aras. The $oard of /lection

Supervisors0%onsultants *as composed of (rovincial

Government Operation O+cer &(GOO' #lberto (.

-olina, Jr. as %hairman *ith (rovincial Treasurer Luis #.

-anlapa, Jr. and (rovincial /lection Supervisor #rnoldSouerata as members.

2hen the group decided to hold the election despite

the absence of 3ve &4' of its members, the (rovincial

Treasurer and the (rovincial /lection Supervisor *al5ed

out.

The election nevertheless proceeded *ith (GOO

#lberto (. -olina, Jr. as presiding o+cer. %hosen as

members of the $oard of 6irectors *ere Taule, #uino,

#vila, Jacob and Sales.

Thereafter, the follo*ing *ere elected o+cers of the

"#$%7

(resident 8 uperto Taule

)ice9(resident 8 #llan #uino

Secretary 8 )icente #vila

Treasurer 8 "idel Jacob

#uditor 8 Leo Sales 1

On June 1!, 1!!, respondent Leandro :. )erceles,

Governor of %atanduanes, sent a letter to respondent


2/268

Luis T. Santos, the Secretary of Local

Government,"protesting the election of the o+cers of

the "#$% and see5ing its nulli3cation in vie* of several

;agrant irregularities in the manner it *as

conducted.2

:n compliance *ith the order of respondent Secretary,

petitioner uperto Taule as (resident of the "#$%, 3led

his comment on the letter9protest of respondent

Governor denying the alleged irregularities and

denouncing said respondent Governor for meddling or

intervening in the election of "#$% o+cers *hich is a

purely non9partisan as, petitioner see5s

the reversal of the resolutions of respondent Secretary

dated #ugust =, 1!! and September 4, 1!! for

being null and void.

(etitioner raises the

follo*ing issues7

1' 2hether or not the respondent

Secretary has ?urisdiction to entertain an

election protest involving the election of

the o+cers of the "ederation of

#ssociation of $arangay %ouncils@

A' 2hether or not the respondent

Governor has the legal personality to 3le

an election protest@

B' #ssuming that the respondent

Secretary has ?urisdiction over the

election protest, *hether or not he

committed grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lac5 of ?urisdiction in

nullifying the election@

The $atipunan ng !ga Baranga#is the organiation ofall sangguniang "aranga#sin the follo*ing levels7 in

municipalities to be 5no*n as atipunang "a#an@ in

cities, atipunang panlungsod@ in

provinces, atipunang panlalawigan@ in

regions,atipunang pa!poo@ and on the national

level, atipunan ng !ga "aranga#. 6


3/268

The Local Government %ode provides for the manner

in *hich the atipunan ng !ga "aranga#at all levels

shall be organied7

Sec. 11C. Organization. 8 &1' The5atipunan at all levels shall be organied

in the follo*ing manner7

&a' The 5atipunan in each level shall elect

a board of directors and a set of o+cers.

The president of each level shall

represent the 5atipunan concerned in the

next higher level of organiation.

&b' The 5atipunan ng mga barangay shall

be composed of the 5atipunang pampoo5,

*hich shall in turn be composed of the

presidents of the 5atipunang

panlala*igan and the 5atipunang

panlungsod. The presidents of the

5atipunang bayan in each province shall

constitute the 5atipunang panlala*igan.

The 5atipunang panlungsod and the

5atipunang bayan shall be composed ofthe punong barangays of cities and

municipalities, respectively.

xxx xxx xxx

The respondent Secretary, acting in accordance *ith

the provision of the Local Government %ode

empo*ering him to Dpromulgate in detail the

implementing circulars and the rules and regulations

to carry out the various administrative actions reuired

for the initial implementation of this %ode in such a

manner as *ill ensure the least disruption of on9going

programs and pro?ects%

issued 6epartment of LocalGovernment %ircular Eo. !9C! on #pril F, 1!!, &to

provide the guidelines for the conduct of the elections

of o+cers of the $atipunan ng !ga Baranga#at the

municipal, city, provincial, regional and national levels.

:t is no* the contention of petitioner that neither the

constitution nor the la* grants ?urisdiction upon the

respondent Secretary over election contests involving

the election of o+cers of the "#$%, the atipunan ng

!ga "aranga#at the provincial level. :t is petitioners

theory that under #rticle :H, %, Section A of the 1!F

%onstitution, it is the %ommission on /lections *hich

has ?urisdiction over all contests involving elective

barangay o+cials.

On the other hand, it is the opinion of the respondent

Secretary that any violation of the guidelines as set

forth in said circular *ould be a ground for 3ling a

protest and *ould vest upon the 6epartment?urisdiction to resolve any protest that may be 3led in

relation thereto.

>nder #rticle :H, %, Section A&A' of the 1!F

%onstitution, the %ommission on /lections shall

exercise Dexclusive original ?urisdiction over all

contests relating to the elections, returns, and

uali3cations of all elective regional, provincial, and


4/268

city o+cials, and appellate ?urisdiction over all

contests involving elective municipal o+cials decided

by trial courts of general ?urisdiction, or involving

elective barangay o+cials decided by trial courts of

limited ?urisdiction.D The 1!F %onstitution expandedthe ?urisdiction of the %O-/L/% by granting it

appellate ?urisdiction over all contests involving

elective municipal o+cials decided by trial courts of

general ?urisdiction or elective barangay o+cials

decided by trial courts of limited ?urisdiction. 9

The ?urisdiction of the %O-/L/% over contests

involving elective barangay o+cials is limited to

appellate ?urisdiction from decisions of the trial courts.

>nder the la*, 10the s*orn petition contesting the

election of a barangay o+cer shall be 3led *ith the

proper -unicipal or -etropolitan Trial %ourt by any

candidate *ho has duly 3led a certi3cate of candidacy

and has been voted for the same o+ce *ithin 1C days

after the proclamation of the results. # voter may also

contest the election of any barangay o+cer on the

ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the epublic of

the (hilippines by 3ling a s*orn petition for%uo

warranto*ith the -etropolitan or -unicipal Trial %ourt*ithin 1C days after the proclamation of the results of

the election.11Only appeals from decisions of inferior

courts on election matters as aforestated may be

decided by the %O-/L/%.

The %ourt agrees *ith the Solicitor General that the

?urisdiction of the %O-/L/% is over popular elections,

the elected o+cials of *hich are determined through

the *ill of the electorate. #n election is the

embodiment of the popular *ill, the expression of the

sovereign po*er of the people. 12:t involves the choice

or selection of candidates to public o+ce by popular

vote.13

Speci3cally, the term Delection,D in the contextof the %onstitution, may refer to the conduct of the

polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the

electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of

the votes 1#

*hich do not characterie the election of

o+cers in the $atipunan ng !ga "aranga#. D/lection

contestsD *ould refer to adversary proceedings by

*hich matters involving the title or claim of title to an

elective o+ce, made before or after proclamation of

the *inner, is settled *hether or not the contestant is

claiming the o+ce in dispute 1$and in the case of

elections of barangay o+cials, it is restricted to

proceedings after the proclamation of the *inners as

no pre9proclamation controversies are allo*ed.16

The ?urisdiction of the %O-/L/% does not cover

protests over the organiational set9up of the

5atipunan ng mga barangay composed of popularly

electedpunong "aranga#s as prescribed by la* *hose

o+cers are voted upon by their respective members.The %O-/L/% exercises only appellate ?urisdiction over

election contests involving elective barangay o+cials

decided by the -etropolitan or -unicipal Trial %ourts

*hich li5e*ise have limited ?urisdiction. The authority

of the %O-/L/% over the atipunan ng !ga

"aranga#is limited by la* to supervision of the

election of the representative of

theatipunanconcerned to the sanggunianin a


5/268

particular level conducted by their o*n respective

organiation. 1%

Io*ever, the Secretary of Local Government is not

vested *ith ?urisdiction to entertain any protestinvolving the election of o+cers of the "#$%.

There is no uestion that he is vested *ith the po*er

to promulgate rules and regulations as set forth in

Section AAA of the Local Government %ode.

Li5e*ise, under $oo5 :), Title H::, %hapter 1, See. B&A'

of the #dministrative %ode of 1!F, ""

the respondent

Secretary has the po*er to Destablish and prescribe

rules, regulations and other issuances andimplementing la*s on the general supervision of local

government units and on the promotion of local

autonomy and monitor compliance thereof by said

units.D

#lso, the respondent Secretarys rule ma5ing po*er is

provided in See. F, %hapter ::, $oo5 :) of the

#dministrative %ode, to *it7

&B' (romulgate rules and regulations

necessary to carry out department

ob?ectives, policies, functions, plans,

programs and pro?ects@

Thus, 6LG %ircular Eo. !9C! *as issued by

respondent Secretary in pursuance of his rule9ma5ing

po*er conferred by la* and *hich no* has the force

and e


6/268

supervision is exercised by the (resident through the

Secretary of Local Government. 2#

:n administrative la*, supervision means overseeing or

the po*er or authority of an o+cer to see that thesubordinate o+cers perform their duties. :f the latter

fails or neglects to ful3ll them the former may ta5e

such action or step as prescribed by la* to ma5e them

perform their duties. %ontrol, on the other hand,

means the po*er of an o+cer to alter or modify or

nullify or set aside *hat a subordinate o+cer had done

in the performance of his duties and to substitute the

?udgment of the former for that of the latter. The

fundamental la* permits the %hief /xecutive to *ield

no more authority than that of chec5ing *hether said

local government or the o+cers thereof perform their

duties as provided by statutory enactments. Ience,

the (resident cannot interfere *ith local governments

so long as the same or its o+cers act *ithin the scope

of their authority. 2$Supervisory po*er, *hen

contrasted *ith control, is the po*er of mere oversight

over an inferior body@ it does not include any

restraining authority over such body. 26

%onstruing the constitutional limitation on the po*er of

general supervision of the (resident over local

governments, 2e hold that respondent Secretary has

no authority to pass upon the validity or regularity of

the election of the o+cers of the 5atipunan. To allo*

respondent Secretary to do so *ill give him more

po*er than the la* or the %onstitution grants. :t *ill in

e


7/268

supervision of the Secretary over local governments

*hich as earlier discussed is limited to chec5ing

*hether the local government unit concerned or the

o+cers thereof perform their duties as provided by

statutory enactments. /ven the Local Government%ode *hich grants the Secretary po*er to issue

implementing circulars, rules and regulations is silent

as to ho* these issuances should be enforced. Since

the respondent Secretary exercises only supervision

and not control over local governments, it is truly

doubtful if he could enforce compliance *ith the 6LG

%ircular. 32#ny doubt therefore as to the po*er of the

Secretary to interfere *ith local a


8/268

to uestion the regularity of the elections of the

o+cers of the "#$%.

#s to the third issue raised by petitioner, the %ourt has

already ruled that the respondent Secretary has no?urisdiction to hear the protest and nullify the

elections.

Eevertheless, the %ourt holds that the issue of the

validity of the elections should no* be resolved in

order to prevent any unnecessary delay that may

result from the commencement of an appropriate

action by the parties.

The elections *ere declared null and void primarily forfailure to comply *ith Section A.= of 6LG %ircular Eo.

!9C! *hich provides that Dthe incumbent "#$%

(resident or the )ice9(resident sallpreside over the

reorganiational meeting, there being a uorum.D The

rule speci3cally provides that it is the incumbent "#$%

(resident or )ice9(resident *ho shall preside over the

meeting. The *ord DshallD should be ta5en in its

ordinary signi3cation, i.e., it must be imperative or

mandatory and not merelypermissive, 3%as the rule is explicit and reuires no

other interpretation. :f it had been intended that any

other o+cial should preside, the rules *ould have

provided so, as it did in the elections at the to*n and

city levels 3&as *ell as the regional level..39

:t is admitted that neither the incumbent "#$%

(resident nor the )ice9(resident presided over the

meeting and elections but #lberto (. -olina, Jr., the

%hairman of the $oard of /lection

Supervisors0%onsultants. Thus, there *as a clear

violation of the aforesaid mandatory provision. On this

ground, the elections should be nulli3ed.

>nder Sec. A.B.A.F of the same circular it is provided

that a $oard of /lection Supervisors0%onsultants shall

be constituted to oversee and0or *itness the

canvassing of votes and proclamation of *inners. The

rules con3ne the role of the $oard of /lection

Supervisors0%onsultants to merely overseeing and

*itnessing the conduct of elections. This is consistent

*ith the provision in the Local Government %ode

limiting the authority of the %O-/L/% to the

supervision of the election. #0

:n case at bar, (GOO -olina, the %hairman of the

$oard, presided over the elections. There *as direct

participation by the %hairman of the $oard in the

elections contrary to *hat is dictated by the rules.

2orse, there *as no $oard of /lection Supervisors to

oversee the elections in vie* of the *al5 out staged by

its t*o other members, the (rovincial %O-/L/%Supervisor and the (rovincial Treasurer. The ob?ective

of 5eeping the election free and honest *as therefore

compromised.

The %ourt therefore 3nds that the election of o+cers of

the "#$% held on June 1, 1!! is null and void for

failure to comply *ith the provisions of 6LG %ircular

Eo. !9C!.


9/268

-ean*hile, pending resolution of this petition,

petitioner 3led a supplemental petition alleging that

public respondent Local Government Secretary, in his

memorandum dated June F, 1!!C, designated #ugusto

#ntonio as temporary representative of the "ederationto the sangguniang panlalawiganof

%atanduanes. #1$y virtue of this memorandum,

respondent governor s*ore into said o+ce #ugusto

#ntonio on June 1=, 1!!C. #2

The Solicitor General 3led his comment on the

supplemental petition #3as reuired by the resolution

of the %ourt dated September 1B,1!!C.

:n his comment, the Solicitor General dismissed thesupervening event alleged by petitioner as something

immaterial to the petition. Ie argues that #ntonios

appointment *as merely temporary Duntil such time

that the provincial "#$% president in that province has

been elected, appointed and uali3ed.D ##Ie stresses

that #ntonios appointment *as only a remedial

measure designed to cope *ith the problems brought

about by the absence of a representative of the "#$%

to the Dsanggunian ang panlala*igan.D

Sec. AC4 &A' of the Local Government %ode &$.(. $lg.

BBF' provides9

&A' The sangguniang panlala*igan shall

be composed of the governor, the vice9

governor, elective members of the said

sanggunian and the presidents of te

atipunang panlalawigan and the

5abataang barangay provincial federation

*ho shall be appointed by the (resident

of the (hilippines. &/mphasis supplied.'

$atas (ambansa $lg. 41, under Sec. A li5e*ise states7

xxx xxx xxx

The sangguniang panlala*igan of each

province shall be composed of the

governor as chairman and presiding

o+cer, the vice9governor as presiding

o+cer pro tempore, the elective

sangguniang panlala*igan members, andthe appointive members consisting of the

president of te provincial association o

"aranga# councils, and the president of

the provincial federation of the 5abataang

barangay. &/mphasis supplied.'

:n 'gnacio vs. Banate Jr. #$the %ourt, interpreting

similarly *orded provisions of $atas (ambansa $lg.

BBF and $atas (ambansa $lg. 41 on the composition ofthe sangguniang panlungsod, #6declared as null and

void the appointment of private respondent Leoncio

$anate Jr. as member of the (angguniang

Panlungsodof the %ity of oxas representing

theatipunang panlungsod ng !ga "aranga#for he

lac5ed the elegibility and uali3cation reuired by la*,

not being a barangay captain and for not having been

elected president of the association of barangay


10/268

councils. The %ourt held that an unuali3ed person

cannot be appointed a member of the sanggunian,

even in an acting capacity. :n )e#es vs. *errer,#%the

appointment of Eemesio L. asgo Jr. as representative

of the youth sector to the sangguniang panlungsodof6avao %ity *as declared invalid since he *as never

the president of the 5abataang barangay city

federation as reuired by Sec. 1FB, $atas (ambansa

$lg. BBF.

:n the present controversy involving the sangguniang

panlalawigan, the la* is li5e*ise explicit. To be

appointed by the (resident of the (hilippines to sit in

the sangguniang panlalawiganis the president of

the atipunang panlalawigan. The appointee must

meet the uali3cations set by la*. #&The appointing

po*er is bound by la* to comply *ith the

reuirements as to the basic uali3cations of the

appointee to the sangguniang panlalawigan. The

(resident of the (hilippines or his alter ego, the

Secretary of Local Government, has no authority to

appoint anyone *ho does not meet the minimum

uali3cation to be the president of the federation of

barangay councils.

#ugusto #ntonio is not the president of the federation.

Ie is a member of the federation but he *as not even

present during the elections despite notice. The

argument that #ntonio *as appointed as a remedial

measure in the exigency of the service cannot be

sustained. Since #ntonio does not meet the basic

uali3cation of being president of the federation, his

appointment to the sangguniang panlalawiganis not

?usti3ed not*ithstanding that such appointment is

merely in a temporary capacity. :f the intention of the

respondent Secretary *as to protect the interest of the

federation in thesanggunian, he should haveappointed the incumbent "#$% (resident in a hold9over

capacity. "or even under the guidelines, the term of

o+ce of o+cers of the atipunanat all levels shall be

from the date of their election until their successors

shall have been duly elected and uali3ed, *ithout

pre?udice to the terms of their appointments as

members of the sanggunian to *hich they may be

correspondingly appointed. #9Since the election is still

under protest such that no successor of the incumbent

has as yet uali3ed, the respondent Secretary has no

choice but to have the incumbent "#$% (resident sit as

member of the sanggunian. Ie could even have

appointed petitioner since he *as elected the

president of the federation but not #ntonio. The

appointment of #ntonio, allegedly the protege of

respondent Governor, gives credence to petitioners

charge of political interference by respondent

Governor in the organiation. This should not be

allo*ed. The barangays should be insulated from anypartisan activity or political intervention if only to give

true meaning to local autonomy.

2I//"O/, the petition is G#ET/6 in that the

resolution of respondent Secretary dated #ugust =,

1!! is hereby S/T #S:6/ for having been issued in

excess of ?urisdiction.


11/268

The election of the o+cials of the #$% "ederation held

on June 1, 1!! is hereby annulled. # ne* election of

o+cers of the federation is hereby ordered to be

conducted immediately in accordance *ith the

governing rules and regulations.

The Supplemental petition is hereby G#ET/6. The

appointment of #ugusto #ntonio as representative to

the(angguniang Panlalawiganin a temporary capacity

is declared null and void.

Eo costs.

SO O6//6.

G.R. No. 110120 'a()* 16, 199#

LAGUNA LA+E !EELOP'ENT

AUTORITY, petitioner,

vs.

COURT O- APPEALS, ON. 'ANUEL N. SERAPIO,

P(/sdng udg/ RTC, (an)* 12%, Caoo)an Ct,

ON. 'ACARIO A. ASISTIO, R., Ct 'ao( o4

Caoo)an and5o( TE CITY GOERN'ENT O-CALOOCAN, respondents.

Al"erto +. idalgo and -a. Teresa T. Oledan or

petitioner.

Te it# Legal Ofcer & ie, Law /epart!ent or

-a#or -acario A. Asistio, Jr. and te it# Govern!ent

o aloocan.

RO'ERO,J.:

The clash bet*een the responsibility of the %ityGovernment of %aloocan to dispose o< the B4C tons of

garbage it collects daily and the gro*ing concern and

sensitivity to a pollution9free environment of the

residents of $arangay %amarin, Tala /state, %aloocan

%ity *here these tons of garbage are dumped

everyday is the hub of this controversy elevated by the

protagonists to the Laguna La5e 6evelopment

#uthority &LL6#' for ad?udication.

The instant case stemmed from an earlier petition 3led*ith this %ourt by Laguna La5e 6evelopment #uthority

&LL6# for short' doc5eted as G..

Eo. 1CF4=A against the %ity Government of %aloocan,

et al. :n the esolution of Eovember 1C, 1!!A, this

%ourt referred G.. Eo. 1CF4=A to the %ourt of #ppeals

for appropriate disposition. 6oc5eted therein as %#9

G.. S(

Eo. A!==!, the %ourt of #ppeals, in a

decision1

promulgated on January A!, 1!!B ruled thatthe LL6# has no po*er and authority to issue a cease

and desist order en?oining the dumping of garbage in

$arangay %amarin, Tala /state, %aloocan %ity. The

LL6# no* see5s, in this petition, a revie* of the

decision of the %ourt of #ppeals.

The facts, as disclosed in the records, are undisputed.


12/268

On -arch , 1!!1, the Tas5 "orce %amarin 6umpsite of

Our Lady of Lourdes (arish, $arangay %amarin,

%aloocan %ity, 3led a letter9complaint2*ith the

Laguna La5e 6evelopment #uthority see5ing to stop

the operation of the .9hectare open garbagedumpsite in Tala /state, $arangay %amarin, %aloocan

%ity due to its harmful e. "uentes failed to settle the problem.

#fter an investigation by its team of legal and technical

personnel on #ugust 1=, 1!!A, the LL6# issued

another order reiterating the 6ecember 4, 1!!1, order

and issued an #lias %ease and 6esist Order en?oining

the %ity Government of %aloocan from continuing its

dumping operations at the %amarin area.

On September A4, 1!!A, the LL6#, *ith the assistance

of the (hilippine Eational (olice, enforced its #lias

%ease and 6esist Order by prohibiting the entry of all

garbage dump truc5s into the Tala /state, %amarin

area being utilied as a dumpsite.

(ending resolution of its motion for reconsideration

earlier 3led on September 1F, 1!!A *ith the LL6#, the


13/268

%ity Government of %aloocan 3led *ith the egional

Trial %ourt of %aloocan %ity an action for the

declaration of nullity of the cease and desist order *ith

prayer for the issuance of *rit of in?unction, doc5eted

as %ivil %ase Eo. %9144!. :n its complaint, the %ityGovernment of %aloocan sought to be declared as the

sole authority empo*ered to promote the health and

safety and enhance the right of the people in %aloocan

%ity to a balanced ecology *ithin its territorial

?urisdiction.9

On September A4, 1!!A, the /xecutive Judge of the

egional Trial %ourt of %aloocan %ity issued a

temporary restraining order en?oining the LL6# from

enforcing its cease and desist order. Subseuently, thecase *as raKed to the egional Trial %ourt, $ranch

1A of %aloocan *hich, at the time, *as presided over

by Judge -anuel Jn. Serapio of the egional Trial %ourt,

$ranch 1AF, the pairing ?udge of the recently9retired

presiding ?udge.

The LL6#, for its part, 3led on October A, 1!!A a

motion to dismiss on the ground, among others, that

under epublic #ct Eo. B!B1, as amended by(residential 6ecree Eo. !=, other*ise 5no*n as the

(ollution %ontrol La*, the cease and desist order

issued by it *hich is the sub?ect matter of the

complaint is revie*able both upon the la* and the

facts of the case by the %ourt of #ppeals and not by

the egional Trial %ourt. 10

On October 1A, 1!!A Judge -anuel Jn. Serapio issued

an order consolidating %ivil %ase Eo. %9144! *ith

%ivil %ase Eo. %9144C, an earlier case 3led by the

Tas5 "orce %amarin 6umpsite entitled D"r. John -oran,

et al. vs. Ion. -acario #sistio.D The LL6#, ho*ever,maintained during the trial that the foregoing cases,

being independent of each other, should have been

treated separately.

On October 1, 1!!A, Judge -anuel Jn. Serapio, after

hearing the motion to dismiss, issued in the

consolidated cases an order11denying LL6#s motion

to dismiss and granting the issuance of a *rit of

preliminary in?unction en?oining the LL6#, its agent

and all persons acting for and on its behalf, fromenforcing or implementing its cease and desist order

*hich prevents plainti< %ity of %aloocan from dumping

garbage at the %amarin dumpsite during the pendency

of this case and0or until further orders of the court.

On Eovember 4, 1!!A, the LL6# 3led a petition

for certiorari, prohibition and in?unction *ith prayer for

restraining order *ith the Supreme %ourt, doc5eted as

G.. Eo. 1CF4=A, see5ing to nullify the aforesaid orderdated October 1, 1!!A issued by the egional Trial

%ourt, $ranch 1AF of %aloocan %ity denying its motion

to dismiss.

The %ourt, acting on the petition, issued a

esolution12on Eovember 1C, 1!!A referring the case

to the %ourt of #ppeals for proper disposition and at

the same time, *ithout giving due course to the


14/268

petition, reuired the respondents to comment on the

petition and 3le the same *ith the %ourt of #ppeals

*ithin ten &1C' days from notice. :n the meantime, the

%ourt issued a temporary restraining order, e


15/268

thereto, since appeal therefrom is *ithin the exclusive

and appellate ?urisdiction of the %ourt of #ppeals

under Section !, par. &B', of $atas (ambansa $lg. 1A!@

and &A' the Laguna La5e 6evelopment #uthority has

no po*er and authority to issue a cease and desistorder under its enabling la*, epublic #ct Eo. =4C, as

amended by (.6. Eo. 1B and /xecutive Order

Eo. !AF, series of 1!B.

The %ourt of #ppeals thus dismissed %ivil %ase Eo.

144! and the preliminary in?unction issued in the said

case *as set aside@ the cease and desist order of LL6#

*as li5e*ise set aside and the temporary restraining

order en?oining the %ity -ayor of %aloocan and0or the

%ity Government of %aloocan to cease and desist fromdumping its garbage at the Tala /state, $arangay

%amarin, %aloocan %ity *as lifted, sub?ect, ho*ever, to

the condition that any future dumping of garbage in

said area, shall be in conformity *ith the procedure

and protective *or5s contained in the proposal

attached to the records of this case and found on

pages 14A91C of the )ollo, *hich *as thereby

adopted by reference and made an integral part of the

decision, until the corresponding restraining and0orin?unctive relief is granted by the proper %ourt upon

LL6#s institution of the necessary legal proceedings.

Ience, the Laguna La5e 6evelopment #uthority 3led

the instant petition for revie* on certiorari, no*

doc5eted as G.. Eo. 11C1AC, *ith prayer that the

temporary restraining order lifted by the %ourt of

#ppeals be re9issued until after 3nal determination by

this %ourt of the issue on the proper interpretation of

the po*ers and authority of the LL6# under its

enabling la*.

On July, 1!, 1!!B, the %ourt issued a temporaryrestraining order16en?oining the %ity -ayor of

%aloocan and0or the %ity Government of %aloocan to

cease and desist from dumping its garbage at the Tala

/state, $arangay %amarin, %aloocan %ity, e


16/268

*hich the %ity Government of %aloocan has territorial

?urisdiction.

The %ourt of #ppeals sustained the position of the %ity

of %aloocan on the theory that Section F of (residential6ecree Eo. !=, other*ise 5no*n as the (ollution

%ontrol la*, authoriing the defunct Eational (ollution

%ontrol %ommission to issue an e01partecease and

desist order *as not incorporated in (residential

6ecree Eo. 1B nor in /xecutive Order Eo. !AF, series

of

1!B. The %ourt of #ppeals ruled that under Section =,

par. &d', of epublic #ct Eo. =4C, as amended, the

LL6# is instead reuired Dto institute the necessary

legal proceeding against any person *ho shallcommence to implement or continue implementation

of any pro?ect, plan or program *ithin the Laguna de

$ay region *ithout previous clearance from the

#uthority.D

The LL6# no* assails, in this partition for revie*, the

abovementioned ruling of the %ourt of #ppeals,

contending that, as an administrative agency *hich

*as granted regulatory and ad?udicatory po*ers andfunctions by epublic #ct Eo. =4C and its amendatory

la*s, (residential 6ecree Eo. 1B and /xecutive Order

Eo. !AF, series of 1!B, it is invested *ith the po*er

and authority to issue a cease and desist order

pursuant to Section = par. &c', &d', &e', &f' and &g' of

/xecutive Order Eo. !AF series of 1!B *hich provides,

thus7

Sec. =. Additional Powers and *unctions.

The authority shall have the follo*ing

po*ers and functions7

xxx xxx xxx

&c' :ssue orders or decisions to compel

compliance *ith the provisions of this

/xecutive Order and its implementing

rules and regulations only after proper

notice and hearing.

&d' -a5e, alter or modify orders reuiring

the discontinuance of pollution specifying

the conditions and the time *ithin *hichsuch discontinuance must be

accomplished.

&e' :ssue, rene*, or deny permits, under

such conditions as it may determine to be

reasonable, for the prevention and

abatement of pollution, for the discharge

of se*age, industrial *aste, or for the

installation or operation of se*age *or5sand industrial disposal system or parts

thereof.

&f' #fter due notice and hearing, the

#uthority may also revo5e, suspend or

modify any permit issued under this Order

*henever the same is necessary to

prevent or abate pollution.


17/268

&g' 6eputie in *riting or reuest

assistance of appropriate government

agencies or instrumentalities for the

purpose of enforcing this /xecutive Order

and its implementing rules andregulations and the orders and decisions

of the #uthority.

The LL6# claims that the appellate court deliberately

suppressed and totally disregarded the above

provisions of /xecutive Order Eo. !AF, series of 1!B,

*hich granted administrative uasi9?udicial functions

to LL6# on pollution abatement cases.

:n light of the relevant environmental protection la*scited *hich are applicable in this case, and the

corresponding overlapping ?urisdiction of government

agencies implementing these la*s, the resolution of

the issue of *hether or not the LL6# has the authority

and po*er to issue an order *hich, in its nature and

e


18/268

and po*er and authority, the LL6#, by virtue of its

special charter, obviously has the responsibility to

protect the inhabitants of the Laguna La5e region from

the deleterious e


19/268

To be sure, the LL6# *as not expressly conferred the

po*er Dto issue and e01partecease and desist orderD

in a language, as suggested by the %ity Government of

%aloocan, similar to the express grant to the defunct

Eational (ollution %ontrol %ommission under Section Fof (.6. Eo. != *hich, admittedly *as not reproduced

in (.6. Eo. 1B and /.O. Eo. !AF, series of 1!B.

Io*ever, it *ould be a mista5e to dra* therefrom the

conclusion that there is a denial of the po*er to issue

the order in uestion *hen the po*er Dto !ae, alter

or modify orders reuiring the discontinuance of

pollutionD is expressly and clearly besto*ed upon the

LL6# by /xecutive Order Eo. !AF, series of 1!B.

#ssuming arguendothat the authority to issue aDcease and desist orderD *ere not expressly conferred

by la*, there is ?urisprudence enough to the e


20/268

reuirements of procedural due process

yield to the necessities of protecting vital

public interests li5e those here involved,

through the exercise of police po*er. . . .

The immediate response to the demands of Dthe

necessities of protecting vital public interestsD gives

vitality to the statement on ecology embodied in the

6eclaration of (rinciples and State (olicies or the 1!F

%onstitution. #rticle ::, Section 1 *hich provides7

The State shall protect and advance the

right of the people to a balanced and

healthful ecology in accord *ith the

rhythm and harmony of nature.

#s a constitutionally guaranteed right of every person,

it carries the correlative duty of non9impairment. This

is but in consonance *ith the declared policy of the

state Dto protect and promote the right to health of the

people and instill health consciousness among

them.D2&:t is to be borne in mind that the (hilippines

is party to the >niversal 6eclaration of Iuman ights

and the #lma %onference 6eclaration of 1!F *hichrecognie health as a fundamental human right. 29

The issuance, therefore, of the cease and desist order

by the LL6#, as a practical matter of procedure under

the circumstances of the case, is a proper exercise of

its po*er and authority under its charter and its

amendatory la*s. Iad the cease and desist order

issued by the LL6# been complied *ith by the %ity

Government of %aloocan as it did in the 3rst instance,

no further legal steps *ould have been necessary.

The charter of LL6#, epublic #ct Eo. =4C, as

amended, instead of conferring upon the LL6# themeans of directly enforcing such orders, has provided

under its Section = &d' the po*er to institute

Dnecessary legal proceeding against any person *ho

shall commence to implement or continue

implementation of any pro?ect, plan or program *ithin

the Laguna de $ay region *ithout previous clearance

from the LL6#.D

%learly, said provision *as designed to invest the LL6#

*ith su+ciently broad po*ers in the regulation of allpro?ects initiated in the Laguna La5e region, *hether

by the government or the private sector, insofar as the

implementation of these pro?ects is concerned. :t *as

meant to deal *ith cases *hich might possibly arise

*here decisions or orders issued pursuant to the

exercise of such broad po*ers may not be obeyed,

resulting in the th*arting of its laudabe ob?ective. To

meet such contingencies, then the *rits

of !anda!usand in?unction *hich are beyond thepo*er of the LL6# to issue, may be sought from the

proper courts.

:nsofar as the implementation of relevant anti9pollution

la*s in the Laguna La5e region and its surrounding

provinces, cities and to*ns are concerned, the %ourt

*ill not d*ell further on the related issues raised *hich

are more appropriately addressed to an administrative


21/268

agency *ith the special 5no*ledge and expertise of

the LL6#.

2I//"O/, the petition is G#ET/6. The temporary

restraining order issued by the %ourt on July 1!, 1!!Ben?oining the %ity -ayor of %aloocan and0or the %ity

Government of %aloocan from dumping their garbage

at the Tala /state, $arangay %amarin, %aloocan %ity is

hereby made permanent.

SO O6//6.

G.R. No. L13&2% S/7t/8/( 2&, 1962

ENA'IN 'ASANGCAY,petitioner,vs.TE CO''ISSION ON ELECTIONS,respondent.

Godoredo A. )a!os and )u"# (alazar1Al"erto or

petitioner.Ofce o te (olicitor General and /o!inador /. /a#otor respondent.

AUTISTA ANGELO,J.:

$en?amin -asangcay, *ith several others, *as onOctober 1=, 1!4F charged before the %ommission on/lection *ith contempt for having opened three boxesbearing serial numbers l9CF1, l9CFA and l9CFBcontaining o+cial and sample ballots for themunicipalities of the province of #5lan, in violation ofthe instructions of said %ommission embodied in itsresolution promulgated September A, 1!4F, and itsunnumbered resolution date -arch 4, 1!4F, inasmuchas he opened said boxes not the presence of thedivision superintendent of schools of #5lan, theprovincial auditor, and the authoried representatives

of the Eacionalista (arty, the Liberal (arty and the%itiens (arty, as reuired in the aforesaid resolutions,*hich are punishable under Section 4 of the evised/lection %ode and ule = of the ules of %ourt.-asangcay *as then the provincial treasurer of #5landesignated by the %ommission in its resolution in %ase%/9Eo. AFC, part :: A &b' thereof, to ta5e charge of thereceipt and custody of the o+cial ballots, electionforms and supplies, as *ell as of their distribution,among the di


22/268

:n compliance *ith the summons issued to -asangcayand his co9respondents to appear and sho* cause *hythey should not be punished for contempt on the basisof the aforementioned charge, they all appearedbefore the %ommission on October A1, 1!4F and

entered a plea of not guilty. Thereupon, evidence *aspresented by both the prosecution and the defense,and on 6ecember 1, 1!4F the %ommission renderedits decision 3nding -asangcay and his co9respondent-olo guilty as charged and sentencing each of them tosu


23/268

&Slade (er5ins v. 6irector of (risons, 4 (hil.,AF1@ >.S. v. Lee Ioc, B (hil., F@ 'n )eSotto,= O.G., A4FC@ 'n )eNelly, (hil., !=='. Theexercise of this po*er has al*ays been regardedas a necessary incident and attribute of courts

&Slade (er5ins v. 6irector of (risons, '"id.'. :tsexercise by administrative bodies has beeninvariably limited to ma5ing e


24/268

:G.R. Nos. #966#6%. No;/8/( 22, 1990. 'a(ona4o( Petitioner.

Pato A. Ga*o 4o( LT Co.

SYLLAUS

1. %:):L L#2@ %O--OE %#:/S@ %/T:":%#T/ O"(>$L:% %OE)/E:/E%/@ $O#6 O" T#ES(OT#T:OE,G:)/E TI/ (O2/ #E6 6:S%/T:OE TO 6/%// O/">S/ TI/ %#E%/LL#T:OE O" TI/ S#-/ :"S>((OT/6 2:TI /):6/E%/@ OTI/ $#S/S "O $OTS6/%:S:OES. 8 There can be no dispute that the la*


25/268

&Section 1 &n' of the (ublic Service #ct' gives to the$OT &successor of the (ublic Service %ommission'ample po*er and discretion to decree or refuse thecancellation of a certi3cate of public convenienceissued to an operator as long as there is evidence to

support its action, as held by this %ourt in a long line ofcases, *herein it *as even intimated that in matters ofthis nature so long as the action is ?usti3ed this %ourt*ill not substitute its discretion for that of the $OT &see

Javier, /t. #l. v. de Leon, /t #l., 1C! (hil. F41@ Santiago:ce (lant and %o. v. Laho, F (hil. AA1@ aymundo

Transportation %o. v. %edra, !! (hil. !!@ -anila Pello*Taxicab %o., :nc. v. %astelo, 1C (hil. B!=@ 6agupan :ce(lant %o., :nc. v. de Lucero, /t. #l. citing -anila Pello*

Taxicab %o.@ :nc., /t #l., v. #raullo, B= O.G. A=1@Sambrano v. Eorthern Luon Transportation %o., B4

O.G. AAF1'. The $OT, in refusing to cancel thecerti3cates of public convenience of $LT$, relied onthese pieces of evidence@ &1' the letter of $LT$ datedSeptember 1, 1!FA@ &A' reports0complaints from thegeneral public@ &B' reports of its 3eldmen@ and &=' itso*n observations acuired thru inspection trips, all of*hich form part of its records. #s 2e have ruledbefore, the $OT is particularly a fact93nding body*hose decisions on uestions regarding certi3cates ofpublic convenience are in;uenced not only by the factsas disclosed by the evidence in the case before it but

also by the reports of its 3eld agents and inspectorsthat are periodically submitted to it &see La -allorcaand (ampanga $us %o., :nc. v. -ercado, G.. Eo. L91!1AC, Eovember A!, 1!4, 14 S%# B=B'. Li5e*ise,the $OT has the po*er to ta5e into consideration theresult of its o*n observation and investigation of thematter submitted to it for decision, in connection *ithother evidence presented at the hearing of a case&-anila Pello* Taxicab %o., :nc., /t. #l. v. E. Q $.

Stables %o., :nc., C (hil. 41 citing -anila Pello*Taxicab %o., :nc., /t. #l. v. 6anon, 4 (hil. F4@ -anila/lectric %o. v. $alagtas, 4 (hil. =A!'.

A. :6.@ :6.@ :6.@ -// "#:L>/ TO T/-(O#:LP

O(/#T/ TI/ T#ES(OT#T:OE L:E/S SIO>L6 EOT$/ # GO>E6 "O TI/ %#E%/LL#T:OE TI//O". 8

Ta5ing into consideration $LT$s letter datedSeptember 1, 1!FA, it acted in good faith *hen it didnot immediately operate on those lines and notbecause of a design to pre?udice public interest.%erti3cates of public convenience involve investmentof a big amount of capital, both in securing thecerti3cate and in maintaining the operation of the linescovered thereby, and mere failure to operatetemporarily should not be a ground for cancellation,

especially as *hen, in the case at bar, the suspensionof the service *as directly caused by circumstancesbeyond the operators control &(angasinan

Transportation %o. v. ".". Ialili, /t #l., !4 (hil. !='.

B. :6.@ :6.@ :6.@ -#P EOT $/ )#L:6LP /)ON/6 :E TI/#$S/E%/ O" 2:LL">L #E6 %OET>-#%:O>S ):OL#T:OE$P TI/ >T:L:TP O(/#TO@ $OT G>:6/6 $P (>$L:%E/%/SS:TP #E6 %OE)/E:/E%/ #S (:-#P%OES:6/#T:OES. 8 :n absence of sho*ing that thereis *illful and contumacious violation on the part of the

utility operator, no certi3cate of public conveniencemay be validly revo5ed &-ananal v. #use?o, /t #l.,G.. Eo. L9B1C4, #ugust =, 1!, 1= S%# B'. -oreimportantly, *hat cannot be ignored is that the needsof the public are paramount, as elucidated by the $OTin its order. :n the exercise of its po*er to grant orcancel certi3cates of public convenience, the $OT isguided by public necessity and convenience asprimary considerations &see 6ion v. (ublic Service


26/268

%ommission, /t #l., G.. Eo. L9B=AC, #pril BC, 1!FB,4C S%# 4CC'.

! E C I S I O N

'E!IAL!EA,J.?

This is a petition for certiorariand0or prohibition *ithprayer for the issuance of a restraining order see5ingto annul the order of public respondent $oard of

Transportation dated January =, 1!F!.

The antecedent facts, as culled from the pleadings, are

as follo*s7chanrob1es virtual 1a* library

On #ugust 4, 1!F1, the then (ublic Service%ommission granted certi3cates of public convenienceto private respondent $atangas Laguna Tayabas $us%o., :nc. &$LT$' for the operation of t*elve &1A' busunits on the (asay %ity 8 Legaspi %ity line &%ase Eo.FC94F=!'@ six &' bus units on the (asay %ity 8 $ulan,Sorsogon line &%ase Eo. FC94F4C', and ten &1C' busunits on the (asay %ity 8 Sorsogon line &%ase Eo. FC94F41' &pp. 4!9=, ollo'.chanrobles la* library 7 red

On #pril =, 1!F4, petitioner (antranco South /xpress,:nc. &(#ET#E%O' 3led a complaint against $LT$before public respondent $oard of Transportation&$OT', doc5eted as %ase Eo. F49B19%, charging it *ithabandonment of services on said lines from #ugust,1!F1 to #pril, 1!F4 and praying for the cancellation of$LT$s certi3cates of public convenience &pp. !9FC,ollo'.

On -arch A=, 1!F, in %ases Eos. FC94F=!, FC94F4Cand FC94F41, (#ET#E%O 3led an urgent petitioncharging $LT$ *ith abandoning said services from-arch, 1!F4 to -arch, 1!F and reiterating its prayer

for the cancellation of the certi3cates of publicconvenience &pp. FF9F, ollo'.

$LT$ did not 3le any *ritten ans*er either to thecomplaint in %ase Eo. F49B19% or to the urgent petitionin %ases Eos. FC94F=!, FC94F4C, and FC94F41. ather,in a -otion dated July A, 1!F, $LT$, referring tohearings before the $OT on -arch A=, 1!FF and #pril1B, 1!FF, alleged &pp. 1A91A,ollo'7?gc7chanrobles.com.ph

DB. #t said hearings, espondent admitted non9operation of the bus services authoried in %ases Eos.FC94F=!,FC94F4C and FC94F41 and thus the need for%omplainant to present evidence in both proceedingsmay be dispensed *ith.

D=. #t the said hearings, espondent advanceda+rmative defenses on %omplainants >rgent -otionof -arch A=, 1!FF &sic' *hich espondent, in itse?oinder of -ay 4, 1!FF, adopted also as itsa+rmative defenses *ith respect to %ase Eo. F49B19%.

D$rie;y, these a+rmative defenses are7chanrob1esvirtual 1a* library

&a' espondent actually registered under (>$denomination all the t*enty eight &A' busesauthoried for operation under the certi3cates soughtto be cancelled nnex R#'@


27/268

&b' The follo*ing supervening factors *hich arebeyond espondents control ho*ever, arose andprevented espondent from operating the lines atissue7chanrob1es virtual 1a* library

&1' The gasoline crises starting 1!F1@

&A' The destructive big ;oods in 1!FA and 1!F=@

&B' The general troubled conditions of peace and orderin 1!F1 and 1!FA leading to the declaration of martialla*@

&=' Starting 1!FB and on to 1!F=,1!F4 and 1!F thenearly prohibitive cost of units and spare parts &ifavailable at all', the higher costs of operations and

acute tire shortages particularly in 1!F=@

&4' #ll these, *hich are of general public 5no*ledgeand 5no*n to the $oard, brought the *hole landtransportation industry in *hat might be termed as inextremis condition causing the ban5ruptcy of manyoperators, big and small@ and

&' %omplainant (antranco South /xpress, :nc. *as notspared the ill e


28/268

DA. Orders the 3ne of (1C,CCC.CC imposed above to bepaid to this $oard *ithin ten &1C' days from receipt byit of a copy of this Order and declares the consolidatedcomplaints 3led in the above9entitled cases closed and

terminated.

D"ailure of respondent0applicant to comply *ith any ofthe foregoing reuirements shall be consideredsu+cient cause for this $oard to *ithdra* theauthority herein granted.

DSO O6//6.Dcrala* virtua1a* library

:t rationalied the non9cancellation of $LT$scerti3cates of public convenience, as follo*s &pp. 1A

#91BB, ollo'7chanrobles virtual la*library

DObviously, cancellation of a certi3cate of publicconvenience is a penalty of the severest degree. :tsconseuences are su


29/268

DThis leads us into discussing *hat the public need isin the areas covered by the certi3cates of publicconvenience in uestion.

DThe $oard, in its desire to be responsive to public

need, has al*ays 5ept itself informed of actual andlatest transportation conditions in the provinces,including the $icol region. Thru reports0complaintsfrom the general public, from reports of its 3eldmen,and from its o*n personal observations acuired thruinspection trips, this $oard is a*are that buses *hichare operating are very much less than *hat has beenauthoried. This *as o+cially con3rmed in a meetingof provincial and -etro9-anila bus operators held in-alacaang (alace on June A1, 1!F, presided over byIis /xcellency, (resident "erdinand /. -arcos himself.

D:n $icol region, for instance, in the past four years&1!F=, 1!F4, 1!F and 1!FF' (S/: &(#ET#E%O'registered and operated less than 4C of itsauthoried units7chanrob1es virtual 1a* library

Pear #uthoried >nits egistered

1!F= = 14! units

1!F4 &not available' 1A units

1!F =4B AAF units

1!FF == AA1 units

and among the lines not so operated or only partiallyoperated, either through expiration of certi3cates,petitioned suspension of operation or for sheer lac5 ofunits are long distance lines from -anila to the

provinces of Mueon, %amarines Eorte, %amarines Sur,#lbay and Sorsogon aside from lines serving inter9provincial and local needs in Mueon province and the*hole $icol egion. #mong them are the follo*inglines *hich are concurrert in *hole or in portions of the

lines (asay %ity 8 Legaspi %ity, (asay 8 Sorsogon and(asay 8 $ulan, all the said lines reuiring theoperation of some t*o hundred t*enty seven &AAF'buses7?gc7chanrobles.com.ph

Dx x x

DThe non9operation by (S/: &(#ET#E%O' of thesemore than t*o hundred &ACC' buses clearly reuiresthe entry or operation of an eual number of buses.#ny prohibition against an e


30/268

designed to tap the rich natural resources of theregion.Dcrala* virtua1a* library

Ience, the present petition.

On January 14, 1!F!, 2e issued a temporaryrestraining order en?oining the $OT from enforcing its

January =, 1!F! order &pp. 1=F91=, ollo'.chanroblesvirtual la*library

:n this petition, (#ET#E%O imputes grave abuse ofdiscretion, acting *ithout or in excess of ?urisdiction onthe part of the $OT *hen it issued the uestionedorder, as indicated by several circumstance that itenumerated. #mong these, only the follo*ing deservediscussion7chanrob1es virtual 1a* library

1' refusal to cancel the certi3cates of publicconvenience of $LT$ despite its abandonment and0ornon9operation on the sub?ect lines since #ugust 4,1!F1 up to the present@

A' using as basis for its uestioned order $LT$s letterdated September A, 1!FA &*herein it ?usti3ed its non9operation on account of un3nished portions of theroad' *hich is not part of the records of the case@ and

B' resorting to extraneous facts not supported bycompetent evidence as basis for its conclusion that thedemand of public need *ould be more paramount thanthe need to penalie $LT$.

"or its part, $LT$ contends that7chanrob1es virtual1a* library

1' the cancellation or non9cancellation of its

certi3cates of public convenience is addressed to thesound discretion of the $OT@

A' its letter dated September 1, 1!FA &erroneouslyreferred to as the letter dated September A, 1!FA'

forms part of the $OTs records@ and

B' the $OT acted correctly in the exercise of its sounddiscretion and *ithin its ?urisdiction *hen it found thatthe demand of public need *ould be paramount thanthe need to penalie it &$LT$'.

There can be no dispute that the la* &Section 1 &n' ofthe (ublic Service #ct' gives to the $OT &successor ofthe (ublic Service ommission' U ample po*er anddiscretion to decree or refuse the cancellation of a

certi3cate of public convenience issued to an operatoras long as there is evidence to support its action, asheld by this %ourt in a long line of cases, *herein it*as even intimated that in matters of this nature solong as the action is ?usti3ed this %ourt *ill notsubstitute its discretion for that of the $OT &see Javier,/t. #l. v. de Leon, /t #l., 1C! (hil. F41@ Santiago :ce(lant and %o. v. Laho, F (hil. AA1@ aymundo

Transportation %o. v. %edra, !! (hil. !!@ -anila Pello*Taxicab %o., :nc. v. %astelo, 1C (hil. B!=@ 6agupan :ce(lant %o., :nc. v. de Lucero, /t. #l. citing -anila Pello*

Taxicab %o.@ :nc., /t #l., v. #raullo, B= O.G. A=1@Sambrano v. Eorthern Luon Transportation %o., B4O.G. AAF1'. The $OT, in refusing to cancel thecerti3cates of public convenience of $LT$, relied onthese pieces of evidence@ &1' the letter of $LT$ datedSeptember 1, 1!FA@ &A' reports0complaints from thegeneral public@ &B' reports of its 3eldmen@ and &=' itso*n observations acuired thru inspection trips, all of*hich form part of its records. #s 2e have ruled


31/268

before, the $OT is particularly a fact93nding body*hose decisions on uestions regarding certi3cates ofpublic convenience are in;uenced not only by the factsas disclosed by the evidence in the case before it butalso by the reports of its 3eld agents and inspectors

that are periodically submitted to it &see La -allorcaand (ampanga $us %o., :nc. v. -ercado, G.. Eo. L91!1AC, Eovember A!, 1!4, 14 S%# B=B'. Li5e*ise,the $OT has the po*er to ta5e into consideration theresult of its o*n observation and investigation of thematter submitted to it for decision, in connection *ithother evidence presented at the hearing of a case&-anila Pello* Taxicab %o., :nc., /t. #l. v. E. Q $.Stables %o., :nc., C (hil. 41 citing -anila Pello*

Taxicab %o., :nc., /t. #l. v. 6anon, 4 (hil. F4@ -anila/lectric %o. v. $alagtas, 4 (hil. =A!'.

Ta5ing into consideration $LT$s letter datedSeptember 1, 1!FA, it acted in good faith *hen it didnot immediately operate on those lines and notbecause of a design to pre?udice public interest.%erti3cates of public convenience involve investmentof a big amount of capital, both in securing thecerti3cate and in maintaining the operation of the linescovered thereby, and mere failure to operatetemporarily should not be a ground for cancellation,especially as *hen, in the case at bar, the suspension

of the service *as directly caused by circumstancesbeyond the operators control &(angasinan

Transportation %o. v. ".". Ialili, /t #l., !4 (hil. !='. :nthe absence of sho*ing that there is *illful andcontumacious violation on the part of the utilityoperator, no certi3cate of public convenience may bevalidly revo5ed &-ananal v. #use?o, /t #l., G.. Eo. L9B1C4, #ugust =, 1!, 1= S%# B'. -oreimportantly, *hat cannot be ignored is that the needs

of the public are paramount, as elucidated by the $OTin its order. :n the exercise of its po*er to grant orcancel certi3cates of public convenience, the $OT isguided by public necessity and convenience asprimary considerations &see 6ion v. (ublic Service

%ommission, /t #l., G.. Eo. L9B=AC, #pril BC, 1!FB,4C S%# 4CC'.chanrobles la*library 7 rednad

#pparently, (#ET#E%Os purpose in instituting theproceedings for cancellation of $LT$s certi3cates ofpublic convenience is to remove it &$LT$' as acompetitor in the business in *hich they are bothengaged &see (angasinan Transportation %o. v. ".".Ialili, /t #l., supra', *hich is detestable. /xperiencehas demonstrated that healthy competition al*aysredounds to the bene3t of the commuters and the

development of transportation as a *hole.

#%%O6:EGLP, the petition is hereby 6:S-:SS/6. Theorder of the $oard of Transportation dated January =,1!F! is #"":-/6. The temporary restraining orderissued on January 14, 1!F! is L:"T/6.

SO O6//6.


32/268

G.R. No. L1%%%& No;/8/( 30, 1962

IN RE CONTE'PT PROCEE!INGS AGAINST

AR'AN!O RA'OS, ESUS L. CAR'ELO, n *s

)a7a)t as C*a(8an o4 t*/ P(o/ Co88tt//,

O@)/ o4 t*/ 'ao( o4 'ana,petitioner9appellant,

vs.

AR'AN!O RA'OS, respondent9appellee.

it# *iscal er!ogenes oncepcion, Jr. or petitioner1

appellant.

Ar!ando )a!os or and in is own "eal as

respondent1appellee.

REGALA,J.:

On "ebruary B, 1!C, the -ayor of -anila issued an

executive order creating a committee Dto investigate

the anomalies involving the license inspectors and

other personnel of the License :nspection 6ivision of

the O+ce of the %ity Treasurer and of the License and

(ermits 6ivision of this O+ce &of the -ayor'.D Ie

named -r. Jesus L. %armelo as chairman of said

committee.

:t appears that the committee issued subpoenas to

#rmando amos, a private citien *or5ing as a

boo55eeper in the %asa de #lba, reuiring him to

appear before it on June B, , !, 14 and 1 and #ugust

= and 11, 1!C, in connection *ith an administrative

case against %risanta /stanislao but that amos, on


33/268

*hom the subpoenas *ere duly served, refused to

appear.

%laiming that amos refusal tended Dto impede,

obstruct, or degrade the administrative proceedings,D

petitioner 3led in the %ourt of "irst :nstance of -anila a

petition to declare #rmando amos in contempt. #fter

hearing, during *hich petitioner *as reuired to sho*

apri!a aciecase, the trial court dismissed the

petition. The lo*er court held that there is no la*

empo*ering committees created by municipal mayors

to issue subpoenas and demand that *itnesses testify

under oath. :t also held that to compel amos to testify

*ould be to violate his right against self9incrimination.

:t appears that in a statement given to investigators of

the O+ce of the -ayor, amos admitted having

misappropriated on several occasions, sums of money

given to him by the o*ner of %asa de #lba for the

payment of the latters taxes for 1!491!4! and that

this fact had not been discovered earlier because

amos used to entertain employees in the %ity

Treasurers o+ce at %asa de #lba *here amos *as a

boo55eeper as stated above. The trial court held that

to compel amos to con3rm this statement in the

administrative case against certain employees in the

O+ce of the %ity Treasurer *ould be to compel him to

give testimony that could be used against him in a

criminal case for estafa of *hich the o*ner of %asa de

#lba *as the o


34/268

Saving the provisions of section one hundred

and t*o of this #ct, any one *ho, *ithout la*ful

excuse, fails to appear upon summons issued

under the authority of the preceding paragraph

or *ho, appearing before any individual or body

exercising the po*er therein de3ned, refuses to

ma5e oath, give testimony, or produce

documents for inspection, *hen thereunto

la*fully reuired, shall be sub?ect to discipline

as in case of contempt of court and upon

application of the individual or body exercising

the po*er in uestion shall be dealt *ith by the

?udge of 3rst instance having ?urisdiction of the

case in the manner provided by la*.

One *ho invo5es this provision of the la* must 3rst

sho* that he has Dauthority to ta5e testimony or

evidenceD before he can apply to the courts for the

punishment of hostile *itnesses. &"rancia v. (ecson, et

al., F (hil. 1CC.'

Eo*, *hat authority to ta5e testimony does

petitioners committee have from *hich the po*er to

cite *itnesses may be implied, pursuant to section

4C

To be sure, there is nothing said in the executive order

of the -ayor creating the committee about such a

grant of po*er. #ll that the order gives to this body is

the po*er to investigate anomalies involving certain

city employees.

(etitioner contends that the -ayor of -anila has the

implied po*er to investigate city o+cials and

employees appointed by him to the end that the po*er

expressly vested in him to suspend and remove such

o+cials of employees &Sec. AA, epublic #ct Eo. =C!'

may be ?ustly and fairly exercised. 2e agree *ith this

proposition and 2e held so in the case

ofPaganlungan v. /e la *uente, = O.G. Eo. 1C, p.

=BBA. $ut 2e do not agree *ith the petitioner that a

delegation of such po*er to investigation implies also

a delegation of the po*er to ta5e testimony or

evidence of *itnesses *hose appearance may be

reuire by the compulsory process of subpoena. Thus,

in denying this po*er to an investigating body in the

O+ce of the -ayor of -anila, 2e said in *rancia v.Pecson, et al., supra7 D2ere do not thin5 the mayor &of

-anila' can delegate or confer the po*ers to

administer oaths, to ta5e testimony, and to issue

subpoenas.D

"urthermore, it is doubtful *hether the provisions of

section 4C of the #dministrative %ode are applicable

to the %ity of -anila as these pertain to national

bureaus or o+ces of the government.

%iting 4C #m. Jur. ==!, petitioner contends that Dthe

po*er of the investigation committee to issue

compulsory process to secure the attendance of

*itnesses undoubtedly exists since only

complimentary to the po*er of the mayor to

investigate, suspend and remove city o+cers and

employees, supra, is the recognied rule that *here


35/268

the statute grants a right, it also confers by implication

every particular po*er necessary for the exercise

thereof.D There is no merit in the argument. :n the 3rst

place, the authority cited spea5s of statutory, grant of

po*er to a body. Iere, 2e have seen that *hatever

po*er may be claimed by petitioners committee may

only be traced to the po*er of the -ayor to investigate

as implied from his po*er to suspend or remove

certain city employees. There is no statutory grant of

po*er to investigate to petitioners committee.

:n the second place, even granting that the -ayor has

the implied po*er to reuire the appearance of

*itnesses before him, the rule, as noted earlier, is that

the -ayor can not delegate this po*er to a body li5ethe committee of the petitioner. &"rancia v. (ecson, et

al., supra.'

Lastly, 4C #m. Jur. Sec. =A, p. =4C itself admits an

exception to the rule invo5ed by the petitioner. Thus, it

is stated that D*here the liberty and property of

persons are sought to be brought *ithin the operation

of a po*er claimed to be impliedly granted by an act

because necessary to its due execution, the case must

be clearly seen to be *ithin those intended to be

reached.D Iere, no less than the liberty of #rmando

amos is involved in the claim of the committee to the

right to cite *itnesses.

2e hold, therefore, that petitioners committee has no

po*er to cite *itnesses to appear before it and to as5

for their punishment in case of refusal. This conclusion

ma5es it unnecessary for >s to pass upon the other

error assigned by petitioner as having been allegedly

committed by the trial court.

2I//"O/, the decision of the %ourt of "irst :nstance

of -anila is hereby a+rmed, *ithout pronouncement

as to costs.

Padilla, Bautista Angelo, La"rador, oncepcion, )e#es,

J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, /izon and -aalintal,

JJ.,concur.

Bengzon, .J.,too5 no part.


36/268

G.R. No. L292%# No;/8/( 2%, 19%$

SEC. UIRICO P. EANGELISTA, n *s )a7a)t as

S/)(/ta( o4 t*/ P(/sd/nta Ag/n) on R/4o(8s

and Go;/(n8/nt O7/(atons, and t*/

PRESI!ENTIAL AGENCY ON RE-OR'S AN!

GOERN'ENT OPERATIONS BPARGO, petitioner,

vs.

ON. ILARION U. ARENCIO, as P(/sdng udg/,Cou(t o4 -(st Instan)/ o4 'ana, (an)* ==III,

and -ERNAN!O 'ANALASTAS, Assstant Ct

Pu) S/(;)/ O@)/( o4 'ana, and ALL OTER

CITY O--ICIALS AN! E'PLOYEES SI'ILARLY

SITUATE!, respondents.

Ofce o te (olicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, 'st.

Assistant (olicitor General 3s!eraldo 7!ali and

(olicitor Bernardo P. Pardo or petitioners.

Gregorio A. 32ercito and *eli0 . avez or

respondents.

'ARTIN,J.:

This is an original action for certiorariand prohibition

*ith preliminary in?unction, under ule 4 of the ules

of %ourt, see5ing to annul and set aside the order of

respondent Judge, the Ionorable Iilarion J. Jarencio,(residing Judge of the %ourt of "irst :nstance of -anila,

dated July 1, 1!, in %ivil %ase Eo. FBBC4, entitled

D"ernando -analastas vs. Sec. amon 6. $agatsing,

etc.D, *hich reads as follo*s7

:T :S O6//6 that, upon the 3ling of a

bond in the amount of (4,CCC.CC, let the

*rit of preliminary in?unction prayed for

by the petitioner Vprivate respondentW be

issued restraining the respondents

VpetitionersW, their agents,

representatives, attorneys and0or other

persons acting in their behalf from further

issuing subpoenas in connection *ith

the act18ndinginvestigations to the

petitioner Vprivate respondentW and from

instituting contempt proceedings against


37/268

the petitioner Vprivate respondentW under

Section 4C of the evised #dministrative

%ode. &Stress supplied'.

(ursuant to his special po*ers and duties under

Section = of the evised #dministrative %ode,1the

(resident of the (hilippines created the (residential

#gency on eforms and Government Operations

&(#GO' under /xecutive Order Eo. = of January F,

1!.2(urposedly, he charged the #gency *ith the

follo*ing functions and responsibilities73

b. To investigate all activities involving or

a


38/268

:T :S O6//6 that, upon the 3ling of a

bond in the amount of (4,CCC.CC, let the

*rit of preliminary in?unction prayed for

by the petitioner Vprivate respondentW be

issued restraining the respondents

VpetitionersW, their agents,

representatives, attorneys and0or other

persons acting in their behalf from further

issuing subpoenas in connection *ith

the act18ndinginvestigations to the

petitioner Vprivate respondentW and from

instituting contempt proceedings against

the petitioner Vprivate respondentW under

Section 4BC of the evised #dministrative

%ode. &Stress supplied'.

$ecause of this, petitioners 4 elevated the matter

direct to >s *ithout a motion for reconsideration 3rst

3led on the fundamental submission that the Order is

a patent nullity.6

#s unfurled, the dominant issue in this case is *hether

the #gency, acting thru its o+cials, en?oys the

authority to issue subpoenas in its conduct of fact9

3nding investigations.

:t has been essayed that the life blood of the

administrative process is the ;o* of fact, the

gathering, the organiation and the analysis of

evidence.%:nvestigations are useful for all

administrative functions, not only for rule ma5ing,

ad?udication, and licensing, but also for prosecuting,

for supervising and directing, for determining general

policy, for recommending, legislation, and for purposes

no more speci3c than illuminating obscure areas to

3nd out *hat if anything should be done.n

administrative agency may be authoried to ma5e

investigations, not only in proceedings of a legislative

or ?udicial nature, but also in proceedings *hose sole

purpose is to obtain information upon *hich future

action of a legislative or ?udicial nature may be

ta5en9and may reuire the attendance of *itnesses

in proceedings of a purely investigatory nature. :t may

conduct general inuiries into evils calling for

correction, and to report 3ndings to appropriate bodies

and ma5e recommendations for actions. 10

2e recognie that in the case before >s, petitioner

#gency dra*s its subpoena po*er from /xecutive

Order Eo. =, para. 4 *hich, in an e


39/268

one another *ith the principal aim of meeting the very

purpose of the creation of the #gency, *hich is to

forestall and erode nefarious activities and anomalies

in the civil service. To hold that the subpoena po*er of

the #gency is con3ned to mere uasi9?udicial or

ad?udicatory functions *ould therefore imperil or

inactiviate the #gency in its investigatory functions

under

sub9paragraphs &e' and &h'. -ore than that, the

enabling authority itself &/xecutive Order Eo. =, para.

4' 3xes no distinction *hen and in *hat function

should the subpoena po*er be exercised. Similarly, 2e

see no reason to depart from the established rule that

forbids di


40/268

relevant to issues on litigations it does not follo* that

an administrative agency charged *ith seeing that the

la*s are enforced may not have and exercise po*ers

of original inuiry. The administrative agency has the

po*er of inuisition *hich is not dependent upon a

case or controversy in order to get evidence, but can

investigate merely on suspicion that the la* is being

violated or even ?ust because it *ants assurance that

it is not. 2hen investigative and accusatory duties are

delegated by statute to an administrative body, it, too

may ta5e steps to inform itself as to *hether there is

probable violation of the la*. 21:n sum, it may be

stated that a subpoena meets the reuirements for

enforcement if the inuiry is &1' *ithin the authority of

the agency@ &A' the demand is not too inde3nite@ and&B' the information is reasonably relevant. 22

There is no doubt that the fact93nding investigations

being conducted by the #gency upon s*orn

statements implicating certain public o+cials of the

%ity Government of -anila in anomalous

transactions 23fall *ithin the #gencys sphere of

authority and that the information sought to be elicited

from respondent "ernando -analastas, of *hich he is

claimed to be in possession, 2#is reasonably relevant

to the investigations.

2e are mindful that the privilege against self9

incrimination extends in administrative investigations,

generally, in scope similar to adversary

proceedings. 2$:n a"al v. $apunan, Jr., 26the %ourt

ruled that since the administrative charge of

unexplained *ealth against the respondent therein

may result in the forfeiture of the property under the

#nti9Graft and %orrupt (ractices #ct, a proceeding

criminal or penal in nature, the complainant cannot

call the respondent to the *itness stand *ithout

encroaching upon his constitutional privilege against

self9incrimination. Later, in Pascual, Jr. v. Board o

-edical 30a!iners, 2%the same approach *as follo*ed

in the administrative proceedings against a medical

practitioner that could possibly result in the loss of his

privilege to practice the medical profession.

Eevertheless, in the present case, 2e 3nd that

respondent "ernando -analastas is not facing any

administrative charge. 2&Ie is merely cited as a

*itness in connection *ith the fact93ndinginvestigation of anomalies and irregularities in the %ity

Government of -anila *ith the ob?ect of submitting

the assembled facts to the (resident of the (hilippines

or to 3le the corresponding charges. 29Since the only

purpose of investigation is to discover facts as a basis

of future action, any unnecessary extension of the

privilege *ould thus be un*ise.30#ny*ay, by all

means, respondent "ernando -analastas may contest

any attempt in the investigation that tends to

disregard his privilege against self9incrimination.

# uestion of constitutional dimension is raised by

respondents on the inherent po*er of the (resident of

the (hilippines to issue subpoena. 31-ore tersely

stated, respondents *ould no* challenge, in a

collateral *ay, the validity of the basic authority,

/xecutive Order Eo. =, as amended in part by


41/268

/xecutive Order Eo. . >nfortunately, for reasons of

public policy, the constitutionality of executive orders,

*hich are commonly said to have the force and e


42/268

the egister of /ligibles in the O+ce for %entral

(ersonnel ecords revealed Dthat emolonas name is

not in the list of passing and failing examinees, and

that the list of examinees for 6ecember 1C, 1!! does

not include the name of emolona. "urthermore,

/xamination Eo. C1A4 as indicated in her report of

rating belongs to a certain -arlou %. -adelo, *ho too5

the examination in %agayan de Oro and got a rating of

4.CC.D4

6uring the preliminary investigation conducted by

Jaime G. (asion, 6irector ::, %ivil Service "ield O+ce,

Lucena %ity, Mueon, only petitioner emolona

appeared. Ie signed a *ritten statement of

facts

regarding the issuance of the uestioned eportof ating of -rs. emolona, *hich is summaried in

the -emorandumFsubmitted by 6irector (asion as

follo*s7

DB.1 That sometime in the 3rst *ee5 of

September, 1!!C, *hile riding in a Napalaran

Transit $us from Sta. %ru, Laguna on his *ay to

San (ablo %ity, he met one #tty. Iad?i Salupadin

&this is ho* it sounded' *ho happened to be

sitting beside him@

B.A That a conversation bro5e out bet*een them

until he *as able to con3de his problem to #tty.

Salupadin about his *ife having di+culty in

acuiring an eligibility@

B.B That #tty. Salupadin *ho represented

himself as *or5ing at the $atasan, o


43/268

B. That from 1! to 1!, -r. #merica *as

able to get six &' chec5s at (A,CC.CC each plus

bonus of Eery %. emolona@

B.! That -r. #merica got mad at them. #nd

*hen he felt that -r. #merica *ould verify the

authenticity of his *ifes eport of ating, he

burned the original.D

"urthermore, emolona admitted that he *as

responsible in acuiring the alleged fa5e eligibility,

that his *ife has no 5no*ledge thereof, and that he did

it because he *anted them to be together. $ased on

the foregoing, 6irector (asion recommended the 3ling

of the appropriate administrative action againstemolona but absolved -rs. Eery emolona from any

liability since it has not been sho*n that she *illfully

participated in the commission of the o


44/268

exonerated of the charges. #ccordingly, Eery

emolona is automatically reinstated to her

former position as Teacher *ith bac5 salaries

and other bene3ts.D

On appeal, the %ourt of #ppeals rendered its

uestioned decision dismissing the petition for revie*

3led by herein petitioner emolona. Iis motion for

reconsideration and0or ne* trial *as li5e*ise denied.

Ience, this petition for revie*.

(etitioner submits that the %ourt of #ppeals erred7

D1. in denying petitioners motion for ne* trial@

A. in holding that petitioner is liable for

dishonesty@ and

B. in sustaining the dismissal of the petitioner

for an o


45/268

Therefore, the exclusionary rule under paragraph &A',

Section 1A of the $ill of ights applies only to

admissions made in a criminal investigation but not to

those made in an administrative investigation.1A

2hile investigations conducted by an administrative

body may at times be a5in to a criminal proceeding,

the fact remains that under existing la*s, a party in an

administrative inuiry may or may not be assisted by

counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and

of the respondents capacity to represent himself, and

no duty rests on such body to furnish the person being

investigated *ith counsel. :n an administrative

proceeding, a respondent has the option of engaging

the services of counsel or not. This is clear from theprovisions of Section BA, #rticle ):: of epublic #ct Eo.

AAC &other*ise 5no*n as the %ivil Service #ct' and

Section B!, paragraph A, ule H:) &on discipline' of the

Omnibus ules :mplementing $oo5 ) of /xecutive

Order Eo. A!A &other*ise 5no*n as the #dministrative

%ode of 1!F'. Thus, the right to counsel is not al*ays

imperative in administrative investigations because

such inuiries are conducted merely to determine

*hether there are facts that merit disciplinary measure

against erring public o+cers and employees, *ith the

purpose of maintaining the dignity of government

service. #s such, the hearing conducted by the

investigating authority is not part of a criminal

prosecution.1B

:n the case at bar, emolona *as not accused of any

crime in the investigation conducted by the %S% 3eld

o+ce. The investigation *as conducted for the

purpose of ascertaining the facts and *hether there is

a prima facie evidence su+cient to form a belief that

an o


46/268

have been dismissed for cause. This proposition is

untenable.

:t cannot be denied that dishonesty is considered a

grave o


47/268

motive or bad faith *as ever imputed to 6irector

(asion *ho conducted the investigation. The

presumption that o+cial duty has been regularly

performed remains unrebutted.

The transmittal of the transcript of stenographic notes

ta5en during the formal hearing before the %S% is

entirely a matter of discretion on the part of the %ourt

of #ppeals. evised #dministrative %ircular Eo. 19!4 of

this %ourt clearly states that in resolving appeals from

uasi9?udicial agencies, it is *ithin the discretion of the

%ourt of #ppeals to have the original records of the

proceedings under revie* transmitted to it.AC)erily,

the %ourt of #ppeals decided the merits of the case on

the bases of the uncontroverted facts and admissionscontained in the pleadings 3led by the parties.

2e li5e*ise 3nd no merit in the contention of

emolona that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh

considering that there *as no damage caused to the

government since the certi3cate of rating *as never

used to get an appointment for his *ife, Eery

emolona. #lthough no pecuniary damage *as

incurred by the government, there *as still falsi3cation

of an o+cial document that constitutes gross

dishonesty *hich cannot be countenanced,

considering that he *as an accountable o+cer and

occupied a sensitive position.A1The %ode of %onduct

and /thical Standards for (ublic O+cials and

/mployees enunciates the State policy of promoting a

high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the

public service.AA

2I//"O/, the decision appealed from is hereby

#"":-/6 in toto.

SO O6//6.

G.R. No. #3#9 S/7t/8/( 2#, 190&

TE UNITE! STATES,plainti


48/268

:n the %ourt of "irst :nstance of the city of -anila the

defendant *as charged *ithin a violation of

paragraphs FC and B of %ircular Eo. B!F of the :nsular

%ollector of %ustoms, duly published in the O+cial

Gaette and approved by the Secretary of "inance and

Justice.1#fter a demurrer to the complaint of the

lighter -aude, he *as moving her and directing her

movement, *hen heavily laden, in the (asig iver, by

bamboo poles in the hands of the cre*, and *ithout

steam, sail, or any other external po*er. (aragraph FC

of %ircular Eo. B!F reads as follo*s7

Eo heavily loaded casco, lighter, or other similar

craft shall be permitted to move in the (asig

iver *ithout being to*ed by steam or movedby other adeuate po*er.

(aragraph B reads, in part, as follo*s7

"or the violation of any part of the foregoing

regulations, the persons o


49/268

both such 3ne and imprisonment, at the

discretion of the court@ Provided, That violations

of la* may be punished either by the method

prescribed in section seven hereof, or by that

prescribed in this section or by both.

>nder this statute, *hich *as not referred to on the

argument, or in the original briefs, there is no di+culty

in sustaining the regulation of the %ollector as coming

*ithin the terms of section 4. Lighterage, mentioned in

the #ct, is the very business in *hich this vessel *as

engaged, and *hen heavily laden *ith hemp she *as

navigating the (asig iver belo* the $ridge of Spain,

in the city of -anila. This spot is near the mouth of the

river, the doc5s *hereof are used for the purpose ofta5ing on and discharging freight, and *e entertain no

doubt that it *as in right sense a part of the harbor,

*ithout having recourse to the de3nition of paragraph

of %ustoms #dministrative %ircular Eo. 1B, *hich

reads as follo*s7

The limits of a harbor for the purpose of

licensing vessels as herein prescribed &for the

lighterage and harbor business' shall be

considered to include its con;uent navigable

rivers and la5es, *hich are navigable during any

season of the year.

The necessity con3ding to some local authority the

framing, changing, and enforcing of harbor regulations

is recognied throughout the *orld, as each region and

each a harbor reuires peculiar use more minute than

could be enacted by the central

first 25 cases in administrative law (without ruperto vs. torre)

Documents