Administrative Law Case Brief 1st Exam Coverage

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NAT’L GOVT ................. 3 #1 CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND ABLAZA CONSTRUCTION & FINANCE CORPORATION G.R. NO. L-33022, APRIL 22, 1975.................... 3 #2 BACANI VS. NACOCO ........................................................... 4 #4 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RAMBUYONG .......... 5 #5 MACEDA VS. MACARAIG, 197 SCRA 771 .............................. 5 DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION ............................... 6 #7 & #97 SAGIP KALIKASAN VS. PADERANGA, 6/19/2008 ...... 6 #10 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS VS. DANES B. SANCHEZ, G.R. NO. 165569, JULY 29, 2010 ................................................... 7 HLURB (PD 957/PD 1344) ......................................................... 8 #11 C.T. TORRES ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. HON. ROMEO J. HIBIONADA, G.R. NO. 80916, NOVEMBER 9, 1990................... 8 #12 & 28 HLC CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND HENRY LOPEZ CHUA, PETITIONERS, VS. EMILY HOMES SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (EHSHA) ET.AL [G.R. NO. 139360. SEPTEMBER 23, 2003] ................................................................. 9 #13 AND 133 SPS. CHUA VS. HON. JACINTO G. ANG, G.R. NO. 156164, SEPTEMBER 4, 2009 ....................................................... 10 TOLL REGULATORY BOARD (PD 1112) ................................... 11 #S 19, 68 AND 94 CEFERINO PADUA VS. HON. SANTIAGO RANADA, G.R. NO. 141949, OCTOBER 14, 2002 .........................11 QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER....................................................... 13

1

#44 GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), G.R. NO. 162372, OCTOBER 19, 2011 ......................................................................................... 21 #45 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION VS. INTERPORT RESOURCES CORPORATION, G.R. NO. 135808, OCTOBER 6, 2008 ...................................................................... 22 #46 KILUSANG MAYO UNO ET. AL. VS. THE DIRECTORGENERAL, NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, G.R. NO. 167798, APRIL 19, 2006 ............................................................................................24 #47 REVIEW CENTER ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA AND COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN ROMULO L. NERI, G.R. NO. 180046, APRIL 2, 2009 ............................................................................................ 25 POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENA............................................... 26 #51 EV A N G E L I S T A V S J A R E N C I O, 6 8 S C R A 9 9 ..................................................................................................26 IMPLEMENTING RULES OR INTERPRETATIVE POLICIES ... 29 #53 TANADA V. TUVERA ......................................................... 29 #55 GSIS VS. COA ..................................................................... 29 #56 PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT .................................................. 31 #57 PHILSA INTERNATIONAL PLACEMENT CORPORATION VS. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR.............................................. 32 #58 AND #154 HONASAN VS. DOJ PANEL (SUPERSEDED BY OMB-DOJ MOA 3/29/12), 4/13/2004.......................................... 34

#25 AND #84 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES BOARD OF REGENTS VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS , G.R. NO. 134625, AUGUST 31, 1999......................................................................... 13

REQUIREMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS ......... 36

FORUM SHOPPING ................................................................ 15

#64 MANUEL LAXINA VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN .. 37

#28 HLC CONSTRUCTION VS. EMILY HOMES SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (EHSHA)............................... 15 #29 OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND DENNIS M. VILLAIGNACIO VS. ATTY. GIL A. VALERA AND COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 164250, SEPTEMBER 30, 2005.................... 15

#63 ALCALA VS. SCHOOL PRINCIPAL VILLAR....................... 36

#65 OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. VICTORIO N. MEDRANO ................................................................................. 37 #67 OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS MASING ................... 38 #68 CEFERINO PADUA VS. HON. SANTIAGO RANADA, G.R. NO. 141949, OCTOBER 14, 2002 .................................................39

#30 EDILLO C. MONTEMAYOR VS. LUIS BUNDALIAN, RONALDO B. ZAMORA, G.R. NO. 149335, JULY 1, 2003 ........... 16

#69 DOH VS CAMPOSANO ......................................................39

#31 JESUS CABARRUS, JR. VS. JOSE ANTONIO BERNAS, [A.C. NO. 4634, SEPTEMBER 24, 1997] ............................................... 17

DUE PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS........... 42

#32 TOMAS G. VELASQUEZ VS. HELEN B. HERNANDEZ, [G.R. NO. 150732., AUGUST 31, 2004] .................................................. 18

#74 CSC VS. ALBAO 472 SCRA 548 G.R. NO. 155784 OCTOBER 13, 2005........................................................................................42

#33 OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. ROLSON RODRIGUEZ, G.R. NO. 172700, JULY 23, 2010 ........................... 19

#75 ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING CO. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. L-49711, NOVEMBER 7, 1979 ..................... 43

QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER................................................ 20

#76 SINGSON, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND PAL, G.R. NO. 122389, JUNE 19, 1997....... 43

#43 AVELINA B. CONTE AND LETICIA BOISER-PALMA, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), [G.R. NO. 116422, NOVEMBER 4, 1996] ................................................................. 20

#84 UP BOARD OF REGENTS VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS , G.R. NO. 134625, AUGUST 31, 1999 ........................................... 44

#70 MALINAO VS REYES .......................................................... 41

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF #85 NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NAPOCOR) VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, G.R. NOS. 90933-61 MAY 29, 1997............................................................... 44 #86 LINCOLN GERARD, INC. VS. NLRC, G.R. NO. 85295, JULY 23, 1990 ....................................................................................... 45

2

WHO ARE NOT SUBJECT TO OMB DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY?......................................................................... 58 #158 AND #162 MACEDA VS. VASQUEZ, 221 SCRA 46 .............58 #161 AND #165 GARCIA VS. MIRO, 582 SCRA 127 .....................59

#89 SARAH P. AMPONG VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. 46

#162 MACEDA VS. VASQUEZ, 221 SCRA 46 ..............................59

#90 ARSENIO P. LUMIQUED VS. HONORABLE APOLONIO G. EXEVEA ET. AL., G.R. NO. 117565, NOVEMBER 18, 1997.......... 47

#165 GARCIA VS. MIRO, 582 SCRA 127......................................59

#91 VIRGILIO MAQUILAN, VS. DITA MAQUILAN, G.R. NO. 155409, JUNE 8, 2007 ................................................................. 48 #92 EDWIN RAZON Y LUCEA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 158053, JUNE 21, 2007 ......................... 49 #93 ATTY. ROMEO S. PEREZ, VS. HON. JUDGE CARLOS ABIERA, A.M. NO. 223-J, JUNE 11, 1975 ..................................... 49 CARDINAL PRIMARY RIGHTS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS ...................................................................... 50 #94 CEFERINO PADUA VS. HON. SANTIAGO RANADA, G.R. NO. 141949, OCTOBER 14, 2002 ................................................ 50 DOCTRINE OFEXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES ............................................................................. 50 #97 SAGIP KALIKASAN VS. PADERANGA, 6/19/2008 ............. 50 DISTINCTION BETWEEN DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION & DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES............................................... 50 #108 AND # 131 THE ALEXANDRA CONDO CORP. VS. LLDA, 599 SCRA 453 ............................................................................. 50 PRINCIPLE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER OF CONTROL.......... 51 #124 AND #125 BITO-ONON VS. JUDGE YAP-FERNANDEZ ... 51 PRESIDENT’S POWER OF GENERAL SUPERVISION ............. 53 #125 BITO-ONON VS. JUDGE YAP-FERNANDEZ .................... 53 FINDING OF FACTS ............................................................... 53 #127 BAYANI BAUTISTA VS. PATRICIA ARANETA ................. 53 # 128 TERESITA G. FABIAN VS. NESTOR V. AGUSTIN .......... 54 WHEN MAY COURTS REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS ............................................................................................... 56 # 131 THE ALEXANDRA CONDO CORP. VS. LLDA, 599 SCRA 453 .............................................................................................. 56 THREE-FOLD RESPONSIBILITY ............................................ 56 #133 SPS. CHUA VS. HON. JACINTO G. ANG, G.R. NO. 156164, SEPTEMBER 4, 2009 .................................................................. 56 #139 AND #166 GARCIA VS. MOJICA, 314 SCRA 207 ................ 56 OMB JURISDICTION ............................................................. 58 #154 HONASAN VS. DOJ PANEL (SUPERSEDED BY OMB-DOJ MOA 3/29/12), 4/13/2004 ........................................................... 58

CASES ON PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION .................................. 59 #166 GARCIA VS. MOJICA, 314 SCRA 207 .................................59

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

3

wholly void", "no contract between the petitioner and respondent Ablaza Construction and Finance Corporation

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NAT’L GOVT

was ever perfected because only the first stage, that is the #1 CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. COURT

award of the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, was

OF

completed."

APPEALS

AND

ABLAZA

CONSTRUCTION

&

FINANCE CORPORATION G.R. NO. L-33022, APRIL 22, 1975 Issue:

By: Bianca Cezar

WON the aforementioned provisions apply to the Central

Facts:

Bank so as to render void the contract entered into by CB

This is a petition made by the Central Bank which was sentenced to pay respondent Ablaza Construction and Finance Corporation for damages for breach of contract. In

and Ablaza. No. Is Central Bank part of National government? No.

this case, it appears that after going thru the process of

Ruling:

usual bidding, CB awarded to Ablaza a construction

It is of the court’s view that contracts entered into by

contract and allowed the latter to commence work.

petitioner Central Bank are not within the contemplation of

However, on a certain date the Bank then refused to

Sections 607 and 608. Immediately to be noted, Section 607

proceed with the project unless the plans were revised and a

specifically refers to "expenditure(s) of the National

lower price were agreed to by Ablaza.

Government" and that the term "National Government" may

Now CB raises the issue that there was no perfected contract

not be deemed to include the Central Bank. Under the

between the parties as there was no compliance with the

Administrative Code itself, the term "National Government"

requirement

refers only to the central government, consisting of the

under

Section

607

of

the

Revised

Administrative Code which provides that: Section 607. Certificate showing appropriation to meet contract. — Except in the case of a contract for personal service or for supplies to be carried in stock, no contract involving an expenditure by the National Government of three thousand pesos or more shall be entered into or authorized until the Auditor General shall have certified to the officer entering into such obligation that funds have been duly appropriated for such purpose and that the

legislative, executive and judicial departments of the government, as distinguished from local governments and other governmental entities and is not synonymous, therefore, with the terms "The Government of the Republic of the Philippines" or "Philippine Government", which are the expressions broad enough to include not only the central government but also the provincial and municipal governments, chartered cities and other governmentcontrolled corporations or agencies, like the Central Bank.

amount necessary to cover the proposed contract is

To

available for expenditure on account thereof. xxx

instrumentality. But it was created as an autonomous body

CB contends that in view of such omission and considering the provisions of Section 608 of the same code to the effect that "a purported contract entered into contrary to the requirements of the next preceding section hereof shall be

be

sure

the

Central

Bank

is

a

government

corporate to be governed by the provisions of its charter, Republic Act 265, "to administer the monetary and banking system of the Republic."As such, it may acquire and hold such assets and incur such liabilities as result directly from

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

4

operations authorized by the provisions of this Act, or as are

Coconut Corporation, being a government entity, was

essential to the proper conduct of such operations." It has

exempt from the payment of the fees in question.

capital of its own and operates under a budget prepared by its own Monetary Board and otherwise appropriates money for its operations and other expenditures independently of the national budget. It does not depend on the National Government for the financing of its operations; it is the National Government that occasionally resorts to it for needed budgetary accommodations. Its prerogative to incur

NACOCO set up set up as a defense that it is a government entity within the purview of section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 and, hence, it is exempt from paying the stenographers’ fees under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court but Bacani and Matoto argued that NACOCO is not a government entity within the purview of section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

such liabilities and expenditures is not subject to any prerequisite found in any statute or regulation not expressly

Issue:

applicable to it. For these reasons, the provisions of the

Whether the National Coconut Corporation may be

Revised Administrative Code invoked by the Bank do not

considered as included in the term “Government of the

apply to it.

Republic of the Philippines” for the purposes of the exemption of the legal fees provided for in Rule 130 of the

#2 Bacani vs. NACOCO

Rules of Court.

By: Mae Bungabong

Held:

Facts:

No, it is not. Bacani

and

Matoto

are

court

stenographers

assigned in Branch VI of the Court of First Instance of Manila. During the pendency of the case Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation, Assistant Corporate Counsel Federico Alikpala, counsel for Defendant, requested said stenographers

for

copies

of

the

transcript

of

Reason: GOCCs do not come under the classification of municipal or public corporation like NACOCO. National Coconut Corporation was organized with

the

the purpose of “adjusting the coconut industry to a position

stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing.

independent of trade preferences in the United States” and

Bacani and Matoto complied with the request by delivering

of providing “Facilities for the better curing of copra

to Counsel Alikpala the needed transcript containing 714

products and the proper utilization of coconut by-products”,

pages and thereafter submitted to him their bills for the

a function which our government has chosen to exercise to

payment of their fees. The National Coconut Corporation

promote the coconut industry, however, it was given a

paid the amount of P564 to Bacani and P150 to Matoto for

corporate power separate and distinct from our government,

said transcript at the rate of P1 per page.

for it was made subject to the provisions of our Corporation

Upon inspecting the books of NACOCO, the

Law in so far as its corporate existence and the powers that

Auditor General disallowed the payment of these fees and

it may exercise are concerned. It may sue and be sued in the

sought the recovery of the amounts paid. the Auditor

same manner as any other private corporations, and in this

General required the Plaintiffs to reimburse said amounts

sense it is an entity different from our government. As this

on the strength of a circular of the Department of Justice

Court has aptly said, “The mere fact that the Government

wherein the opinion was expressed that the National

happens to be a majority stockholder does not make it a

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

5

public corporation” (National Coal Co. vs. Collector of

power and production of electricity from other sources, as

Internal Revenue, 46 Phil., 586-587).

well as transmission of electric power on a nationwide basis, to improve the quality of life pursuant to the State policy

#4 Republic of the Philippines vs. Rambuyong

embodied in Section 9, Article 2 of 1987 Constitution. With

By: Mae Bungabong

this, the LGC prohibits a sanggunian member (Atty.

Facts:

Rambuyong) to appear as counsel of a party adverse to the Alfred Chu filed a case for collection of a sum of

money and/ or damages against the National Power Corporation which was raffled to the RTC of Ipil,

NPC. #5 Maceda vs. Macaraig, 197 SCRA 771 By: Mides Cerbo

Zamboanga Sibugay Branch 24. Appearing for Chu is Atty. Richard Rambuyong who was the incumbent Vice-Mayor of Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay,

The National Power Corporation was created by CA 120. In

NPC filed a Motion for Inhibition of Atty. Rambuyong arguing that under Sec. 90(b) RA 7160 (LGC), sanggunian members are prohibited to appear as counsel before

any

court

wherein

FACTS:

any

office,

agency

or

instrumentality of the government is the adverse party. NPC argued that being a GOCC, it is embraced within the term instrumentality.

1949, it was given tax exemption by RA 358. NPC was further strengthened by RA 6395 in 1971. In 1984, PD 1931 was passed removing the tax exemption of NPC and other GOCCs. There was a reservation, however, that the president or the Minister of Finance upon recommendation by the Fiscal Incentives Review Board may restore or modify the exemption. In 1985, the tax exemption was revived. It was again removed in 1987 by virtue of EO 93 w/c again provided

The RTC favoured Rambuyong. The CA upheld the decision of the lower court. Hence, this petition

that upon FIRB recommendation it can again be restored. In the same year, FIRB resolved to restore the exemption. The same was approved by Cory through exec sec Macaraig acting as her alter ego. Maceda opined the FIRB resolution

Issue:

averring that the power granted to the FIRB is an undue Whether NPC is an instrumentality of government

such Atty. Rambuyong, as a sanggunian member, should not appear as counsel against it. Held:

delegation of legislative power. His claim was strengthened by Opinion 77 issued by DOJ Secretary Ordoñez. ISSUE: Whether or not Opinion 77 can be given credence. HELD: The SC ruled that there is no undue delegation of

Yes, NPC is government instrumentality thus, Atty. Rambuyong should not appear as counsel against it.

legislative power. First of all, since the NPC is a GOCC and is non-profit it can be exempt from taxation. Also, Opinion 77 issued by DOJ Sec Ordoñez was overruled by Macaraig.

Reason:

This action by Macaraig is valid because the Executive Based on jurisprudence, Maceda vs Macaraig, Jr., 1997 197 SCRA 771 (1991), the Court stated that NPC is a government instrumentality with the enormous task of undertaking development of hydroelectric generation of

Secretary, by authority of the President, has the power to modify, alter or reverse the construction of a statute given by a department secretary – pursuant to the president’s control power.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

6

On 1 February 2005, Community Environment and Natural

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

Resources Office (CENRO) OIC Loreto A. Rivac (Rivac) sent

#7 & #97 Sagip Kalikasan vs. Paderanga, 6/19/2008

a notice to NMC Container Lines, Inc. asking for

By: Mides Cerbo

explanation why the government should not confiscate the

FACTS:

forest products.3 In an affidavit4 dated 9 February 2005,

This is a complaint for gross ignorance of the law and conduct unbecoming a judge filed by retired Lt. Gen. Alfonso P. Dagudag (Gen. Dagudag), Head of Task Force Sagip Kalikasan, against Judge Maximo G. W. Paderanga (Judge Paderanga), Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial

On or about 30 January 2005, the Region VII Philippine National Police Regional Maritime Group (PNPRMG) received information that MV General Ricarte of NMC Lines,

Inc.

was

shipping

M. Seno stated that he did not see any reason why the government should not confiscate the forest products and that NMC Container Lines, Inc. had no knowledge of the actual content of the container vans. On 2, 9, and 15 February 2005, DENR Forest Protection

Court, Branch 38, Cagayan de Oro City.

Container

NMC Container Lines, Inc.'s Branch Manager Alex Conrad

container

vans

containing illegal forest products from Cagayan de Oro to Cebu. The shipments were falsely declared as cassava meal and corn grains to avoid inspection by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).1 On 30 and 31 January 2005, a team composed of representatives from the PNPRMG, DENR, and the Philippine Coast Guard inspected the container vans at a port in Mandaue City, Cebu. The team discovered the undocumented forest products and the names of the shippers and consignees. The crew of MV General Ricarte failed to produce the certificate of origin forms and other pertinent transport documents covering the forest products, as required by

Officer Lucio S. Canete, Jr. posted notices on the CENRO and PENRO bulletin boards and at the NMC Container Lines, Inc. building informing the unknown owner about the administrative adjudication scheduled on 18 February 2005 at the Cebu City CENRO. Nobody appeared during the adjudication.5 In a resolution6 dated 10 March 2005, Rivac, acting as adjudication officer, recommended to DENR Regional Executive Director Clarence L. Baguilat that the forest products be confiscated in favor of the government. In a complaint7 dated 16 March 2005 and filed before Judge Paderanga, a certain Roger C. Edma (Edma) prayed that a writ of replevin be issued ordering the defendants DENR, CENRO, Gen. Dagudag, and others to deliver the forest products to him and that judgment be rendered ordering the defendants to pay him moral damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. HELD:

DENR Administrative Order No. 07-94. Gen. Dagudag

Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies gross

alleged that, since nobody claimed the forest products

ignorance of the law as a serious offense. It is punishable by

within a reasonable period of time, the DENR considered

(1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of benefits, and

them as abandoned and, on 31 January 2005, the Provincial

disqualification from reinstatement to any public office; (2)

Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO)

suspension from office without salary and other benefits for

Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Richard N. Abella, issued a seizure

more than three months but not exceeding six months; or

receipt to NMC Container Lines, Inc.2

(3) a fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000.38 Section 10 of Rule 140 classifies conduct unbecoming a judge as a light offense. It is punishable by (1)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

7

a fine of not less than P1,000 but not exceeding P10,000; (2)

making it impossible for him to take the nursing board

censure; (3) reprimand; or (4) admonition with warning.39

examinations, and depriving him of the opportunity to

The Court notes that this is Judge Paderanga's third offense. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Paderanga,40the Court held him liable for grave abuse of authority and simple misconduct for unceremoniously citing a lawyer in

make a living. The respondent prayed that the RTC order UST to release his ToR and hold UST liable for actual, moral, and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and the costs of suit.

contempt while declaring himself as having "absolute

Instead of filing an Answer, petitioners filed a Motion to

power" and for repeatedly telling a lawyer to "shut up."

Dismiss where they claimed that they refused to release

InBeltran, Jr. v. Paderanga,41 the Court held him liable for

respondent's ToR because he was not a registered student,

undue delay in rendering an order for the delay of nine

since he had not been enrolled in the university for the last

months in resolving an amended formal offer of exhibits. In

three semesters. Petitioners also filed a Supplement to their

both cases, the Court sternly warned Judge Paderanga that

Motion

the commission of another offense shall be dealt with more

administrative recourse before the CHED through a letter-

severely. The instant case and the two cases decided against

complaint. Thus, petitioners claimed that CHED had

him

primary jurisdiction to resolve matters pertaining to school

demonstrate

Judge

Paderanga's

arrogance,

incorrigibility, and unfitness to become a judge. Judge Paderanga has two other administrative cases pending against him — one42 for gross ignorance of the law, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, and grave abuse of authority, and the other43 for gross misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law

Dismiss,

alleging

that

respondent

sought

controversies, and the filing of the instant case in the RTC was premature. Issues: 1) WON The CHED exercises quasi-judicial power over controversies involving school matters and has primary jurisdiction over respondent's demand for the release of his

no

.

ToR.

#10 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS vs. DANES B.

2.) WON respondent violated the rule against forum-

SANCHEZ, G.R. No. 165569, July 29, 2010

shopping when he sought recourse with both the CHED and

By: Madel Cervantes Facts: This case began with a Complaint for Damages filed

the RTC.

no

Held:

by respondent Sanchez against the UST and its Board of

1.) No. The rule on primary jurisdiction applies only where

Directors, the Dean and the Assistant Dean of the UST

the administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial or

College of Nursing, and the University Registrar for their

adjudicatory functions. Thus, an essential requisite for this

alleged unjustified refusal to release the respondent's ToR.

doctrine to apply is the actual existence of quasi-judicial

In his Complaint, respondent alleged that he graduated

power.

from UST in 2002 with a Bachelor's Degree of Science in

However, petitioners have not shown that the CHED

Nursing. When respondent sought to secure a copy of his

possesses any such power to "investigate facts or ascertain

ToR with the UST Registrar's Office, UST refused to release

the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and

his records despite repeated attempts secure the same

draw conclusions." Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7722 otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of 1994,

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

8

certainly does not contain any express grant to the CHED of

P.D. No. 1344 specified the quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the

judicial or quasi-judicial power.

National Housing Authority as follows:

2.) No. Respondent is not guilty of forum shopping. Forum

SECTION 1. In the exercise of its functions to regulate the

shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in

real estate trade and business and in addition to its powers

one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by

provided for in Presidential Decree No. 957, the National

appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or

Housing Authority shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear

more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause,

and decide cases of the following nature:

on the gamble that one or the other court would make a

A. Unsound real estate business practices;

favorable disposition. Here, there can be no forum shopping precisely because the CHED is without quasi-judicial power, and cannot make any disposition of the case - whether favorable or otherwise.

B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the project owner developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and

HLURB (PD 957/PD 1344)

statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or

#11 C.T. TORRES ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. HON. ROMEO

condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer,

J. HIBIONADA, G.R. NO. 80916, NOVEMBER 9, 1990

broker or salesman.

By: Bianca Cezar

Subsequently, under E.O. No. 648, the regulatory functions

Facts:

conferred on the NHA were transferred to the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission, which was later on

The petitioner as agent of private respondent Pleasantville

renamed as the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.

Development Corporation sold a subdivision lot on installment to private respondent Efren Diongon. The installment payments having been completed, Diongon demanded the delivery of the certificate of title to the subject land. When neither the petitioner nor Pleasantville complied, he filed a complaint against them for specific performance and damages in the RTC. It was then that C.T. Torres Enterprises filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, contending that the competent body to hear

It is clear from Section 1(c) of the above quoted PD No. 1344 that the complaint for specific performance with damages filed by Diongon with the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental comes under the jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. Diongon is a buyer of a subdivision lot seeking specific performance of the seller's obligation to deliver to him the corresponding certificate of title.

and decide the case was the Housing and Land Use

In the Solid Homes case, for example, the Court affirmed

Regulatory Board. The trial court however, denied the

the competence of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory

motion to dismiss and upheld the jurisdiction of the regular

Board to award damages. It was held that:

courts over the said case. Issue: Who has jurisdiction over the case. The HLURB.

Limited delegation of judicial or quasi-judicial authority to administrative jurisdiction,

agencies

basically

is

well

because the

recognized need

for

in

our

special

competence and experience has been recognized as essential Ruling:

in the resolution of questions of complex or specialized

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

9

character and because of companion recognition that the

The HLURB[8] is the government agency empowered to

dockets of our regular courts have remained crowded and

regulate the real estate trade and business, having exclusive

clogged.

jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving:

xxx xxx xxx

(a)

In sum, the complaint for specific performance and damages

(b)

was improperly filed with the respondent court, jurisdiction

claims filed by subdivision lot or condominium unit buyers

over the case being exclusively vested in the Housing and

against the project owner, developer, dealer, broker or

Land Use Regulatory Board.

salesman;

#12 & 28 HLC CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

(c)

CORPORATION

CHUA,

contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of

SUBDIVISION

subdivision lots or condominium units against the owner,

petitioners,

AND

vs.

HENRY

EMILY

HOMES

LOPEZ

unsound real estate business practices; claims involving refunds and any other

and cases involving specific performance of

HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (EHSHA) et.al [G.R. No.

developer, dealer, broker or salesman.[9]

139360. September 23, 2003]

In

By: Bianca Cezar

reimbursement of expenses incurred in repairing their

case,

respondents’

complaint

was

for

the

defective housing units constructed by petitioners. Clearly,

Facts: Emily

this

the HLURB had jurisdiction to hear it. Homes

Subdivision

Homeowners

Association

(EHSHA) and 150 individual members filed a civil action for

b. #28 FORUM SHOPPING

breach of contract, damages and attorney’s fees with the

The general rule is that the certificate of non-forum

Regional Trial Court against the developers of Emily Homes

shopping must be signed by all the plaintiffs in a case and

Subdivision for allegedly using substandard materials in the

the signature of only one of them is insufficient.[4]

construction of their houses and for not adhering to the

However, the Court has also stressed that the rules on

house plan specifications.

When respondents asked the

forum shopping were designed to promote and facilitate the

HLC to repair their defective housing units, the petitioners

orderly administration of justice and thus should not be

failed to do so.

interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its

Issue: Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, claiming that:

own ultimate and legitimate objective - It does not thereby prohibit substantial compliance with its provisions under justifiable circumstances.[6] Respondents EHSHA et.al. filed the complaint against

a. It was the HLURB and not the trial court which had

petitioners as a group, represented by their homeowners’

jurisdiction over the case. YES.

association president Mr. Samaon M. Buat. Respondents

b. The defective certification on non-forum shopping which

raised one cause of action which was the breach of

was signed only by the president of EHSHA and not by all

contractual obligations and payment of damages.

its members warrants the dismissal of the complaint. NO.

shared a common interest in the subject matter of the case,

Ruling: a. #12 DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

They

being the aggrieved residents of the poorly constructed and developed Emily Homes Subdivision. Due to the collective nature of the case, there was no doubt that Mr. Samaon M.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

10

Buat could validly sign the certificate of non-forum

The petitioners allege that the private respondents did not

shopping in behalf of all his co-plaintiffs. In cases therefore

construct and failed to deliver the contracted condominium

where it is highly impractical to require all the plaintiffs to

unit to them and did not register the Contract to Sell with

sign the certificate of non-forum shopping, it is sufficient, in

the Register of Deeds.

order not to defeat the ends of justice, for one of plaintiffs, acting as representative, to sign the certificate provided that, as in Cavile et al., the plaintiffs share a common interest in the subject matter of the case or filed the case as a “collective,” raising only one common cause of action or

However, the complaint was dismissed because it was held that it is the HLURB that has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving real estate business and practices.

defense. Issue: Finally, though there was no forum shopping in this case,

WON the jurisdiction to entertain criminal complaints in

the trial court should have nonetheless dismissed the

relation to real estate business and practices is still lodged

complaint for a more important reason – it had no

with the HLURB. No. The Jurisdiction of the HLURB is

jurisdiction over it. It is the HLURB, not the trial court,

limited to decisions over contractual rights and obligations

which had jurisdiction over respondents’ complaint.

of the parties and does not include jurisdiction over criminal

____________________________________________________

complaints.

#13 and 133 SPS. CHUA VS. HON. JACINTO G. ANG, G.R. NO. 156164, SEPTEMBER 4, 2009

Ruling:

By: Bianca Cezar Facts:

#13 HLURB Topic

Sps. Chua as buyers and Fil-Estate Properties (FEPI) as developers, executed a contract to sell a condominium unit.

P.D. No. 1344 clearly provides the scope of jurisdiction of the

Despite the lapse of 3 years, FEPI failed to construct and

HLURB. Its jurisdiction is limited to cases which involve:

deliver the contracted condominium unit to the petitioners. As a result, the petitioners filed a Complaint accusing the private respondents of violating P.D. No. 957. Section 39 of

A. Unsound real estate business practices;

which provides:

B. Claims involving refund and any other claims filed by

Sec. 39. Penalties. - Any person who shall violate any of the

subdivision lot or condominium unit buyer against the

provisions of this Decree and/or any rule or regulation that

project owner, developer, dealer, broker or salesman; and

may be issued pursuant to this Decree shall, upon

C. Cases involving specific performance of contractual and

conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty

statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lots or

thousand (P20,000.00) pesos and/or imprisonment of not

condominium units against the owner, developer, dealer,

more than ten years:xxx

broker or salesman.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

11

From the foregoing, the HLURB’s jurisdiction over

of the "Supplemental Toll Operation Agreement" (STOA),

contractual rights and obligations of parties under

authorizing it, as the investor, to apply for and if warranted,

subdivision and condominium contracts is clear. But hand

to be granted an interim adjustment of toll rates in the

in hand with this definition and grant of authority is the

event of a "significant currency devaluation."

provision on criminal penalties for violations of the Decree, provided under the Decree’s Section 39. Significantly, nothing in P.D. No. 957 vests the HLURB with jurisdiction

to

impose

the

Section

39

criminal

On November 2001, the TRB issued the questioned Resolution No. 2001-89 authorizing provisional toll rate adjustments at the Metro Manila Skyway, effective January 1, 2002.

penalties. Petitioners Ceferino Padua and Eduardo Zialcita assailed the #133 Three-Fold Responsibility The fundamental principle is that administrative cases are independent from criminal actions, subject only to the rules on forum shopping. But when the law clearly provides that

validity and legality of TRB Resolution No. 2001-89 before the RTC. Padua alleged among others that the Resolution No. 2001-89 :

an administrative finding of violation must first be obtained before recourse can be made to criminal prosecution, such law must be complied with. E.g. the law in the prosecution

1.

Was issued without the required publication and in

violation of due process;

of unfair labor practices, where no criminal prosecution for

2.

Unfair Labor Practice can be instituted without a final

was signed by three (3) of the five members of the TRB,

judgment in a previous administrative proceeding. Where

none of them actually attended the hearing.

the law is silent (e.g. PD 957), the fundamental principle

It was issued without basis considering that while it

Zialcita on the other hand asserts that:

fully applies. 1.

The provisional toll rate adjustments are exorbitant

and that the TRB violated its own Charter, Presidential TOLL REGULATORY BOARD (PD 1112)

Decree No. 1112,[17] when it promulgated Resolution No. 2001-89 without the benefit of any public hearing.

#s 19, 68 and 94 CEFERINO PADUA vs. HON. SANTIAGO RANADA, G.R. No. 141949, October 14, 2002 By: Bianca Cezar

Issues: WON the remedies initiated by the petitioners in the RTC are proper. NO. (#19 Toll Regulatory Board)

Facts: WON there was a violation of administrative due process The focal point upon which these two consolidated cases converge is whether Resolution No. 2001-89 issued by the

when the TRB issued its resolution approving the increase in Toll rates because

Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) is valid. 1. Tracing back the events that led to the issuance of the said

There was no publication; (#68 Requirement of

Administrative Due Process) and that

Resolution, it appears that on February 2001 the Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corporation (CITRA) filed with the TRB an application for an interim adjustment of the toll rates at the Metro Manila Skyway Project, on the basis of the provisions

2.

Though the resolution was signed by the Executive

Director and the 4 other directors, none of them really

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

12

attended the hearings. (#94 Cardinal Primary Rights in

court dockets, the need for specialized administrative

Administrative Proceedings)

boards or commissions with the special knowledge, experience and capability to hear and determine promptly

Ruling:

disputes on technical matters or intricate questions of facts, #19 Toll Regulatory Board – “Remedy of the interested Expressway user who finds the toll rate adjustments to be onerous, oppressive and exorbitant is to file a petition for review of the adjusted toll rates with TRB.

The issue

involves question of facts xxx. TRB decision is appealable

subject to judicial review in case of grave abuse of discretion, is indispensable. Between the power lodged in an administrative body and a court, the unmistakable trend is to refer it to the former."[24] In Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,[25] it was ruled:

within 10 days to the Office of President.” "x x x, if the case is such that its determination requires the The remedy of prohibition initiated by petitioner Zialcita violates the twin doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction and non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.

expertise, specialized skills and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must first be

P.D. No. 1112 explicitly provides that "the decisions of the

obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy

TRB on petitions for the increase of toll rate shall be

will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is

appealable to the Office of the President within ten (10) days

within the proper jurisdiction of a court."

from the promulgation thereof." Section 9(3) of P.D. No.

#68 Requirement of Administrative Due Process-

1894 reiterates this instruction. and so are the provisions in Approval in a TRB resoluntion of provisional toll rates of

the TRB Rules of Procedure.

public utilities without publication and by TRB Directors Obviously, the laws and the TRB Rules of Procedure have

who did not attend personally the hearing.

provided the remedies of an interested Expressways user. The initial proper recourse is to file a petition for review of the adjusted toll rates with the TRB. The need for a prior resort to this body is with reason. The TRB, as the agency

Even granting that petitioners’ recourse to the instant remedies is in order, the Court cannot still rule in their favor.

assigned to supervise the collection of toll fees and the

For one, it is not true that the provisionaI toll rate

operation of toll facilities, has the necessary expertise,

adjustments were not published prior to its implementation.

training and skills to judiciously decide matters of this kind.

Records show that in fact they were published on 3 separate

As may be gleaned from the petition, the main thrust of

dates in three newspapers of general circulation.

petitioner Zialcita’s argument is that the provisional toll rate adjustments are exorbitant, oppressive, onerous and unconscionable. This is obviously a question of fact requiring knowledge of the formula used and the factors considered in determining the assailed rates. Definitely, this task is within the province of the TRB.

Furthermore, it must be pointed out that even if there was no publication, the said resolution would still be valid because under Letter of Instruction No. 1334-A, the TRB may grant and issue ex-parte to any petitioner, without need of notice, publication or hearing, provisional authority to collect, pending hearing and decision on the merits of the

We take cognizance of the wealth of jurisprudence on the

petition, the increase in rates prayed for or such lesser

doctrine

and

amount as the TRB may in its discretion provisionally grant.

exhaustion of administrative remedies. In this era of clogged

That LOI No. 1334-A has the force and effect of law finds

of

primary

administrative

jurisdiction

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

support

in

a

catena

"all

consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and

proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, and acts

not simply accept the views of a subordinate." Thus, it is

promulgated, issued, or done by the former President

logical to say that this mandate was rendered precisely to

(Ferdinand E. Marcos) are part of the law of the land, and

ensure that in cases where the hearing or reception of

shall remain valid, legal, binding, and effective, unless

evidence is assigned to a subordinate, the body or agency

modified,

subsequent

shall not merely rely on his recommendation but instead

proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, or other acts of

shall personally weigh and assess the evidence which the

the President."

said subordinate has gathered."

The issue that the resolution was signed by TRB directors

Be that as it may, it must be stressed that the TRB’s

who did not personally attend the hearing is discussed in

authority to grant provisional toll rate adjustments does not

the next topic.

even require the conduct of a hearing.

revoked

or

of

cases

decreeing

superseded

by

that

13

To clarify the intent of P.D. No. 1112 as to the extent of the #94 Cardinal Primary Rights in Administrative Proceedings

TRB’s power,[35] Former President Marcos further issued LOI No. 1334-A expressly allowing the TRB to grant ex-parte

There is nothing irregular that the TRB Resolution No. 200189 authorizing provisional toll rate adjustment at Metro Manila Skyway effective 01.01.02 was signed by the TRB

provisional or temporary increase in toll rates. Hence, it is clear that a hearing is not necessary for the grant of provisional toll rate adjustment.

Exec. Director & Four Directors, none of whom personally attended the hearing

The practice is not something peculiar. It was ruled in a number of cases that an administrative agency may be

For another, Petitioner Padua would argue that while these Directors signed the Resolution, none of them personally attended the hearing. This argument is misplaced. Under our jurisprudence, an administrative agency may employ other persons, such as a hearing officer, examiner or investigator, to receive evidence, conduct hearing and make

empowered to approve provisionally, when demanded by urgent public need, rates of public utilities without a hearing. The reason is easily discerned from the fact that provisional rates are by their nature temporary and subject to adjustment in conformity with the definitive rates approved after final hearing.

reports, on the basis of which the agency shall render its decision. Such a procedure is a practical necessity.[32] Thus, in Mollaneda vs. Umacob,[33] it was ruled: xxx "It must be emphasized that the appointment of competent officers to hear and receive evidence is commonly resorted to by administrative bodies or agencies in the interest of an orderly and efficient disposition of

Accordingly, Padua and Zialcita’s respective remedies were dismissed. QUASI-JUDICIAL POWER #25 and #84 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES BOARD OF REGENTS vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS , G.R. No. 134625, August 31, 1999

administrative cases. x x x By: Bianca Cezar "x x x Corollarily, in a catena of cases, this Court laid down the cardinal requirements of due process in administrative

Facts:

proceedings, one of which is that "the tribunal or body or

Private respondent Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine

any of its judges must act on its or his own independent

enrolled in the doctoral program in Anthropology of the

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

14

University of the Philippines College of Social Sciences and

On the basis of such report, a letter was sent to Celine

Philosophy (CSSP).

informing her of the withdrawal of her Ph.D degree. Celine

After completing the units of course work required in her doctoral program, she worked on her dissertation entitled, "Tamil

Influences

in

Malaysia,

Indonesia

and

the

then raised the matter to the Trial Court which dismissed the same. Upon appeal however, the CA reversed the decision of the Trial Court on the basis that Celine was denied due process. Hence this petition.

Philippines." However, after going over her dissertation, the assistant

Issue:

Dean informed the CSSP Dean Paz that there were portions

a.

in Celine’s dissertation that was lifted from various

Due Process in Administrative Proceedings)

published

works

without

proper

acknowledgment.

Nonetheless, Celine was allowed to defend her dissertation and was able to have a passing mark. Dean Paz in a letter, then requested the Vice Chancellor for

b.

WON Celine was denied of Due Process. No. (#84

WON the UP Board of Regents has the authority to

withdraw the Ph.D already conferred. Yes. (#25 Quasi – Judicial Power) Ruling:

Academic Affairs, to exclude Celine from the list of candidates for graduation, pending clarification of the problems regarding the latter’s dissertation. Apparently, the

#84 With regard to the first issue, the court held that it cannot be said that Celine was denied of Due Process.

letter did not reach the Board of Regents on time and Celine

First, from the facts of the case it is clear that various

was able to graduate.

committees had been formed to investigate the charge that

Subsequently, the assistant dean formally charged Celine with plagiarism and recommended that the doctorate granted to her be withdrawn. Various ad hoc committees were then formed to investigate the plagiarism charge against Celine. In a letter, Dean Paz informed Celine of the charges against her and in a subsequent letter; Celine was

private respondent had committed plagiarism and, in all the investigations held, she was heard in her defense and consequently all investigations resulted in a finding that Celine committed dishonesty in submitting her doctoral dissertation on the basis of which she was conferred the Ph.D. degree.

summoned to a meeting and was asked to submit her

In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is

written explanation to the charges against her. During the

simply the opportunity to explain one's side of a controversy

meeting, Celine was informed of the charges against her and

or a chance seek reconsideration of the action or ruling

was provided a copy of the findings of the investigating

complained of.27 A party who has availed of the opportunity

committee. Celine on the other hand submitted her written

to present his position cannot tenably claim to have been

explanation in a letter.

denied due process.28

Subsequently, the investigating committees submitted their

In this case, private respondent was informed in writing of

report with the same conclusion, - that there was indeed an

the charges against her29 and afforded opportunities to

overwhelming proof of massive lifting and even admission

refute them. She was asked to submit her written

on the part of Ms. Celine that she plagiarized, and so the

explanation, which she was able to do30 Private respondent

Committee recommended the withdrawal of the doctoral

then met with the U.P. chancellor and the members of the

degree of Ms. Celine.

Zafaralla committee to discuss her case. In addition, she

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

15

sent several letters to the U.P. authorities explaining her

#25 Anent the second issue, the UP Board of Regents has the

position.31

authority to withdraw the conferment of a degree founded

Second., it is not tenable for private respondent to argue

on fraud.

that she was entitled to have an audience before the Board

Under the U.P. Charter, the Board of Regents is the highest

of Regents. Due process in an administrative context does

governing body of the University of the Philippines.38 It has

not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in the

the power confer degrees upon the recommendation of the

courts of justice.

University Council.39 If follows that if the conferment of a

And Third, Celine cannot contend that she was entitled to be furnished a copy of the report of the Zafaralla committee as part of her right to due process. In Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong,34 we held:

degree is founded on error or fraud, the Board of Regents is also empowered, subject to the observance of due process, to withdraw what it has granted without violating a student's rights. An institution of higher learning cannot be powerless if it discovers that an academic degree it has

Respondent students may not use the argument that since they were not accorded the opportunity to see and examine the written statements which became the basis of petitioners' February 14, 1991 order, they were denied procedural due process. Granting that they were denied such opportunity, the same may not be said to detract from the observance of due process, for disciplinary cases

conferred is not rightfully deserved. Nothing can be more objectionable

than

bestowing

a

university's

highest

academic degree upon an individual who has obtained the same through fraud or deceit. The pursuit of academic excellence is the university's concern. It should be empowered, as an act of self-defense, to take measures to protect itself from serious threats to its integrity.

involving students need not necessarily include the right to cross examination. An administrative proceeding conducted to investigate students' participation in a hazing activity need not be clothed with the attributes of a judicial

FORUM SHOPPING #28

HLC

CONSTRUCTION

vs.

EMILY

HOMES

SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (EHSHA)

proceeding. . . By: Bianca Cezar In sum: (Please See Case #12 under HLURB Topic) 1.

In administrative proceedings, the essence of due

process is simply the opportunity to explain one's side of a

#29 OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and DENNIS M.

controversy or a chance seek reconsideration of the action

VILLA-IGNACIO vs. ATTY. GIL A. VALERA and COURT

or ruling complained of;

OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 164250, September 30, 2005

2.

By: Bianca Cezar

Due process in an administrative context does not

require trial-type proceedings similar to those in the courts of justice; and 3.

Due Process in disciplinary cases involving students

need not necessarily include the right to cross examination.

Nature: Petition for review on certiorari filed by the Office of the Ombudsman and Villa Ignacio, in his capacity as the special prosecutor, seeking the reversal of the CA decision setting aside the Preventive suspension order issued by VillaIgnacio against respondent Atty. Gil A. Valera.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

Facts: Respondent Valera was appointed Deputy Commissioner of

16

requiring the certification on non-forum shopping is justified.

the Bureau of Customs in charge of the Revenue Collection

#30 EDILLO C. MONTEMAYOR vs. LUIS BUNDALIAN,

Monitoring Group. The office of Ombudsman received a

RONALDO B. ZAMORA, G.R. No. 149335, July 1, 2003

Sowrn complaint filed by the Director of the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) and Atty.

By: Bianca Cezar

Adolfo Casareño against respondent Valera for entering into

Facts:

a compromise agreement with Steel Asia Manufacturing

On July 15, 1995, private respondent LUIS BUNDALIAN

Corp. in Civil Case No. 01-102504 to the prejudice of the

addressed to the Philippine Consulate General in San

government.

Francisco an unverified letter-complaint, accusing petitioner

Petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio the Issued a

Edillo Montemayor, then OIC-Regional Director, Region III,

Preventive suspension order against Atty. Valera, Villa-

of the DPWH, of accumulating unexplained wealth, in

Ignacio likewise denied Valera’s motion for reconsideration.

violation of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019.

Even before his motion for reconsideration was acted upon,

Accordingly,

however, respondent Valera already filed with the Court of

documents were indorsed by the Philippine Consulate

Appeals a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition

General of San Francisco, California, to the Philippine

as he sought to nullify the Order of preventive suspension

Commission Against Graft and Corruption (PCAGC)1 for

issued by petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio.

investigation. Petitioner pointed out that the charge against

The appellate court then rendered the assailed Decision setting aside the Order of preventive suspension and directing petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio to desist from taking any further action. Hence this petition. Issue:

the

letter-complaint

and

its

attached

him was the subject of similar cases filed before the Ombudsman which was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The PCAGC after conducting its own investigation found that the complaint has basis and the Office of the president in turn concurred with the PCAGC finding and ordered

PRIVATE RESPONDENT’S PETITION FILED BEFORE THE

petitioner’s dismissal from service with forfeiture of all

COURT A QUO SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR

government benefits.

VIOLATION OF THE RULE ON FORUM SHOPPING or WON there was Forum Shopping in this case. YES. Ruling: Respondent Valera’s alleged non-compliance with the rule on non-forum shopping when he filed the petition for certiorari with the appellate court, the appellate court

Issue: Whether or not the earlier dismissal of similar cases before the Ombudsman rendered the administrative case before the PCAGC moot and academic. NO. Ruling:

correctly overlooked this procedural lapse. In this case, it

The decision of the Ombudsman does not operate as res

was ruled that petitioner Special Prosecutor Villa-Ignacio

judicata in the PCAGC case subject of this review. The

had no authority to issue a preventive suspension order.

doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-

Hence, the appellate court’s decision in relaxing the rule

judicial proceedings, not to the exercise of administrative

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

17

powers.15 Petitioner was investigated by the Ombudsman

forums contemplated by the Circular that can entertain an

for his possible criminal liability for the acquisition of the

action or proceeding, or even grant any relief, declaratory or

Burbank property in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt

otherwise.

Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code. For the same

Facts:

alleged misconduct, petitioner, as a presidential appointee, was investigated by the PCAGC by virtue of the administrative power and control of the President over him. As

the

PCAGC’s

investigation

of

petitioner

was

administrative in nature, the doctrine of res judicata finds no application in the case at bar.

Mr. Jesus Cabarrus, Jr. filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Jose Antonio Bernas for alleged violations of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code and Code of professional Resposibility for knowingly subverting and perverting the truth when he falsify certified

(sic) and

verified under oath in the verification and certification of Hence, the petitioner’s dismissal was just proper after it was

non-forum shopping, that:

established that he acquired properties whose value is disproportionate to his income in the government service.

“He has not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in any court, including the

#31 JESUS CABARRUS, JR. vs. JOSE ANTONIO BERNAS,

Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other Tribunal

[A.C. No. 4634, September 24, 1997]

or agency.”

By: Bianca Cezar

placed under oath and was conveniently notarized in both

Where verification-certification was already

cases at the RTC in Pasig and at the NBI

QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS The function of the National Bureau of Investigations are

Issue:

merely investigatory and informational in nature. It has no

The core issue to be resolved here is whether respondent

judicial or quasi-judicial powers and is incapable of granting

Atty. Bernas transgressed Circular No. 28-91, Revised

any relief to a party. It cannot even determine probable

Circular No. 28-91, and administrative Circular No. 04-94 on

cause.

forum shopping.

It is an investigative agency whose findings are

merely recommendatory.

It undertakes investigation of

crimes upon its own initiative and as public welfare may require.

It renders assistance when requested in the

investigation or detection of crimes which precisely what Atty. Bernas sought in order to prosecute those person responsible for defrauding his client.

Ruling: There is forum-shopping whenever, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another. Therefore, a party to a case resort to forum shopping because “by filling another petition involving the same essential facts and

The courts, tribunal and agencies referred to under Circular

circumstances, xxx, respondents approached two different

No. 28-91, revised Circular No. 28-91 and Administrative

for a in order to increase their chances of obtaining a

Circular No. 04-94 are those vested with judicial powers or

favorable decision or action, [4] In this case, there is no

quasi-judicial powers and those who not only hear and

forum shopping to speak of Atty. Bernas, merely requested

determine controversies between adverse parties, but to

the assistance of the NBI to investigate the the alleged fraud

make binding orders or judgments. As succinctly put it by

and forgery committed by Mr. Jesus Cabarrus.[5] The filing

R.A. 157, the NBI is not performing judicial or quasi-judicial

of the civil case for conveyance and damages before the

functions.

The NBI cannot therefore be among those

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

18

Regional Trial Court of Pasig City does not preclude

the withdrawal of Informations for direct bribery filed

respondent to institute a criminal action. The rule allows

against respondent and de la Cruz.

the filing of a civil case independently with the criminal case without violating the circulars on forum shopping.

After due proceedings, the CSC issued a Resolution finding respondent guilty of the charges against her and ordering

#32 TOMAS G. VELASQUEZ vs. HELEN B. HERNANDEZ,

her dismissal from the service.

[G.R. No. 150732., August 31, 2004]

The appellate court however reversed the decision of the

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vs. HELEN B. HERNANDEZ,

CSC saying that though the cause of action in the CSC and

[G.R. No. 151095. August 31, 2004]

the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman are distinct; nevertheless, it said that in order to obviate the risk of

By: Bianca Cezar

violating the rule, petitioners should have attached the

Facts:

certification against non-forum shopping.

Petitioner Tomas G. Velasquez received a letter informing

Issue:

him of the alleged infractions committed by respondent, Helen B. Hernandez, such as soliciting, accepting, and receiving sums of money, in exchange for transfer or

WON the formal charge filed in the CSC should contain a certificate against Forum Shopping? No.

promotion of complainant teachers. Acting on the letter,

Ruling:

petitioner Velasquez convened a fact-finding committee to

Forum shopping consists of filing of multiple suits involving

determine the veracity of the alleged violations of

the same parties for the same cause of action, either

respondent

and

simultaneously or successively, for the purpose of obtaining

recommendation. The committee after due investigation

a favorable judgment.[5] It may also consist in a party

recommended the filing of administrative and criminal

against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in

complaints against respondent. A formal charge for Grave

one forum, seeking another and possibly favorable opinion

Misconduct, Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest

in another forum other than by appeal or special civil action

of the Service, Abuse of Authority, and Violation of Section

of certiorari.[6]

and

to

render

a

formal

report

22 (k) Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. 292 and other related laws was filed against respondent.

The most important factor in determining the existence of forum shopping is the vexation caused the courts and

Meanwhile, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Abra

parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts to rule

issued a Resolution entitled, “People of the Philippines v.

on the same or related causes or grant the same or

Helen Hernandez, et.al.” This Resolution, arose from the

substantially the same reliefs. A party, however, cannot be

sworn complaints filed by the complaining teachers,

said to have sought to improve his chances of obtaining a

indicting respondent and a certain Luzviminda de la Cruz

favorable decision or action where no unfavorable decision

for violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act No. 3019

has ever been rendered against him in any of the cases he

otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices

has brought before the courts.[7]

Act. Respondent and dela Cruz were charged with direct bribery. However, upon motion filed by respondent and her co-accused, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman ordered

In not a few cases, this Court has laid down the yardstick to determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping as where the elements of litis pendentia are

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

19

present or where a final judgment in one case will amount

Negros Occidental received a similar complaint5 against

to res judicata in the other.[8] Stated differently, there must

Rodriguez.

be between the two cases (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being

Now Rodriguez alleges that complainants violated the rule against forum shopping.

founded on the same facts; and (c) that the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party

Notwithstanding, the Ombudsman found Rodriguez guilty of dishonesty and oppression.

is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under

The Court of Appeals however set aside for lack of

consideration.[9]

jurisdiction the Decision of the Ombudsman and directed

It is significant to note that the action filed before the CSCCAR is administrative in nature, dealing as it does with the proper administrative liability, if any, which may have been incurred by respondent for the commission of the acts complained of. In stark contrast, the case filed before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, which incidentally was not initiated by herein petitioners but by the

complainant

teachers,

deals

with

the

criminal

accountability of the respondent for violation of the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act. Unmistakably, the rule on

the sangguniang bayan to proceed with the hearing on the administrative case. The appellate court reasoned that the sangguniang bayan had acquired primary jurisdiction over the person of Rodriguez to the exclusion of the Ombudsman. Issues: Whether complainants violated the rule against forum shopping when they filed in the Ombudsman and the sangguniang bayan identical complaints against Rodriguez. NO.

forum shopping would find no proper application since the two cases although based on the same essential facts and

Ruling:

circumstances do not raise identical causes of action and

The facts in the present case are analogous to those in

issues.[10] It would, therefore, be absurd to require the

Laxina, Sr. v. Ombudsman,29 which likewise involved

certification of forum shopping to be attached to the formal

identical administrative complaints filed in both the

charge filed before the CSC, for the evil sought to be curbed

Ombudsman and the sangguniang panlungsod against

by the proscription against forum shopping is simply not

apunong barangay for grave misconduct. The Court held

extant in the instant case.

therein that the rule against forum shopping applied only to

#33 OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. ROLSON RODRIGUEZ, G.R. No. 172700, July 23, 2010

judicial cases or proceedings, not to administrative cases.30 Thus, even if complainants filed in the Ombudsman and the sangguniang bayan identical complaints against private

By: Bianca Cezar

respondent, they did not violate the rule against forum

Facts:

shopping because their complaint was in the nature of an

On August 2003, the Ombudsman in Visayas received a

administrative case.1avvphi1

complaint4 for abuse of authority, dishonesty, oppression,

In administrative cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction

misconduct in office, and neglect of duty against Rolson

of two or more disciplining authorities, the body in which

Rodriguez, punong barangay in Brgy. Sto. Rosario, Negros

the complaint is filed first, and which opts to take

Occidental. On September 2003, the sangguniang bayan of

cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

20

of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction.31 In

Retirement Law), the law amending CA 186(the GSIS

this case, since the complaint was filed first in the

Charter).

Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman opted to assume

Issue:

jurisdiction over the complaint, the Ombudsman’s exercise of jurisdiction is to the exclusion of the sangguniang bayan

WON COA abused its discretion when it disallowed in audit petitioners’ claims for benefits under SSS Res. 56? No.

exercising concurrent jurisdiction. It is a hornbook rule that jurisdiction is a matter of law.

Ruling:

Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of

It is clear from the clauses and provisions of Resolution 56

the parties but continues until the case is terminated.32

that its financial assistance plan constitutes a supplemental

When herein complainants first filed the complaint in the

retirement/pension benefits plan and Sec. 28 (b) of CA 186

Ombudsman, jurisdiction was already vested on the latter.

as amended by RA 4968 in no uncertain terms bars the

Jurisdiction

creation of any insurance or retirement plan -- other than

could

no

longer

be

transferred

to

thesangguniang bayan by virtue of a subsequent complaint filed by the same complainants.

the GSIS -- for government officers and employees. Though it may be disputed that Res 56 was promulgated for laudable purposes, it simply cannot be tolerated for such reason alone as the said Resolution clearly contravenes the

QUASI-LEGISLATIVE POWER

provision of law and is therefore invalid, void and of no

#43 AVELINA B. CONTE and LETICIA BOISER-PALMA,

effect. SSS had no authority to maintain and implement

vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), [G.R. No. 116422,

such retirement plan, particularly in the face of the statutory

November 4, 1996]

prohibition. The SSS cannot, in the guise of rule-making, legislate or amend laws or worse, render them nugatory.

By: June Ylanan

It is doctrinal that in case of conflict between a statute and

Facts:

an administrative order, the former must prevail.[15] A rule Petitioners Avelina Conte and Leticia Boiser-Palma were former employees of the Social Security System (SSS) who retired

from

government

service.

They

availed

of

compulsory retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 660.

or regulation must conform to and be consistent with the provisions of the enabling statute in order for such rule or regulation to be valid.[16] The rule-making power of a public administrative body is a delegated legislative power, which

In addition to retirement benefits provided under R.A. 660,

it may not use either to abridge the authority given it by the

petitioners also claimed SSS “financial assistance” benefits

Congress or the Constitution or to enlarge its power beyond

granted under SSS Resolution No. 56, series of 1971.

the scope intended. Constitutional and statutory provisions

Their applications were however denied because of

control with respect to what rules and regulations may be

respondent COA’s 1989 ruling disallowing all claims for financial assistance under SSS Resolution No. 56 for the reason that the scheme of financial assistance authorized by the SSS constituted additional retirement benefits, and the scheme partook of the nature of a supplementary pension/retirement plan proscribed by RA 4968 (The Teves

promulgated by such a body, as well as with respect to what fields are subject to regulation by it. It may not make rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution or a statute, particularly the statute it is administering or which created it, or which are in derogation of, or defeat, the purpose of a statute.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

21

Due to the invalidity of Res. 56, it cannot be said that

retirement benefits granted under the GSIS RFP, or the

respondent COA abused its discretion.

excess of the benefits due the retirees.

#44 GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

Issue:

(GSIS) vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (COA), G.R. No.

WON the GSIS Retirement Financial Plan is valid, in light of

162372, October 19, 2011

the GSIS Act of 1997, and the Government Service Insurance

By: June Ylanan

Act as amended by the Teves Retirement Law. The GSIS

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: Facts: On May 30, 1997, Republic Act No. 8291, otherwise known as "The Government Service Insurance System Act of 1997" (the GSIS Act) was enacted and approved. Pursuant to the powers granted to it under Section 41(n) of R.A. No. 8291 or the GSIS Act of 1997, the GSIS Board of

Retirement/Financial Plan is Null and Void Ruling: Section 41 (n) of R.A. 8291 provides that the GSIS shall exercise the power “to design and adopt an Early Retirement Incentive Plan (ERIP) and/or financial assistance for the purpose of retirement for its own personnel’

Trustees, approved Board Resolution No. 326 wherein they

It is clear from the foregoing that Section 41(n) of Republic

adopted the GSIS Employees Loyalty Incentive Plan (ELIP).

Act No. 8291 contemplates a situation wherein

The same Board Resolution was later amended by Board

1. GSIS, due to reorganization, streamlining of its

Resolution No. 360.

organization, or some other circumstance, which calls for

Dimagiba, the corporate auditor of GSIS, communicated to

the termination of some of its employees,

the President and General Manager of GSIS that the GSIS

2. must design a plan to encourage, induce, or motivate

RFP was contrary to law. However, the GSIS Legal Services

these employees,

Group opined that the GSIS Board was legally authorized to adopt the plan. Believing that the GSIS RFP was "morally indefensible," Dimagiba sought the assistance of COA. In response, COA’s

3. who are not yet qualified for either optional or compulsory retirement under our laws, 4. to instead voluntarily retire.

General Counsel Alquizalas issued a Memorandum to COA

This is the very reason why under the law, the retirement

Commissioner Flores regarding the GSIS RFP. Alquizalas

plan and financial assistance scheme to be adopted is in

opined that the GSIS RFP is a supplementary retirement

reality an incentive scheme to encourage the employees to

plan, which is prohibited under Republic Act No. 4968, or

retire before their retirement age.

the "Teves Retirement Law," thus null and void for being

Such is not the case with the GSIS RFP. Its very objective,

violative of the said law; and Section 41(n) of Republic Act

"[t]o motivate and reward employees for meritorious,

No. 8291, which speaks of an early retirement plan or

faithful, and satisfactory service," which falls exactly within

financial assistance.

the purpose of a retirement benefit, which is a form of

In response, Commissioner Flores issued a Memorandum

reward for an employee’s loyalty and lengthy service, in

which contains a disallowance in audit the portion of

order to help him or her enjoy the remaining years of his life.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

22

Furthermore, to be able to apply for the GSIS RFP, one must

Another compelling reason to nullify the GSIS RFP is that it

be qualified to retire under Republic Act No. 660 or

allows, and in fact mandates, the inclusion of the years in

Republic Act No. 8291, or must have previously retired

government service of previously retired employees.

under our existing retirement laws. This only means that the employees covered by the GSIS RFP were those who were already eligible to retire or had already retired. Certainly, this is not included in the scope of "an early retirement incentive plan or financial assistance for the purpose of retirement." Without a doubt, the GSIS RFP is a supplementary retirement plan, which is prohibited by the Teves Retirement Law.

To credit the years of service of GSIS retirees in their previous government office into the computation of their retirement benefits under the GSIS RFP, notwithstanding the fact that they had received or had been receiving the retirement benefits under the applicable retirement law they

retired

in,

would

be to

countenance

double

compensation for exactly the same services. Board Resolution Nos. 326, 360, and 6 are thus declared ILLEGAL, VOID, and OF NO EFFECT.

As the court held in the Conte case: Section 28(b) [of C.A. No. 186] as amended by R.A. No. 4968 in no uncertain terms bars the creation of any insurance or retirement plan – other than the GSIS – for government officers and employees, in

Retirement Benefit vs. Early Retirement Incentive Plan and Financial Assistance under R.A. 8291

order to prevent the undue and inequitous proliferation of

The purpose of a retirement benefit is to reward an

such plans.

employee’s loyalty and lengthy sevice, in order to help him

The GSIS RFP was not created because of valid company reorganization. Its purpose did not include the granting of benefits for early retirement. Neither did it provide benefits

enjoy the remaining years of his life.

While the latter’s

purpose is to encourage the employees to retire before their retirement age.

for either voluntary or involuntary separation from GSIS. It

#45 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION vs.

was intended for employees who were already eligible to

INTERPORT RESOURCES CORPORATION, G.R. No.

retire under existing retirement laws. While the GSIS may

135808, October 6, 2008

have been clothed with authority to adopt an early

By: June Ylanan

retirement or financial assistance plan, such authority was limited by the very law it was seeking to implement.

DECISION

Borrowing the words in the Conte case, "it is beyond cavil

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

that [the GSIS Retirement/Financial Plan] contravenes

Facts:

[Section 28(b) of C.A. No. 186 as amended by R.A. No. 4968 or the Teves Retirement Law], and is therefore invalid, void, and of no effect. To ignore this and rule otherwise would be tantamount to permitting every other government office or agency to put up its own supplementary retirement benefit plan under the guise of such ‘financial assistance.”

On 6 August 1994, the Board of Directors of IRC approved a Memorandum of Agreement with Ganda Holdings Berhad (GHB). The SEC averred that it received reports that IRC failed to make timely public disclosures of its negotiations with GHB and that some of its directors, respondents herein, heavily traded IRC shares utilizing this material insider information.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

23

Consequently, the SEC Chairman issued an Order finding

Securities Act, this Court upholds these provisions as legal

that IRC violated the Rules on Disclosure of Material Facts,

and binding. It is well settled that every law has in its favor

when it failed to make timely disclosure of its negotiations

the presumption of validity. Unless and until a specific

with GHB. In addition, the SEC pronounced that some of

provision of the law is declared invalid and unconstitutional,

the officers and directors of IRC entered into transactions

the same is valid and binding for all intents and purposes.

involving IRC shares in violation of Section 30, in relation to

The mere absence of implementing rules cannot effectively

Section 36, of the Revised Securities Act.

invalidate

The respondents in turn filed a petition before the Court of

provisions

of

law,

where

a

reasonable

construction that will support the law may be given.

Appeals which promulgated a Decision in favor of the IRC.

The policy of the courts is to avoid ruling on constitutional

It determined that there was no implementing rules and

questions and to presume that the acts of the political

regulations regarding disclosure, insider trading, or any of

departments are valid in the absence of a clear and

the provisions of the Revised Securities Acts which the IRC

unmistakable showing to the contrary. To doubt is to

allegedly violated. The CA likewise noted that it found no

sustain. This presumption is based on the doctrine of

statutory authority for the SEC to initiate and file any suit

separation of powers which enjoins upon each department a

for civil liability under Sections 8, 30 and 36 of the Revised

becoming respect for the acts of the other departments. The

Securities Act. Thus, it ruled that no civil, criminal or

theory is that as the joint act of Congress and the President

administrative proceedings may possibly be held against the

of the Philippines, a law has been carefully studied and

respondents without violating their rights to due process

determined to be in accordance with the fundamental law

and equal protection.

before it was finally enacted.

Issue:

The necessity for vesting administrative authorities with

WON the SEC has no statutory authority to initiate and file any suit against IRC and its directors with respect to Section 30 (INSIDER'S DUTY TO DISCOLSED [sic] WHEN TRADING) and Section 36 (DIRECTORS OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL STOCKHOLDERS) of the Revised Securities Act. The SEC has authority. Sections 8, 30 and 36 of the Revised Securities Act do not require the enactment of implementing rules to make them binding and effective.

power to make rules and regulations is based on the impracticability of lawmakers' providing general regulations for various and varying details of management. To rule that the absence of implementing rules can render ineffective an act of Congress, such as the Revised Securities Act, would empower the administrative bodies to defeat the legislative will by delaying the implementing rules. To assert that a law is less than a law, because it is made to depend on a future event or act, is to rob the Legislature of the power to act

Ruling:

wisely for the public welfare whenever a law is passed

The Court of Appeals ruled that absent any implementing

relating to a state of affairs not yet developed, or to things

rules for Sections 8, 30 and 36 of the Revised Securities Act,

future and impossible to fully know. It is well established

no civil, criminal or administrative actions can possibly be

that

had against the respondents without violating their right to

promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given

due process and equal protection. This is untenable.

statute and to effectuate its policies, provided such rules and

In the absence of any constitutional or statutory infirmity, which may concern Sections 30 and 36 of the Revised

administrative

authorities

have

the

power

to

regulations conform to the terms and standards prescribed by the statute as well as purport to carry into effect its

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

general policies. Nevertheless, it is undisputable that the rules and regulations cannot assert for themselves a more extensive prerogative or deviate from the mandate of the statute. Moreover, where the statute contains sufficient standards and an unmistakable intent, as in the case of Sections 30 and 36 of the Revised Securities Act, there should be no impediment to its implementation.

24

Ruling: There is nothing legislative about unifying existing ID systems of all courts within the Judiciary. The same is true for government entities under the Executive department. If government entities under the Executive department decide to unify their existing ID data collection and ID card issuance systems to achieve savings, efficiency, compatibility

#46 KILUSANG MAYO UNO et. al. vs. THE DIRECTOR-

and convenience, such act does not involve the exercise of

GENERAL, NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

any legislative power. Thus, the issuance of EO 420 does not

AUTHORITY, and THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF

constitute usurpation of legislative power.

BUDGET and MANAGEMENT, G.R. No. 167798, April 19,

Section 17, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that

2006

the

By: June Ylanan

departments, bureaus and offices." The same Section also

Facts: This case involves two consolidated petitions seeking the nullification of Executive Order No. 420 (EO 420) on the ground that it is unconstitutional.

"President

shall

have

control

of

all

executive

mandates the President to "ensure that the laws be faithfully executed." Certainly, under this constitutional power of control the President can direct all government entities, in the exercise of their functions under existing laws, to adopt a uniform ID

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued EO 420 requiring

data collection and ID format to achieve savings, efficiency,

all government agencies and government-owned and

reliability, compatibility, and convenience to the public. The

controlled corporations to streamline and harmonize their

President’s constitutional power of control is self-executing

identification systems to ensure the attainment of the

and does not need any implementing legislation.

following objectives:

Of course, the President’s power of control is limited to the

a. To reduce costs and thereby lessen the financial burden

Executive branch of government and does not extend to the

xxx

Judiciary or to the independent constitutional commissions.

b. To ensure greater convenience for those transacting

Thus, EO 420 does not apply to the Judiciary, or to the

business with the government and those availing of

COMELEC which under existing laws is also authorized to

government services; xxx

issue voter’s ID cards. This only shows that EO 420 does not

d. To enhance the integrity and reliability of governmentissued ID cards; and

establish a national ID system because legislation is needed to establish a single ID system that is compulsory for all branches of government.

e. To facilitate access to and delivery of quality and effective government service.

The Constitution also mandates the President to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. There are several laws

Issues:

mandating government entities to reduce costs, increase

WON EO 420 is a usurpation of legislative power by the

efficiency, and in general, improve public services. The

President. No.

adoption of a uniform ID data collection and format under

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

25

EO 420 is designed to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and

citizens. EO 420 requires a very narrow and focused

in general, improve public services. Thus, in issuing EO 420,

collection and recording of personal data while safeguarding

the President is simply performing the constitutional duty

the confidentiality of such data. In fact, the data collected

to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

and recorded under EO 420 are far less than the data

Clearly, EO 420 is well within the constitutional power of the President to promulgate. The President has not usurped

collected and recorded under the ID systems existing prior to EO 420.

legislative power in issuing EO 420. EO 420 is an exercise of

#47

Executive power – the President’s constitutional power of

PHILIPPINES vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO

control over the Executive department. EO 420 is also

ERMITA and COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION

compliance by the President of the constitutional duty to

represented by its Chairman ROMULO L. NERI, G.R.

ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

No. 180046, April 2, 2009

Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter

By: June Ylanan

or repeal them. In issuing EO 420, the President did not make, alter or repeal any law but merely implemented and

REVIEW

CARPIO, J.:

insures efficiency, reliability, compatibility and user-

Facts:

government entities under existing laws. Thus, EO 420 is simply an executive issuance and not an act of legislation.

ASSOCIATION

OF

THE

DECISION

executed existing laws. EO 420 reduces costs, as well as

friendliness in the implementation of current ID systems of

CENTER

This case is a result of the leakage in the June 2006 Nursing Board Examination which prompted then President GMA to issue EO 566 which authorized the CHED to supervise the

What require legislation are three aspects of a government

establishment and operation of all review centers and

maintained ID card system. First, when the implementation

similar entities in the Philippines.

of an ID card system requires a special appropriation because there is no existing appropriation for such purpose. Second, when the ID card system is compulsory on all

In response thereto, then CHED Chairman Carlito Puno approved the IRR of the said EO 566.

branches of government, including the independent

Then CHED chairman further advanced that “ While it may

constitutional commissions, as well as compulsory on all

be true that regulation of review centers is not one of the

citizens whether they have a use for the ID card or not.

mandates of CHED under Republic Act 7722, however, by

Third, when the ID card system requires the collection and

virtue of EO 566 issued by the president, the CHED now is

recording of personal data beyond what is routinely or

the agency that is mandated to regulate the establishment

usually required for such purpose, such that the citizen’s

and operation of all review centers. Thus this case.

right to privacy is infringed.

Issue:

In the present case, EO 420 does not require any special

Whether or not EO 566 is an unconstitutional exercise by

appropriation because the existing ID card systems of

the Executive of legislative power as it expands the CHED’s

government entities covered by EO 420 have the proper

jurisdiction. Yes.

appropriation or funding. EO 420 is not compulsory on all branches of government and is not compulsory on all

Whether or not the RIRR is an invalid exercise of the Executive’s rule-making power. Yes.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

Ruling:

26

enacts in the form of a public law. Although administrative

The President has no inherent or delegated legislative power to amend the functions of the CHED under RA 7722. Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter

regulations are entitled to respect, the authority to prescribe rules and regulations is not an independent source of power to make laws.

or repeal them, and this power is vested with the Congress

Since EO 566 is an invalid exercise of legislative power, the

under Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.

RIRR is also an invalid exercise of the CHED’s quasi-

The line that delineates Legislative and Executive power is

legislative power.

not indistinct. Legislative power is "the authority, under the

Administrative agencies exercise their quasi-legislative or

Constitution, to make laws, and to alter and repeal them,”

rule-making power through the promulgation of rules and

and this power was vested in the Congress of the

regulations. The CHED may only exercise its rule-making

Philippines. Any power, deemed to be legislative by usage

power within the confines of its jurisdiction under RA 7722.

and tradition, is necessarily possessed by Congress, unless

The RIRR covers review centers and similar entities which

the Constitution has lodged it elsewhere.

are neither institutions of higher education nor institutions

While Congress is vested with the power to enact laws, the

offering degree-granting programs.

President executes the laws. The executive power is vested

Hence, Executive Order No. 566 and its IRR was declared

in the President. It is generally defined as the power to

VOID for being unconstitutional.

enforce and administer laws. It is the power of carrying the laws into practical operation and enforcing their due

POWER TO ISSUE SUBPOENA

observance.

#51 Ev a n g e l i s t a v s J a r e n c i o, 6 8 S C R A 9 9

The president also exercises administrative power over

By: Llana Masiga

bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to

FACTS:

discharge his duties effectively. Pu r s u a n t t o h i s s p e c i a l p o w e r s a n d d u t Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. To this end, he can issue administrative orders, rules and regulations.

i e s u n d e r S e c t i o n 6 4 o f t h e R ev i s e d A d ministrative Code, 1 the President of t he Philippines created the Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Op erations (PARGO) under Executive O rd er No. 4 of January 7, 1966, charging it

An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the

with the responsibility of investigatin

President

g cases of graft and corruption.

which relates to

specific aspects in the

administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy.

For a realistic performance of these f unctions, the President vested in the Agency all the powers of an investigati

In this case however, EO 566 is not supported by any

ng committee under Secti ons 71 and 58

enabling law. Regulations are not supposed to be a

0 of the Revised Administrative Code,

substitute for the general policy-making that Congress

including the power to summon witnes

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

27

ses by subpoena or subpoena duces tec

stigations are useful for all administra

um, administer oaths, take testimony o

tive functions, not only for rule makin

r evidence relevant to the investigatio

g, adjudication, and licensing, but als

n.

o for prosecuting, for supervising and directing, for determining general poli cy, for recommending, legislation, and

On June 7, 1968, petitioner Quirico Ev angelista, as Undersecretary of the Ag ency, issued to respondent Fernando M analastas, then Acting City Public Serv ice Officer of Manila, a subpoena ad te stificandum commanding him "to be an d appear as witness at the Office of th e PRESIDENTIAL AGENCY ON REFORMS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS ... th en and there to declare and testify in a certain investigation pending therei n.

for purposes no more specific than illu minating obscure areas to find out wha t if anything should be done. An admin istrative agency may be authorized to make investigations, not only in proce edings of a legislative or judicial natu re, but also in proceedings whose sole purpose is to obtain information upon which future action of a legislative or judicial nature may be taken and may r equire the attendance of witnesses in proceedings of a purely investigatory

Instead of obeying the subpoena, resp

nature. It may conduct general inquiri

ondent Fernando Manalastas filed on J

es into evils calling for correction, an

une 25, 1968 with the Court an Amende

d to report findings to appropriate bo

d Petition for prohibition, certiorari a

dies and make recommendations for ac

nd/or injunction with preliminary inju

tions.

nction and/or restraining order and as sailed its legality. Petitioner Agency draws its subpoena power from Executive Order No. 4, par ISSUE: Whether or not PARGO enjoys t

a. 5 which, in an effectuating mood, e

he authority to issue subpoenas in its

mpowered it to "summon witness, admi

conduct of fact finding investigations

nister oaths, and take testimony relev ant to the investigation" with the auth ority "to require the production of doc

RULING:

uments under a subpoena duces tecum or otherwise, subject in all respects to

It has been essayed that the life blood of the administrative process is the fl ow of fact, the gathering, the organiza tion and the analysis of evidence. Inve

the same restrictions and qualification s as apply in judicial proceedings of a similar character."

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

28

To hold that the subpoena power of th

reluctant if not unable to summon evi

e agency is confined to mere quasi -jud

dence until it is shown to be relevant

icial or adjudicatory functions would t

to issues on litigations it does not foll

herefore imperil or inactivate the agen

ow that an administrative agency char

cy in its investigatory functions. More

ged with seeing that the laws are enfor

than that, the enabling authority itsel

ced may not have and exercise powers

f (Executive Order No. 4, para. 5) fixe

of original inquiry. The administrative

s no distinction when and in what func

agency has the power of inquisition wh

tion should the subpoena power be exe

ich is not dependent upon a case or co

rcised. Similarly, The court sees no re

ntroversy in order to get evidence, but

ason to depart from the established ru

can investigate merely on suspicion th

le that forbids differentiation when th

at the law is being violated or even ju

e law itself makes none.

st because it wants assurance that it is not. When investigative and accusator y duties are delegated by statute to an

Rightly, administrative agencies may e nforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations, whether or not adju dication is involved, and whether or n ot probable cause is shown and even b efore the issuance of a complaint. It is not necessary, as in the case of a wa rr ant, that a specific charge or complain t of violation of law be pending or tha

administrative body, it, too may take s teps to inform itself as to whether the re is probable violation of the law. In sum, it may be stated that a subpoena meets the requirements for enforcemen t if the inquiry is (1) within the autho rity of the agency; (2) the demand is n ot too indefinite; and (3) the informat ion is reasonably relevant.

t the order be made pursuant to one. I t is enough that the investigation be f or a lawfully authorized purpose.The p

There is no doubt that the fact -findin

urpose of the subpoena is to discover

g investigations being conducted by th

evidence, not to prove a pending charg

e Agency upon sworn statements impli

e, but upon which to make one if the d

cating cert ain p ublic officials of the C

iscovered evidence so justifies. Its obl

ity Government of Manila in anomalou

igation cannot rest on a trial of the va

s transactions fall within the Agency's

lue of testimony sought; it is enough t

sphere of authority and that the infor

hat the proposed investigation be for a

mation sought to be elicited from resp

lawfully authorized purpose, and that

ondent Fernando Manalastas, of which

the proposed witness be claimed to ha

he is claimed to be in possession, is re

ve info rmation that might shed so me h

asonably relevant to the investigation

elpful light. Because judicial power is

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

29

s.

for determining its date of effectivity, which is the fifteenth

____________________________________________________

day following its publication-but not when the law itself

IMPLEMENTING RULES OR INTERPRETATIVE POLICIES #53 TANADA v. TUVERA

provides for the date when it goes into effect. Respondents' argument, however, is logically correct only insofar as it equates the effectivity of laws with the fact of

By: Bembem Sarno

publication. Considered in the light of other statutes

FACTS:

applicable to the issue at hand, the conclusion is easily

Due process was invoked by the petitioners in demanding the disclosure of a number of PDs which they claimed have not been published as required by law and a right

reached that said Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity.

recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine

The clear object of the above-quoted provision is to give the

Constitution. The government argued that while publication

general public adequate notice of the various laws which are

was necessary as a rule, it was not so when it was “otherwise

to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without

provided”, as when the decrees themselves declared that

such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the

they were to become effective immediately upon their

application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It

approval. In the decision of this case on 1985, the Court

would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise

affirmed the necessity for the publication of some of theses

burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he

decrees, declaring in the dispositive portion as follows:

had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents

The publication of all presidential issuances "of a

to publish in the OG all unpublished PDs which are of

public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by

general application, and unless so published, they shall have

law. Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for fines,

no binding force and effect.

forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden or. the people, such as tax and revenue

ISSUE:

measures, fall within this category. Other presidential

WON publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua

issuances which apply only to particular persons or class of

non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws

persons such as administrative and executive orders need

themselves provide for their own effectivity dates

not be published on the assumption that they have been

HELD:

circularized to all concerned.

YES. Article 2 of the Civil Code provides, “Laws shall take

It is needless to add that the publication of presidential

effect after fifteen days following the completion of their

issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is

publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise

a requirement of due process.

provided, ...” In a long line of decisions, this Court has ruled that

#55 GSIS vs. COA By: Bembem Sarno

publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date-for then the date of publication is material

FACTS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

30

In November 1936, Congress enacted Commonwealth Act

resolution (No. 566) of the GSIS board of trustees adopted

No. 186, creating the Government Service Insurance System

on December 11, 1987, which was after the death of Gen.

(hereafter GSIS) to provide insurance coverage and

Asuncion.

retirement benefits to government officials and employees,

ISSUE:

replacing the existing pension systems established in prior laws.

WON the heirs of Asuncion are entitled to receive the GSIS benefits

Sec. 4 ofCom. Act No. 186 provided that: HELD: Sec. 4. Scope of application of System. — Regular membership in the system shall be compulsory upon —

YES. The aforecited executive order provides for compulsory membership in the GSIS of qualified reserve officers of the

xxx xxx xxx d) All officers and enlisted men of the Regular Force, Philippine Army;

AFP like General Asuncion. It was effective at the time of the death of General Asuncion. Hence, it becomes the duty

On December 2, 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino,

of the auditor to approve and pass in audit the valid claim of

exercising legislative powers enacted Executive Order No.

his heirs for death benefits. The Commission on Audit's

79, Section 1 (c) of which provides:

disallowance amounts to a grave abuse of discretion. By the

Sec. 1 (c). A reserve officer who has satisfactorily rendered a total of ten (10) years continuous active commissioned military service shall not be reverted to inactive status, except upon his own request or for cause, up to the time he reaches the compulsory retirement of thirty (30) years of

terms of this enactment, qualified reserve officers, meaning, those who have satisfactorily rendered a total of ten (10) years of continuous active duty commissioned service in the AFP shall not be reverted to inactive status except upon their own request, or for cause.

service or-fifty six (56) years of age, whichever comes later

Thus, they have the same status as regular commissioned

but not later than sixty (60) years of age.

officers of the AFP, who are unquestionably compulsory

On November 16, 1987, Brig. General Arturo T. Asuncion met his untimely death in a helicopter crash. On December 11, 1987, the board of trustees of the GSIS in resolution No. 566, approved the compulsory insurance coverage of reserve officers of the AFP. The heirs of Asuncion then filed a claim with the GSIS for payment of death benefits due to him as a member of the System and subsequently received the payments.

members of the System. The President issued the executive order on December 2, 1986. It was published in the Official Gazette on December 22, 1986. Thus, E. O. No. 79 is effective fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette, or on January 07, 1987. 4 At that time, the late General Asuncion was a reserve officer who had rendered a total of ten (10) years of continuous active duty service commission in the AFP. Hence, he was

In the course of audit of the account the auditor disallowed in audit the payment of the claim, pointing out that he was not a member of the GSIS at the time of his death on November 15, 1987, in a helicopter crash. According to auditor Gaborne, Executive Order No. 79, dated December 2, 1986, was effective only on its implementation by

compulsorily covered as a member of the GSIS on the date he died on November 15, 1987, in line of duty in a helicopter crash. Consequently, his heirs are entitled to payment of death benefits.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

31

The optional insurance policy referred to, however, is

10). Paragraph 5.6 of DBM- CCC No. 10 discontinued

distinct from the compulsory coverage membership in the

effective November 1, 1989, all allowances and fringe

GSIS. The optional insurance policy was issued on the basis

benefits granted on top of basic salary, not otherwise

of a voluntary application under existing regulations and

enumerated under paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 thereof.

lapsed in April, 1984, due to non- payment of premiums. On the other hand, qualified reserve officers were covered by

Affected PITC employees filed an appeal before the COA but the latter denied such appeal.

compulsory membership in the GSIS under Executive Order No. 79 effective on January 07, 1987, regardless of whether or not the premiums were paid. Of course, the unpaid premiums, if any, may be deducted from the proceeds of the

ISSUE: WON DBM-CCC No. 10 is valid and enforceable HELD:

policy. NO. DBM-CCC No. 10 which was issued by the DBM #56

PHILIPPINE

INTERNATIONAL

TRADING

pursuant to Section 23 17 of RA 6758 mandating the said

CORPORATION VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

agency to issue the necessary guidelines to implement RA

By: Bembem Sarno

6758 has been declared by this Court in De Jesus, et al. vs.Commission on Audit, et al. as of no force and effect due

FACTS:

to the absence of publication thereof in the Official Gazette PITC is GOCC created under Presidential Decree

or in a newspaper of general circulation. Following the

(PD) No. 252 primarily for the purpose of promoting and

doctrine enunciated in Tanada , publication in the Official

developing Philippine trade in pursuance of national

Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the

economic development. In 1988, the BOD approved a Car

Philippines is required since DBM-CCC No. 10 is in the

Plan Program for qualified PITC officers. Under such car

nature of an administrative circular the purpose of which is

plan program, among others, includes that an eligible officer

to enforce or implement an existing law. Stated differently,

is entitled to purchase a vehicle, fifty percent (50%) of the

to be effective and enforceable, DBM-CCC No. 10 must go

value of which shall be shouldered by PITC while the

through the requisite publication in the Official Gazette or

remaining fifty percent (50%) will be shouldered by the

in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.

officer through salary deduction over a period of five (5) years. In 1989, Republic Act No. 6758 (RA 6758), entitled "An Act Prescribing a Revised Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government and For Other Purposes", took effect. Section 12 of said law provides for the consolidation of allowances and additional compensation into standardized salary rates save for certain additional compensation such as representation and transportation allowances which were exempted from consolidation into the standardized rate. To implement RA 6758, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10 (DBM-CCC No.

In the present case under scrutiny, it is decisively clear that DBM-CCC No. 10, which completely disallows payment of allowances

and

other

additional

compensation

to

government officials and employees, starting November 1, 1989, is not a mere interpretative or internal regulation. It is something more than that. And why not, when it tends to deprive government workers of their allowances and additional compensation sorely needed to keep body and soul together. At the very least, before the circular under attack may be permitted to substantially reduce their income, the government officials and employees concerned should be apprised and alerted by the publication of said

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

32

circular in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper or general

•

circulation in the Philippines — to the end that they be

illegal dismissal, payment of salary differentials, illegal

given amplest opportunity to voice out whatever opposition

deduction/withholding of salaries, illegal exaction/refund of

they may have, and to ventilate their stance on the matter.

placement fees and contract substitution. It was alleged that

DBM-CCC No. 10 has been re-issued in its entirety and submitted for publication in the Official Gazette per letter to the National Printing Office dated March 9, 1999. Would the subsequent publication thereof cure the defect and retroact to the time that the above-mentioned items were

Private respondents filed a case before the POEA for

they made to sign another contract which reduced some of their benefits and privileges days after they started to work. The employer also subsequently forced them to sign a third contract which increased their work from 48 hours to 60 hours per week without any corresponding increase in their monthly salary and because they refused to sign the third

disallowed in audit? NO.

contract the employer terminated their services and Publication is required as a condition precedent to the effectivity of a law to inform the public of the contents of the law or rules and regulations before the same affects their

repatriated back to the Philippines They sought for Philsa to return their placement fees and for the payment of the unexpired portion of their contract however, Philsa refused.

rights and interests. From the time the COA disallowed the expenses in audit up to the filing of herein petition the subject circular remained in legal limbo due to its nonpublication. As was stated in Tanada vs.Tuvera. "prior publication of laws before they become effective cannot be dispensed with, for the reason that such omission would

•

On the aspect of money claims the POEA rendered

a decision in favor of the private respondents. As both elt aggrieved by the said POEA Decision, petitioner and private respondents filed separate appeals from the August 31, 1988 POEA Decision to the NLRC.

offend due process insofar as it would deny the public

•

knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it.

Adjudication Office by deleting the award of salary

#57 Philsa International Placement Corporation vs. The Secretary of Labor

NLRC modified the appealed decision of the POEA

deductions and differentials. Private respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied by the NLRC. Private respondents then elevated the July 26, 1989

By: June Ylanan

decision of the NLRC to the Supreme Court in a petition for

Facts:

review for certiorari.

•

Petitioner Philsa International Placement and

•

Almost simultaneous with the promulgation of the

Services Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Philsa”) is a

August 31, 1988 decision of the POEA on private

domestic corporation engaged in the recruitment of workers

respondents’ money claims, the POEA issued a separate

for overseas employment.

Sometime in January 1985,

Order dated August 29, 1988 resolving the recruitment

private respondents, who were recruited by petitioner for

violations aspect of private respondents’ complaint. In this

employment in Saudi Arabia, were required to pay

Order, the POEA found petitioner guilty of illegal exaction,

placement fees in the amount of P5,000.00 for private

contract substitution, and unlawful deduction.

respondent Rodrigo L. Mikin and P6,500.00 each for private

•

respondents Vivencio A. de Mesa and Cedric P. Leyson.

placement fees in the amount of P2,500.00 to Rodrigo L.

Accordingly, Philsa is ordered to refund the

Mikin, P4,000.00, each, to Vivencio A. de Mesa and Cedric A.P. Leyson plus restitution of the salaries withheld in the

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

33

amount of SR1,000.00 to Vivencio A. de Mesa. Petitioner

POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 must

deposited the check equivalent to the claims of private

likewise be declared ineffective as the same was never

respondents and paid the corresponding fine under protest.

published or filed with the National Administrative Register.

From the said Order, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was subsequently denied Issue: 1.

the applicable schedule of placement and documentation fees for private employment agencies or authority holders.

Whether petitioner cannot be held for illegal

exaction as POEA Memorandum Circular No. II, Series of 1983 is void for lack of publication. 2.

POEA Memorandum Order No. 2, Series of 1983 provides for

Under the said Order, the maximum amount which may be collected from prospective Filipino overseas workers is P2,500.00.

Whether the administrative circular is not among

those requiring publication as it is addressed only to a

It is thus clear that the administrative circular under

specific group of persons and not the general public

consideration is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a valid

Held:

delegation. Considering that POEA Administrative Circular

On the first issue. In Tañada vs. Tuvera, the Court held, as follows:

No. 2, Series of 1983 has not as yet been published or filed with the National Administrative Register, the same is ineffective and may not be enforced.

“We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a

On the second issue:

condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days

The fact that the said circular is addressed only to a

after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by

specified group, namely private employment agencies or

the legislature.

authority holders, does not take it away from the ambit of

Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution.

Administrative rules and regulations must

also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.

our ruling in Tañada vs. Tuvera. Association

of

Service

In the case of Phil.

Exporters

vs.

Torres,

the

administrative circulars questioned therein were addressed to an even smaller group, namely Philippine and Hong Kong agencies engaged in the recruitment of workers for Hong Kong, and still the Court ruled therein that, for lack of proper publication, the said circulars may not be enforced or implemented.

Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letter of instructions issued by the administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties.”

Our pronouncement in Tañada vs. Tuvera is clear and categorical. Administrative rules and regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.

The only

exceptions are interpretative regulations, those merely internal in nature, or those so-called letters of instructions

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules and

•

guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the

that:

performance of their duties. Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 has not been shown to fall under any of these exceptions.

o

34

Sworn statement of AFP Major Perfecto Ragil stated

June 4, 2003 about 11 pm: Senator Gregorio “Gringo”

Honasan arrived with Capt. Turinga to hold the NRP meeting where they concluded the use of force, violence and

#58 and #154 Honasan vs. DOJ Panel (superseded by

armed struggle to achieve the vision of NRP where a junta

OMB-DOJ MOA 3/29/12), 4/13/2004

will be constituted which will run the new government.

By: Mides Cerbo

They had a blood compact and that he only participated due to the threat made by Senator Honasan when he said “Kung

Lessons Applicable: Rule on Interpretative Regulations

kaya nating pumatay sa ating mga kalaban, kaya din nating

(persons), Powers of the Ombudsman (consti), concurrent

pumatay sa mga kasamahang magtataksil.”

jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the DOJ to conduct preliminary investigation (consti)

o

July 27, 2003: He saw on TV that Lieutenant Antonio

Trillanes, Captain Gerardo Gambala, Captain Alejano and

Law Applicable: Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution,

some others who were present during the NRP meeting he

Art. 2 Civil Code

attended, having a press conference about their occupation

Facts:

of the Oakwood Hotel. He saw that the letter "I" on the arm

•

August 4, 2003: CIDG-PNP/P Director Edguardo

Matillano filed an affidavit-complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) which contains the following in part: o

July 27, 2003: crime of coup d’ etat was committed by

military personnel who occupied Oakwood and Senator Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan, II

bands and the banner is the same letter "I" in the banner is the same as their blood compact wound. •

August 27, 2003: Senator Honasan appeared with

counsel at the DOJ to file a a Motion for Clarification questioning DOJ's jurisdiction over the case since the imputed acts were committed in relation to his public office by a group of public officials with Salary Grade 31 which

o On or about 11 p.m. June 4,2003: A meeting was held and

should be handled by the Office of the Ombudsman and the

presided by Senator Honasan in a house located in San Juan,

Sandiganbayan

Metro Manila • o

Senator Honasan then filed a petition for certiorari

Early morning of July 27, 2003: Capt. Gerardo Gambala,

under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against the DOJ Panel

in behalf of the military rebels occupying Oakwood, made a

and its members, CIDG-PNP-P/Director Eduardo Matillano

public statement aired on national television, stating their

and Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo, attributing grave

withdrawal of support to the chain of command of the AFP

abuse of discretion on the part of the DOJ Panel in issuing

and the Government of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

the aforequoted Order of September 10, 2003 directing him

Willing to risk their lives to achieve the National Recovery

to file his respective counter-affidavits and controverting

Agenda (NRA) of Senator Honasan which they believe is the

evidence on the ground that the DOJ has no jurisdiction to

only program that would solve the ills of society.

conduct the preliminary investigation Issues:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

35

Whether in regards to Ombudsman-DOJ Circular no. 95-

conduct preliminary investigation on charges filed against

001, the office of the Ombudsman should deputize the

public officers and employees.

prosecutors of the DOJ to conduct the preliminary investigation.

The DOJ Panel need not be authorized nor deputized by the Ombudsman to conduct the preliminary investigation for

Whether the Ombudsman-DOJ Joint Circular no. 95-001 is

complaints filed with it because the DOJ's authority to act as

ineffective on the ground that it was not published

the principal law agency of the government and investigate

Whether the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation because the petitioner is a public officer with salary grade 31 (Grade 27 or Higher) thereby

the commission of crimes under the Revised Penal Code is derived from the Revised Administrative Code which had been held in the Natividad case13 as not being contrary to the Constitution. Thus, there is not even a need to delegate

falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandigan Bayan.

the conduct of the preliminary investigation to an agency Held:

which has the jurisdiction to do so in the first place.

Wherefore, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack

However,

of merit

jurisdiction at any stage of the investigation.

1.

2.

No.

the

Ombudsman

may

assert

its

primary

No.

Ombudsman cases involving criminal offenses may be

•

subdivided into two classes, to wit: (1) those cognizable by

(1954). The only circulars and regulations which prescribe a

the Sandiganbayan, and (2) those falling under the

penalty for its violation should be published before

jurisdiction of the regular courts. The difference between

becoming effective.

the two, aside from the category of the courts wherein they are filed, is on the authority to investigate as distinguished

•

In the case of People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640

In the case of Taňada V. Tuvera, 146 Scra 453 (1986),

The Honorable Court rules that:

from the authority to prosecute o The power to investigate or conduct a preliminary investigation on any Ombudsman case may be exercised by an investigator or prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman, or by any Provincial or City Prosecutor or their assistance, either in their regular capacities or as deputized Ombudsman prosecutors.

that it is just an internal agreement between the Ombudsman and the DOJ Constitution,

The

nature, that is regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so called letters of instructions issued by the administrative superiors concerning the rules on guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in performance of their duties.

circular supports the view of the respondent Ombudsman

The

Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in

OMB-DOJ Joint Circulars no. 95-001 is merely an internal circular between the DOJ and the office of the Ombudsman, Outlining authority and responsibilities among prosecutors

Ombudsman

Act

of

1989,

of the DOJ and of the office of the Ombudsman in the

Administrative order no. 8 of the office of the Ombudsman.

conduct of preliminary investigation. It does not regulate

The prevailing jurisprudence and under the Revised Rules

the conduct of persons or the public, in general.

on Criminal Procedure, All recognize and uphold the concurrent jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and the DOJ to

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

3.

36

No. Whether or not the offense is within exclusive

He contended that their school is located in the rural area

jurisdiction or not will not resolve the present petition so as

where no banks are operating, such that it has been the

not to pre-empt the result of the investigation conducted by

practice of teachers to authorize the principal to claim,

the DOJ Panel.

receive and encash the checks in their behalf. He explained

REQUIREMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS #63 Alcala vs. School Principal Villar

that complainants did not receive the entire amount of P312.00 because they authorized the E and E Lending Investors to deduct certain amounts from their checks as payment for their respective loans. As for the Loyalty

By: Mae Bungabong

Benefits, respondent alleged that complainants received the Facts:

entire amount due them and that he deducted nothing Respondent Jovencio D. Villar is the School

Principal of Lanao National High School, Pilar, Cebu City.

therefrom. He asserted that the real reason behind the filing of the complaint was to force him to resign so that one of the complainants could apply for his post.

Perla Alcala et. al., filed with the Office of the Ombudsman

an

administrative

complaint

against

respondent for dishonesty.

On June 22, 1999, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution finding respondent guilty of dishonesty and dismissing him from service.

Complainants alleged that on August 18-22, 1997, they attended a mass training/seminar at the Consolacion

On appeal, the Court of Appeals nullified and set

National High School, Consolacion, Cebu. Respondent

aside the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman on the

asked them to submit their respective Certificates of

ground that the latter was without jurisdiction over

Appearance for the preparation of the vouchers for the

administrative complaints against public school teachers. It

refund of their expenses during the said training/seminar

ruled that the governing law is Republic Act No. 4670,

but all of them were not able to receive the right amount for

otherwise known as the Magna Carta for Public School

reimbursement

Teachers, and not Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman

which

is

P312.00.

Furthermore,

complainants alleged that sometime in November 1997,

Act of 1989.

Melecio Alcala, Diosdada Borinaga, Helen Lendio, and Rolando Torceno received from respondent P1,500.00 each representing Loyalty Benefits. They learned, however, from the DECS Division Office that they were entitled to receive P2,000.00 each,

Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether or not Office of the Ombudsman amply

Villar claimed that he was in fact authorized by the

afforded Villar due process in administrative proceedings

complainants to claim and encash their checks at the E and

which set aside the jurisdictional infirmities raised by Villar

E Lending Investors where most of them have existing loans.

before the CA.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

Held:

37

dismissing the complaint for lack of substantial evidence but upon review, and with the approval of the Ombudsman,

Yes, it has.

petitioner was found guilty of grave misconduct and meted Reason:

the penalty of dismissal, with forfeiture of material benefits. Since respondent was amply afforded due process in

Petitioner is that he was deprived of his right to

an administrative proceeding, the essence of which is an

administrative due process when he was dismissed from

opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek

service

reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Not

consideration of the evidence he proffered.

only did respondent file a counter-affidavit and a motion for

without

substantial

evidence

and

without

ISSUES:

reconsideration, he also participated in the hearings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman and was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him.

Whether or not the petitioner is stopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

Verily, participation in the administrative proceedings

Whether or not petitioner was denied due process in the

without raising any objection thereto amounts to a waiver of

proceedings before the Ombudsman.

jurisdictional infirmities.

RULING: Petitioner is stopped from questioning the Ombudsman’s

In the same vein, respondent in this case should be

jurisdiction. He participated in the proceedings by filing his

barred under the principle of estoppel by laches from

counter-affidavit

and

he

also

did

not

inform

the

assailing the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Therefore, the

Ombudsman that there was another existing administrative

Court of Appeals should have resolved the appeal on its

case at the time the proceedings in the Ombudsman was

merits, considering that respondent’s right to procedural

on-going. Petitioner’s participation in the administrative

due process was properly observed.

proceedings without raising any objection bars the parties from raising any jurisdictional infirmity after an adverse decision is rendered against them.

#64

MANUEL

LAXINA

vs.

OFFICE

OF

THE

OMBUDSMAN

Petitioner was accorded the opportunity to be heard. He was required to answer the formal charge and given a

By: Leslie R. Respicio

chance to present evidence in his behalf. He was not denied

FACTS:

due process. More importantly, the decision of the Evangeline Ursal, a barangay Clerk of Batasan Hills,

Ombudsman is well supported by substantial evidence.

Quezon City filed with the National Bureau of Investigation

#65 OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. VICTORIO N.

(NBI) a complaint for attempted rape against Laxina, a

MEDRANO

Barangay Chairman of Brgy. Batasan Hills, Quezon City.

By: Leslie R. Respicio

Ursal filed with the Office of the Ombudsman and DILG similar complaint-affidavits charging petitioner with grave

FACTS:

misconduct for the alleged attempted rape. The Office of

Dumalaog (Ma. Ruby), a teacher at Jacobo Z.

the Ombudsman exonerated petitioner from the charge,

Gonzales Memorial National High School in Biñan, Laguna

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

filed a sworn letter-complaint before the OMB for Luzon charging her superior–herein respondent, Officer-In-Charge

38

By: Liz Tuballa Facts:

(OIC) of the school and concurrently the principal of San Pedro Relocation Center National High School in San Pedro, Laguna, with (1) violation of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 and (2) grave misconduct. Medrano allegedly made sexual advances on Ma. Ruby and abused her sexually. The OMB found petitioner guilty and imposed the penalty

Florita A. Masing and Jocelyn A. Tayactac, the principal and office clerk respectively, of Davao City Integrated Special School were administratively charged before the OMB for Mindanao for allegedly collecting unauthorized fees, failing to remit authorized fees and to account for public funds.

of dismissal. Medrano contends that under the Magna Carta

Respondent

for Public School Teachers, his case should be heard by an

administratively dealt with only by following the procedure

investigating committee of the DepEd.

prescribed in Section 9 of R.A. No. 4670 or the The Magna

ISSUE: Whether or not OMB has jurisdiction over

committee The Ombudsman Act of 1989 recognizes the existence of some "proper disciplinary authorit[ies]," such as the investigating committee of the DepEd mentioned in Section 9 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. Thus, Section 23 of The Ombudsman Act of 1989 directs that the petitioner "may refer certain complaints to the disciplinary

that

she

may

be

9. Administrative

Charges.-

Administrative

charges against a teacher shall be heard initially by a

RULING:

proper

contended

Carta for Public School Teachers which provides— Section

Medrano’s case.

Masing

authority

for

the

institution of

appropriate administrative proceedings against erring public officers or employees." The administrative authority of the Ombudsman

composed

of

the

corresponding

School

Superintendent of the Division or a duly authorized representative who should at least have the rank of a division supervisor, where the teacher belongs, as chairman, a representative of the local or, in its absence, any existing provincial or national teachers’ organization and

a

supervisor of the Division, the last two to be designated by the Director of Public Schools. The Committee shall submit its findings, and recommendations to the Director of Public Schools within thirty days from the termination of the hearings; Provided,

however,

That

where

the

school

over a public school teacher is not exclusive but concurrent

superintendent is the complainant or an interested party, all

with the proper committee of DepEd. The administrative

the members of the committee shall be appointed by the

complaint against Medrano should have been referred to the

Secretary of Education.

proper committee of DepEd for the institution of administrative proceedings. However, Medrano is now

Further, respondents cited the ruling in Fabella v. Court of Appeals to be applicable in their case.

barred from assailing the act of the OMB because the OMB had already concluded the proceedings and rendered a decision. He had actively participated in the administrative proceedings before petitioner. Medrano only questioned the jurisdiction of OMB after the latter rendered an adverse decision.

In Fabella, the SC ruled that Section 9 of RA 4670 reflects the legislative intent to impose a standard and a separate set of

procedural

requirements

in

with

administrative proceedings involving public schoolteachers. Right to due process of law requires compliance with these requirements laid down by RA 4670.

#67 OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS MASING

connection

Issue:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

Whether or not public school teachers pursuant to the ruling in Fabella v. Court of Appeals can only be proceeded against administratively through the “committee” under

39

(2) Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminatory; (3) Are inconsistent with the general course of an agency’s functions, though in accordance with law;

section 9 of RA No. 4670. (4) Proceed from a mistake of law or an arbitrary Ruling:

ascertainment of facts;

The SC ruled that Fabella, however, does not apply to the cases at bar. The public schoolteachers in Fabella were

(5) Are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose; or

charged with violations of civil service laws, rules and regulations in administrative proceedings initiated by the DECS Secretary. In the case at bar, respondents Masing and

(6) Are otherwise irregular,

immoral or devoid of

justification.

Tayactac were administratively charged in letter-complaints

Section 23(1) of the same law provides that administrative

duly

Ombudsman

investigations conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman

for Mindanao. The charges were for violations of R.A.

shall be in accordance with its rules of procedure and

No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and

consistent with due process.

filed

before

the

Office

of

the

Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, collecting unauthorized fees, failure to remit authorized fees, failure to account for public funds, oppression, serious misconduct, discourtesy in the conduct of official duties, and physical or mental incapacity or disability due to

It is erroneous, therefore, for respondents to contend that R.A. No. 4670 confers an exclusive disciplinary authority on the DECS over public school teachers and prescribes an exclusive

procedure

in

administrative

investigations

involving them.

immoral or vicious habits. In short, the acts and omissions complained of relate to respondents’ conduct as public

#68 CEFERINO PADUA vs. HON. SANTIAGO RANADA,

official and employee, if not to outright graft and

G.R. No. 141949, October 14, 2002

corruption.

By: Bianca Cezar

Further, the SC ruled that the authority of the Office of the

(Please See Case #19 Under Toll Regulatory Board Topic)

Ombudsman to conduct administrative investigations is beyond

cavil.

As

the principal

and

#69 DOH vs Camposano

primary complaints and action center against erring public

By: Liz Tuballa

officers and employees, it is mandated by no less than

Facts:

Section 13(1), Article XI of the Constitution. In conjunction therewith, Section 19 of R.A. No. 6770 grants to the Ombudsman the authority to act on all administrative complaints, viz:

A

complaint

was

filed

before

the

DOH

resident

Ombudsman against the respondents arising out of an alleged anomalous purchase by DOH-NCR of 1,500 bottles of Ferrous Sulfate 250 mg. with Vitamin B Complex and

Sec. 19. Administrative complaints.— The Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which:

Folic Acid capsules. The

OMB

administrative (1) Are contrary to law or regulation;

recommended charge

the

against

dishonesty and gave misconduct.

filing the

of

a

formal

respondents

for

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

40

Respondents argue that the PCAGC did not have The Secretary of Health filed a formal charge against the respondents

and

their

co-respondents

for

Grave

jurisdiction over them, because they were not presidential appointees.

Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Violation of RA 3019 as

The Court ruled that the investigation was authorized under

recommended by the Ombudsman. An ad-hoc committee to

Administrative Order No. 298 which created an Ad Hoc

investigate the case was created through an Administrative

Committee to look into the administrative charges filed and

Order issued by then Executive Secretary Torres. The said

not investigated pursuant to EO 151. The Committee was

AO was indorsed to the Presidential Commission Against

directed by AO 298 to “follow the procedure prescribed

Graft and Corruption. After the investigation, the PCAGC it

under Section 38 to 40 of the Civil Service Law (PD 807), as

issued a resolution finding the respondents guilty as

amended.

charged. The resolution further recommended to the President that the penalty of dismissal from the government service be imposed.

The SC held that, the Chief Executive’s power to create the Ad Hoc Investigating Committee cannot be doubted. With AO 298 as mandate, the legality of the investigation is sustained. Such validity is not affected by the fact that the

President Ramos also found the respondents guilty and recommended the case to the DOH Secretary for appropriate action. The DOH Secretary subsequently ordered the dismissal of the respondents.

investigating team and the PCAGC had the same composition, or that the former used the offices and facilities of the latter in conducting the inquiry. On the matter of administrative procedure, the SC held that the department secretary may utilize other officials to

Issue:

investigate and report the facts from which a decision may Whether or not the PCAGC has jurisdiction to investigate the case.

be based. In the case at bar, the secretary effectively delegated the power to investigate to the PCAGC.

Ruling:

Neither the PCAGC under EO 151 nor the Ad Hoc

The SC held that the PCAGC has jurisdiction to investigate

Investigating Committee created under AO 298 had the

the case.

power to impose any administrative sanctions directly. The

Executive Order (EO) No. 151 granted the PCAGC the jurisdiction to investigate administrative complaints against presidential appointees allegedly involved in graft and corruption. charges

EO 151 authorizes the PCAGC to investigate

against

appointees.

presidential,

not

non-presidential,

The EO specifically tasked the PCAGC

investigate presidential appointees charged with graft and corruption. Further, Section 3 of the same EO states that the

power to impose sanctions belonged to the disciplining authority, who had to observe due process prior to imposing penalties. Due

process

in

administrative

proceedings

requires

compliance with the following cardinal principles: (1) the respondents’ right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case and submit supporting evidence, must be observed;

“Commission shall have jurisdiction over all administrative complaints involving graft and corruption filed in any form or manner against presidential appointees”.

(2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) the decision must have some basis to support itself;

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

41

(4) there must be substantial evidence; (5) the decision must

decision could only be considered as a recommendation of

be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at

the Blue Ribbon Committee and he was not bound thereby.

least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;

The Sanggunian on October 21, 1994, voting 7 to 2, acquitted respondent Mayor of the charges against him. The vote was

(6) in arriving at a decision, the tribunal must have acted on

embodied in a Decision and signed by all members who had

its own consideration of the law and the facts of the

thus voted.

controversy and must not have simply accepted the views of a subordinate; and

Malinao argued that the first Sanggunian decision had already become final and executory for failure of Mayor Red

7) the decision must be rendered in such manner that

to appeal. Petitioner further complains that no notice of the

respondents would know the reasons for it and the various

session by the Sanggunian on October 21, 1994 was given to

issues involved.

her. Issue:

#70 Malinao vs Reyes By: Liz Tuballa

Whether or not the first “Decision” has become final and executory for failure of respondent Mayor to appeal. Whether or not the second Sanggunian “Decision” which in

Facts:

effect reversed the first decision is valid.

Petitioner Virginia Malinao is Human Resource Manager III

Ruling:

of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque. Respondent Mayor Wilfredo Red filed a case against her in the Office of the Ombudsman for gross neglect of duty, inefficiency and incompetence. While

The SC found the petitioner’s contention to be without merit.

the case was pending, he appointed a replacement for

In order to render a decision in administrative cases

petitioner.

involving elective local officials, the decision of the

Petitioner Malinao filed an administrative case, against respondent Mayor in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Marinduque, charging him with abuse of authority and denial of due process. Subsequently, the case was taken up

Sanggunian must be “in writing stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the reasons for such decision.” The SC ruled that what the Sanggunian, did during the executive session was not to render a decision.

in executive session of the Sanggunian. The Sanggunian, by

Neither

the vote of 5 to 3 of its members, found respondent Mayor

Sanggunian Member and Presiding Chairman of the blue

guilty of the charge. The result of the voting was embodied

ribbon Committee be regarded as the decision of the

in a “Decision” signed by only one member of the

Sanggunian for lack of the signatures of the requisite

Sanggunian, who did so as “Presiding Chairman, Blue

majority.

Ribbon Committee.”

members of the Sanggunian did not necessarily constitute

Respondent Mayor filed a manifestation before the Sanggunian, questioning the “Decision” on the ground that it was signed by only one member. He contended that the

may

the

so-called

“Decision”

prepared

by

The voting following the deliberation of the

their decision unless this was embodied in an opinion prepared by one of them and concurred in by the others. The Sanggunian, at its session on October 21, 1994, took another vote and, 7 to 2, decided to dismiss the case against

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

respondent Mayor.

This time its decision was made in

writing, stating the facts and the law on which it was based, and it was signed by the members taking part in the decision. This, according to the SC, is the decision of the Sanggunian.

42

Issue: WON CSC has original jurisdiction to institute the administrative case against respondent. Held: It is true that Section 47 (2), Title 1 (A), Book V of EO No.

292

gives

the

heads

of

original disciplinary jurisdiction

government over

their

offices own

The SC ruled that no notice of the session by the

subordinates. Their decisions shall be final in case the

Sanggunian is required to be given to the petitioner since

penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty days

the deliberation of the Sanggunian is an internal matter.

or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty days’ salary. It is only when the penalty imposed exceeds the aforementioned

DUE PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

penalties that an appeal may be brought before the CSC

#74 CSC vs. Albao 472 SCRA 548 G.R. No. 155784 October

which has appellate jurisdiction over the same in

13, 2005

accordance with Section 47 (1) Title 1(A), Book V of EO No. 292 The present case, however, partakes of an act by petitioner

Due Process in Administrative Proceedings

to protect the integrity of the civil service system, and does By: Madel Malone-Cervantes

not fall under the provision on disciplinary actions under

Facts: The Office of the Vice President of the Republic of

Sec. 47. It falls under the provisions of Sec. 12, par. 11, on

the Philippines issued

administrative cases instituted by it directly. Sec. 12, par. 11

an

original

and

permanent

appointment for the position of Executive Assistant IV to respondent Ranulfo P. Albao. In a letter addressed to the Director

of

the

Civil

Service

Commission

Field

thus states: Section 12. Powers and Functions -- The Commission shall have the following powers and functions:

Office, Manila, the Office of the Vice President requested the retrieval of the said appointment paper. Instead of

...

heeding the request, petitioner CSC-NCR disapproved the

(11)Hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or

appointment.

brought before it directly or on appeal, including contested

Thereafter, petitioner CSC issued an Order holding that it has found, after a fact-finding investigation, that a prima

appointments, and review decisions and actions of its offices and of the agencies attached to it. . . .

facie case exists against respondent Albao for Dishonesty

This is an integral part of its duty, authority and power to

and Falsification of Official Documents (He stated in his

administer the civil service system and protect its integrity,

PDS that he took and passed the Assistant Electrical

as provided in Article IX-B, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, by

Engineer Examination with a rating of 71.64%; supported by

removing from its list of eligibles those who falsified their

report of rating purportedly issued by PRC. However, PRC

qualifications. This is to be distinguished from ordinary

informed CSC that the name of respondent does not appear

proceedings intended to discipline a bona fide member of

on the masterlist of examinees.)

the system, for acts or omissions that constitute violations

Respondent questions the jurisdiction of the CSC over the administrative case.

of the law or the rules of the service.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

43

Therefore petitioner is vested with the power to institute

being human, a person is presupposed not to admit that he

motu proprio the administrative proceedings against

committed an error.

respondent for alleged falsification of eligibility committed by respondent in connection with his appointment to a permanent position in the Office of the Vice President.

In this case, the petitioners were deprived of due process, which means fundamental fairness, when Secretary Gozon

#75 Zambales Chromite Mining Co. vs. Court of

reviewed his own decision as Director of Mines.

Appeals, G.R. No. L-49711, November 7, 1979 #76 SINGSON, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS By: Bianca Cezar Facts: Secretary Gozon while he was still the director of mines

COMMISSION and PAL, G.R. No. 122389, June 19, 1997 By: Bianca Cezar Facts:

dismissed the case filed by herein petitioner Zambales Chromite Mining which sought to have the petitioner declared as the rightful and prior locator of certain mining claims.

Miguel Singson lodged a complaint against PAL for illegal dismissal.

Then Labor Arbiter Raul Aquino declared

petitioner's dismissal illegal and ordered his reinstatement with backwages. Respondent PAL appealed the decision of

The said decision was appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. While the appeal was pending, Gozon was appointed as Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Instead of inhibiting himself from exercising appellate jurisdiction over a case which he had decided as Director of mines, he consequently affirmed the said decision. The decision of Gozon as Secretary was then assailed by Zambales but the RTC dismissed such on the

the Labor Arbiter to the 2nd Division of NLRC which composed of Commissioners Calaycay, Rayala and Raul T. Aquino himself. The 2nd Division reversed the decision of then Labor Arbiter Aquino and dismissed the complaint against PAL.

When petitioner filed a motion for

reconsideration,

the

commissioners

taking

2nd

Division

part,

with

namely,

only

two

Commissioners

Calaycay and Rayala, denied the motion.

basis that disqualification of a judge to review his own decision under the rules of court does not apply to administrative proceedings.

Issue: WON Singson was deprived of due process on account of Raul T. Aquino’s participation as commissioner of the 2nd division of the NLRC in reviewing his own decision as a

Issue: WON Gozon validly decided on a case on his

former labor Arbiter. Yes.

appellate jurisdiction which he also had decided while he was still Director of Mines. No. Ruling:

Ruling: Commissioner Aquino cannot be considered as impartial since he was the arbiter who decided the case under review.

It was void. The rationale behind it is the same as the prohibition of a judge which was later on promoted to the CA to decide in its appellate jurisdiction a decision he made as a trial judge. There can be no real review of the case as

Furthermore, the resolution of the respondent NLRC is also void for the Division that handed it down was not composed of three impartial commissioners.

The infirmity of the

resolution was not cured by the fact that the motion for

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

reconsideration

of

commissioners

and

the

petitioner

without

the

was

44

denied

by

(c) a tribunal so constituted as to give him reasonable

participation

of

assurance of honesty and impartiality, and one of competent

Commissioner Aquino. The denial of petitioner’s right to an impartial review of his appeal is not an innocuous error. It negated his right to due process.

jurisdiction; and (d) a finding or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing or at least ascertained in the records or disclosed to the parties.

In the case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 7

It is self-evident from the ruling case law that the officer

we laid down the requisites of procedural due process in

who reviews a case on appeal should not be the same person

administrative proceedings, to wit:

whose decision is the subject of review. Thus, we have ruled

(1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one's case and submit evidence in support thereof;

that "the reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review.

(2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (3) the decision must have something to support itself; (4) the evidence must be substantial; (5) the decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;

#84 UP BOARD OF REGENTS vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS , G.R. No. 134625, August 31, 1999 By: Bianca Cezar (Please See Case #25 Under Quasi-Judicial Power Topic) #85 NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NAPOCOR)

(6) the tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its

vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, G.R.

own independent consideration of the law and facts of the

Nos. 90933-61 May 29, 1997

controversy, and not simply accept the views of a

By: Bianca Cezar

subordinate; Facts: (7) the Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.

NAPOCOR entered into an agreement with Westinghouse as principal contractor and Power Contractors Inc. (PCI) as sub-contractor for the construction of the power plant in Morong, Bataan.

In addition, administrative due process includes Pursuant to PCI's sub-contract with Westinghouse, over six (a) the right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the

thousand workers were hired to undertake the civil works

institution of the proceedings that may affect a person's

for the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant (BNPP). After the

legal right;

completion of certain phases of work at the power plant, the

(b) reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his rights

services of the workers were terminated. The dismissed

and to introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his

employees did not receive any separation pay.

favor;

As a consequence, cases for illegal dismissal and nonpayment of benefits were filed before the Labor Arbiter against PCI.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

45

On 1986, the Labor Arbiter ordered NAPOCOR and

The first issue raised by petitioner revolves around the

Westinghouse impleaded as additional parties-respondents.

service of the Labor Arbiter's decision on the special

Copies of said Order were served on counsel for respondent

attorney and not on the OSG.

workers and counsel for respondent PCI but not on respondent Westinghouse.

Petitioner alleges that it was denied due process because its counsel, the OSG, was not served a copy of the said

A copy of the Order requiring the parties to submit their

decision. It thus claims that the period to appeal did not

memoranda was served on the ACCRA Law Firm,

commence to run because the decision was never served on

purportedly the counsel for Westinghouse. The law firm,

the OSG. Hence, petitioner's appeal memoranda filed by the

however, promptly filed a Manifestation stating that it did

special attorney on February 22, 1989 and by the OSG on

not enter its appearance as counsel for Westinghouse in the

July 17, 1989 were filed seasonably. The petition has merit.

consolidated cases.7 The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance in the cases as counsel for NAPOCOR. During the proceedings, however, Atty. Restituto O. Mallo represented NAPOCOR as the deputized Special-Attorney of OSG.

Ruling: The lawyer deputized and designated as "special attorneyOSG" is a mere representative of the OSG and the latter retains supervision and control over the deputized lawyer. The OSG continues to be the principal counsel for the National Power Corporation, and as such, the Solicitor

On December 29, 1988, the Labor Arbiter rendered its

General is the party entitled to be furnished copies of

decision, which held that NAPOCOR, PCI and Westinghose

orders, notices and decisions. The deputized special

jointly and severally liable for the adjudged separation pay

attorney has no legal authority to decide whether or not an

and money claims.

appeal should be made. 25

A copy of the decision was served on NAPOCOR through

As a consequence, copies of orders and decisions served on

the deputized special attorney who received the same on

the deputized counsel, acting as agent or representative of

January 18, 1989. The OSG however, was not served with a

the Solicitor General, are not binding until they are actually

copy of the Labor Arbiter's decision. The ACCRA Law Office,

received by the latter. It has been likewise consistently held

having likewise received a copy of the decision, again filed a

that the proper basis for computing the reglementary period

Manifestation that it never entered its appearance as

to file an appeal and for determining whether a decision had

counsel for Westinghouse.

attained finality is service on the OSG. 27 In the present

NAPOCOR then filed its appeal memorandum only on February 22, 1989. The Labor Arbiter on the otherhand denied due course of such for being filed out of time. Undaunted, the OSG filed a Notice of Appeal and Appeal memorandum questioning thedenial on the ground that the OSG was not served a copy of the 12.29.1989 decision. The

controversy, only the special attorney was served with a copy of the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Since service of said decision was never made on the OSG, the period to appeal the decision to the NLRC did not commence to run. Hence, the appeal memorandum filed by the OSG on July 17, 1989 was not filed belatedly.

OSG further alleged that the Appeal filed on 02.22.1989 was

#86 Lincoln Gerard, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 85295, July

filed on time.

23, 1990

Issue :

By: Bianca Cezar

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

46

Facts:

Facts:

Alfonso Balignasay was employed in the petitioner’s

On 1991, A Professional Board Examination for Teachers

furniture factory. When Balignasay was dismissed, he filed a

(PBET) was held in Davao City. A certain Evelyn Junio-Decir

complaint for illegal dismissal and on October 1987, the

applied for and took the examination and passed the said

labor arbiter decided on Balignasay’s favor. A copy of the

examination.

decision was received by the petitioner’s counsel on December 1987.

At the time of the PBET examinations, petitioner Sarah P. Ampong (nee Navarra) and Decir were public school

On August 1988 however, the petitioner through its new

teachers. Later, Ampong transferred to the Regional Trial

counsel filed an unverified petition for relief of judgment

Court where she was appointed as Court Interpreter III.

alleging that it was denied due proess because it was not furnished a copy of the Labor Arbiter’s decision, and that its former counsel failed to inform it about the decision.

On July 1994 however, it was discovered by the Civil Service Regional Office that it was petitioner Ampong who took and passed the examinations under the name Evelyn Decir. The CSRO after conducting a preliminary investigation,

Issue:

determined the existence of a prima facie case against Decir

WON the petitioner was denied due process because the decision of the Labor Arbiter was served upon its former counsel who did not inform it about the adverse decision. No.

and Ampong for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and so a case was formally filed against them. Even before filing an Answer, petitioner Ampong voluntarily appeared at the CSRO and admitted to the wrongdoing. When reminded that she may avail herself of the services of

Ruling:

counsel, petitioner voluntarily waived said right.

Well-settled is the rule that when a party appears by counsel in an action in court or administrative body, all notices

On March 1996, the CSC found petitioner Ampong and Decir guilty of dishonesty, dismissing them from the service.

required to be given must be served to the counsel and not to the client, for the rule is that notice to the counsel is notice to the client. In the present case, records show that the petitioner’s former counsel did not withdraw its appearance; hence, service of a copy of the decision on the

Hence the present case where Ampong assails her confession, arguing that it was given without aid of counsel. Contending further that in police custodial investigations, the assistance of counsel is necessary in order for an extrajudicial confession to be made admissible in evidence

law firm was valid.

against the accused in a criminal complaint. If assistance Furthermore, the petitioner may not complain of lack of due process because the negligence of its counsel does not

was waived, the waiver should have been made with the assistance of counsel.

constitute a denial of due process. Issue: #89

SARAH

COMMISSION By: Bianca Cezar

P.

AMPONG

vs.

CIVIL

SERVICE

WON assistance of a counsel is essential in administrative due proceedings. NO. Ruling:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

47

While a party’s right to the assistance of counsel is sacred in

counsel. On the second hearing date, he moved for its

proceedings

such

resetting to enable him to employ the services of counsel.

requirement in administrative proceedings. In Lumiqued v.

The committee granted the motion, but neither Lumiqued

Exevea,31 this Court ruled that a party in an administrative

nor his counsel appeared on the date he himself had chosen,

inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel. Moreover,

so the committee deemed the case submitted for resolution.

criminal

in

nature,

there

is

no

the administrative body is under no duty to provide the person with counsel because assistance of counsel is not an absolute requirement.32

On August 1992, Lumiqued filed an urgent motion for additional hearing, alleging that he suffered a stroke which constrained him from attending the hearing.

Furthermore, petitioner’s admission was given freely. There was no compulsion, threat or intimidation and as found by the CSC, petitioner’s admission was substantial enough to support a finding of guilt.

It was however determined that the counter-affidavit submitted together with the documentary evidence thereto is already sufficient such that a judicious determination of the case based on the pleadings submitted is already

#90 ARSENIO P. LUMIQUED vs. Honorable APOLONIO

possible.

G. EXEVEA et. Al., G.R. No. 117565, November 18, 1997

Hence, following the conclusion of the hearings, the

By: Bianca Cezar

investigating

committee

rendered

a

report

finding

Lumiqued liable for all the charges against him which led to

Facts:

the issuance of AO No. 52 which dismissed Lumiqued from

Arsenio P. Lumiqued was the Regional Director of the

the service with forfeiture of his retirement and other

Department of Agrarian Reform — Cordillera Autonomous

benefits. Hence the present case.

Region (DAR-CAR) until President Fidel V. Ramos dismissed

him

from

that

position

pursuant

to

Administrative Order No. 52 dated May 12, 1993. In view of Lumiqued's death, his heirs instituted this petition for certiorari and mandamus, questioning such order.

The petitioners fault the investigating committee for its failure to inform Lumiqued of his right to counsel during the hearing. They maintain that his right to counsel could not be waived unless the waiver was in writing and in the presence of counsel. They assert that the committee should

The dismissal was the aftermath of three complaints filed

have suspended the hearing and granted Lumiqued a

against Lumiqued charging him with malversation through

reasonable time within which to secure a counsel of his

falsification of official documents, violation of Commission

own. If suspension was not possible, the committee should

on Audit (COA) rules and regulations "by deliberately

have appointed a counsel de oficio to assist him.

concealing his unliquidated cash advances through the falsification of accounting entries and oppression and

WON assistance of a counsel is an indispensable right

harassment. The investigating committee accordingly issued a subpoena directing

Issue:

Lumiqued

to

submit

his

counter-affidavit.

during an investigation for the purpose of determining if Lumiqued can be held administratively liable. No. Ruling:

Lumiqued then according filed his counter-affidavit. then

The right to counsel, which cannot be waived unless the

conducted on July 1992, but Lumiqued was not assisted by

waiver is in writing and in the presence of counsel, is a right

Committee

hearings

on

the

complaints

were

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

48

afforded a suspect or an accused during custodial

#91 VIRGILIO MAQUILAN, VS. DITA MAQUILAN, G.R.

investigation. 23 It is not an absolute right and may, thus, be

NO. 155409, JUNE 8, 2007

invoked or rejected in a criminal proceeding and, with more

By: Bianca Cezar

reason, in an administrative inquiry. In the case at bar, petitioners invoke the right of an accused in criminal

Facts:

proceedings to have competent and independent counsel of

Virgilio Maquilan and private respondent Dita Maquilan are

his own choice. Lumiqued, however, was not accused of any

spouses who had once had a blissful married life. However,

crime

investigation

when Virgilio discovered that Dita was having an illicit

conducted by the committee was only for the purpose of

sexual affair, he filed a case of adultery against her and her

determining if he could be held administratively liable

paramour. Consequently, both Dita and her paramour were

under the law for the complaints filed against him. As such,

convicted and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment.

in

the proceedings

below.

The

the hearing conducted by the investigating committee was not part of a criminal prosecution.

Thereafter, Virgilio filed a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage and during the pretrial of the said case, Virgilio

While investigations conducted by an administrative body

and Dita entered into a compromise agreement and the

may at times be akin to a criminal proceeding, the fact

same was given judicial imprimatur by the respondent

remains

judge.

that

under

existing

laws,

a

party

in

an

administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature of the charges and of the respondent's capacity to represent himself, and no duty rests on such a body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel.

Subsequently, Virgilio filed a Motion praying for the repudiation of the compromise agreement on the grounds that his previous lawyer did not intelligently and judiciously apprise him of the consequential effects of the Compromise Agreement.

In an administrative proceeding such as in this case,

Issue:

Lumiqued, has the option of engaging the services of counsel or not. This is clear from the provisions of Section 32, Article VII of the Civil Service Act and Section 39, paragraph 2, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules of the Administrative Code. Excerpts from the transcript of

WON the alleged negligence of Virgilio’s lawyer, would give him the right to repudiate the Compromise Agreement. No. Ruling: In Salonga v. Court of Appeals,12 the Court held:

stenographic notes of the hearings attended by Lumiqued clearly show that he was confident of his capacity and so

[I]t is well-settled that the negligence of counsel binds the client. This is based on the rule that any act performed by a

opted to represent himself .

lawyer within the scope of his general or implied authority Thus,

the

right

to

counsel

is

not

imperative

in

administrative investigations because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that

is regarded as an act of his client. Consequently, the mistake or negligence of petitioners' counsel may result in the rendition of an unfavorable judgment against them.

merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of maintaining the dignity of government service.

Exceptions to the foregoing have been recognized by the Court in cases where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law, or when its

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

49

application "results in the outright deprivation of one's

The CA may dismiss an appeal for failure to file appellant's

property through a technicality." x x x x13

brief on time. It is given the discretion which must be

None of these exceptions has been sufficiently shown in the present case. Hence, the petition was dismissed.

exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case.

#92 EDWIN RAZON Y LUCEA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 158053, JUNE 21, 2007

In this case, the CA gave petitioner sufficient opportunity to file his appellant's brief. Instead of complying, however,

By: Bianca Cezar

petitioner chose to ignore the many directives of the CA and

Facts:

now puts the blame on his former counsel Atty. Gallardo,

Edwin Razon filed a notice of appeal when he was convicted

who was allegedly guilty of gross negligence.

for the crime of homicide by the RTC. The CA in turn

Even if the Court were to admit that Atty. Gallardo was

required him through his counsel Atty. Gallardo to file an

negligent, the rule is that negligence of counsel binds the

appellant’s brief. However on a certain date, without filing

client. The only exception is when the negligence of said

the said appellant’s brief, Atty. Gallardo instead filed a

counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client

motion to withdraw as counsel for the Accused-appellant on

is deprived of his day in court. No such excepting

the ground that Razon had consistently shown his

circumstance can be said to be present in this case because

disinterest in the case by not attending much needed

as properly observed by the appellate court, petitioner

conferences.

himself was guilty of negligence. Hence the present petition

On August 1999, the CA granted Atty. Gallardo's motion to

was dismissed.

withdraw as counsel and directed Razon anew to cause the

#93 ATTY. ROMEO S. PEREZ, VS. HON. JUDGE CARLOS

entry of appearance of his new counsel or manifest whether

ABIERA, A.M. NO. 223-J, JUNE 11, 1975

he wanted the CA to appoint a counsel de oficio to defend

By: Bianca Cezar

him, within five days from notice with warning that failure to comply with said Resolution shall cause the dismissal of

Facts:

his appeal. Razon however consistently failed to comply

On September 23, 1971, Atty. Romeo S. Perez filed a case for

with the said directives, and so the CA issued the herein

"grave

assailed Resolution dismissing Razon’s appeal.

inefficiency" unbecoming of a judge against Hon. Judge

Petitioner Razon now contends that the CA erred in dismissing his appeal, pointing out that the same was caused by the negligence of Atty. Gallardo, his former

misconduct,

gross

dishonesty

and

serious

Carlos Abiera. On September 27 of the same year, Judge Abiera retired from the service upon reaching the compulsory retirement age of seventy.

counsel. Issue: WON the CA erred in dismissing petitioner's appeal for failure to file appellant's brief. Yes.

Respondent judge now asserts that because he has retired from the government service, the Court lost jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against him and perforce has to dismiss the case because the relief prayed for in the

Ruling:

complaint “that he be dishonorably discharged from the

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

50

service and be barred from any appointment in public

#94 CEFERINO PADUA vs. HON. SANTIAGO RANADA,

office” is unnecessary considering that by reason of his age,

G.R. No. 141949, October 14, 2002

he is in fact barred or disqualified to be appointed to any

By: Bianca Cezar

other office in the government service. Respondent cites in (Please See Case #19 Under Toll Regulatory Board Topic)

his favor the case against Hon. Jesus Quintillan, where an administrative complaint against a Judge who already

DOCTRINE

retired during the pendency of the case was dismissed.

REMEDIES

OFEXHAUSTION

OF

ADMINISTRATIVE

#97 Sagip Kalikasan vs. Paderanga, 6/19/2008 Issue:

By: Mides Cerbo

WON the Court has been divested of jurisdiction to proceed

(Please see Case #7 under the Doctrine of Primary

and resolve the present charge against Judge Abiera due to

Jurisdiction Topic)

the fact that he already retired from the service. No. DISTINCTION

BETWEEN

DOCTRINE

OF

PRIMARY

JURISDICTION & DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF Ruling:

ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

The cessation from office of respondent Judge either

#108 and # 131 The Alexandra Condo Corp. vs. LLDA, 599

because of resignation, retirement or some other similar

scra 453

cause does not per se warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint which was filed against him while

by: Mides Cerbo

still in the service.

FACTS:

It was not the intent of the Court in the case of Quintillan to

Philippine Realty and Holdings, Inc. (Phil Realty), which

set down a hard and fast rule that the resignation or

constructed and developed The Alexandra Condominium

retirement of a respondent judge renders moot and

Complex, transferred to The Alexandra Condominium

academic the administrative case pending against him; nor

Corporation (TACC)such condominium complex by virtue

did the Court mean to divest itself of jurisdiction to impose

of

certain penalties short of dismissal from the government

years),Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) advised

service should there be a finding of guilt on the basis of the

TACC that its wastewater did not meet government effluent

evidence. The jurisdiction acquired at the time of the filing

standards, and informed TACC that it must put up its own

of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere

Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) for its effluent discharge to

fact that the respondent public official had ceased to be in

meet government standards. Since constructing an STP

office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains its

would be expensive (P15M), TACC tried to experiment with

jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official

other methods of cleaning its waste water. However, the

innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof.

wastewater still failed to meet government standards. For

a

Deed

of

Conveyance.

Subsequently

(after

5

this violation, LLDA imposed a P1000 daily fine on TACC CARDINAL PRIMARY RIGHTS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

until

the

government agreement

wastewater standard. with

discharge TACC

World

complies

then

Chem

entered

Marketing

with

the

into

an

for

the

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

51

construction of theS TP for P7.5M. LLDA issued an Order

standards for water and air quality including the allowable

requiring TACC to pay the fine (~P1M) representing the

levels of other pollutants and radiations."

penalty from until the STP was constructed. TACC

Powers of the LLDA to Impose Penalty

requested LLDA to condone the imposition of the penalty of P1,000 per day in recognition of the remedial and corrective measures it undertook to comply with government standards. TACC further argues that the non-compliance with government standards was due to the omission and fault of Phil Realty. This was denied by LLDA.TACC then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. The CA denied TACC’s petition.

LLDA, by virtue of its special charter, has the responsibility to protect the inhabitants of the Laguna Lake region from the deleterious effects of pollutants emanating from the discharge of wastes from the surrounding areas. Under Section 4-A of RA 4850, as amended, LLDA is entitled to compensation for damages resulting from failure to meet established water and effluent quality standards .It is clear that the responsibility to comply with government standards lies with TACC, because Phil Realty turned over

ISSUE:

the project to TACC five years before LLDA advised TACC

1.W/N TACC’ complied with the doctrine of exhaustion of

that its wastewater did not meet government effluent

administrative remedies. – NO.2.W/N TACC is the one

standards. If, as claimed by TACC, the non-compliance was

liable to pay the fine. – YES.RATIO:

due to the omission and fault of Phil Realty, TACC’s

Non-Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

recourse is to file an action, if warranted, against Phil Realty in a proper court. TACC cannot escape its liability to LLDA

The doctrine of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that resort be first madewith the administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy falling under their jurisdiction before the controversy may be elevated to a court of justice for review.

by shifting the blame to Phil Realty. Hence, the LLDA did not abuse its discretion in issuing its 4 September 2003 Order. Sec. 4-A. Compensation for damages to the water and aquatic resources of Laguna de Bay and its tributaries resulting from failure to meet established water and effluent quality standards and from such other wrongful act or

A premature invocation of a court’s intervention renders the complaint without cause of action and dismissible.

omission of a person, private or public, juridical or otherwise, punishable under the law shall be awarded to the Authority to be earmarked for water quality control and

In this case, TACC has an administrative recourse before

management.

the DENR Secretary which it should have first pursued before filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. This is because under Executive order No. 149

____________________________________________________ PRINCIPLE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER OF CONTROL

transferred LLDA from the Office of the President to the DENR "for policy and program coordination and/or administrative supervision. And although under the same order, DENR only has administrative power over LLDA, a

#124 and #125 Bito-onon vs. Judge Yap-Fernandez By: Mae Bungabong Facts:

subsequent EO 192 mandates the DENR to "promulgate rules and regulations for the control of water, air and land pollution" and to "promulgate ambient and effluent

•

Joel Bito-Onon is the duly elected Barangay

Chairman of Barangay Tacras, Narra, Palawan and is the

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

Municipal Liga Chapter President for the Municipality of Narra, Palawan. On the other hadn, Elegio Quejano, Jr. is

•

52

Thus, this petition.

Issues:

the duly elected Barangay Chairman of Barangay Rizal, Magsaysay, Palawan and is the Municipal Liga Chapter President for the Municipality of Magsaysay, Palawan.

•

WHETHER

OR

NOT

THE

QUESTIONED

PROVISION IN MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR 97-193 WAS ISSUED BY THE DILG SECRETARY IN EXCESS OF HIS

•

Both Onon and Quejano were candidates for the

AUTHORITY.

position of Executive Vice-President in the August 23, 1997 election for the Liga ng Barangay Provincial Chapter of the province of Palawan.

•

WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT JUDGE

COMMITTED

GRAVE

ABUSE

OF

DISCRETION

IN

ISSUING THE QUESTIONED ORDERS. •

Onon was proclaimed the winning candidate in the

said election. •

Held:

Quejano to file a post proclamation protest with

the Board of Election Supervisors (BES), which was decided

•

against him on August 25, 1997.

his authority.

•

•

Quejano filed a Petition for Review of the decision

Yes. It was issued by the DILG Secretary in excess of

Yes. She did.

of the BES with the Regional Trial Court of Palawan and Puerto Princesa City (RTC). Reason: •

Onon filed a motion to dismiss the Petition for

Review raising the issue of jurisdiction. Onon claimed that the RTC had no jurisdiction to review the decisions

•

rendered by the BES in any post proclamation electoral

193 of the DILG insofar as it authorizes the filing a Petition

protest in connection with the 1997 Liga ng mga Barangay

for Review of the decision of the BES with the regular courts

election of officers and directors. In

in a post proclamation electoral protest is of doubtful

•

RTC dismissed the petition of Onon. The RTC

ratiocinated that the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government2 is vested with the power "to establish and prescribe rules, regulations and other issuances and implementing laws on the general supervision of local government units and the promotion of local autonomy and monitor compliance thereof by said units."The RTC added that DILG Circular No. 97-193 was issued by the DILG Secretary pursuant to his rule-making power as provided for under Section 7, Chapter II, Book IV of the Administrative Code.Consequently, the RTC ruled that it had jurisdiction over the petition for review filed by Quejada.

The Court ruled that Memorandum Circular No. 97-

constitutionality. We agree with both the petitioner and the Solicitor General that in authorizing the filing of the petition for review of the decision of the BES with the regular courts, the DILG Secretary in effect amended and modified the GUIDELINES promulgated by the National Liga Board and adopted by the LIGA which provides that the decision of the BES shall be subject to review by the National Liga Board. The amendment of the GUIDELINES is more than an exercise of the power of supervision but is an exercise of the power of control, which the President does not have over the LIGA. Although the DILG is given the power to prescribe rules, regulations and other issuances, the Administrative Code limits its authority to merely

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

53

"monitoring compliance" by local government units of such

them. If the rules are not observed, he may order the work

issuances. To monitor means "to watch, observe or check"

done or re-done to conform to the prescribed rules. He

and is compatible with the power of supervision of the DILG

cannot prescribe his own manner for the doing of the act.

Secretary over local governments, which is limited to checking whether the local government unit concerned or

PRESIDENT’S POWER OF GENERAL SUPERVISION

the officers thereof perform their duties as per statutory

#125 Bito-onon vs. Judge Yap-Fernandez

enactments. Besides, any doubt as to the power of the DILG

By: Mae Bungabong

Secretary to interfere with local affairs should be resolved in (Please See Case #124 under the Principle of Presidential

favor of the greater autonomy of the local government.

Power of Control Topic) •

Public respondent judge therefore committed grave

abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of

FINDING OF FACTS

jurisdiction in not dismissing the respondent's Petition for

#127 BAYANI BAUTISTA vs. PATRICIA ARANETA

Review for failure to exhaust all administrative remedies and for lack of jurisdiction.

NOTA BENE:

By: Mae Bungabong

Facts: 1.

Bautista alleged that he is the lawful tenant and

actual possessor of THREE (3) HECTARES, more or less, •

The President's power of general supervision over

parcel of land, formerly owned by Gregorio Araneta II, and

local government units is conferred upon him by the

situated at Carmel Farms, Tungkong Mangga, San Jose del

Constitution. The power of supervision is defined as "the

Monte, Bulacan. Tenancy relationship between the former

power of a superior officer to see to it that lower officers

owner and plaintiff started way back in 1978. From then on,

perform their functions in accordance with law." This is

plaintiff cultivated and possessed the subject landholding in

distinguished from the power of control or "the power of an

an open, peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted manner.

officer to alter or modify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for the latter."

2.

Bautista's peaceful possession and cultivation was

disturbed and, even interrupted, when a group of armed security guards, through force and intimidation, entered the

•

Supervisory power, when contrasted with control, is

subject landholding and threatened plaintiff with bodily

the power of mere oversight over an inferior body; it does

harm. These group of armed security guards, allegedly, were

not include any restraining authority over such body.

sent by herein defendant Patty Araneta, successor of

Officers in control lay down the rules in the doing of an act.

Gregorio Araneta II. They warned plaintiff to vacate and to

If they are not followed, it is discretionary on his part to

stop cultivating the subject landholding.

order the act undone or re-done by his subordinate or he may even decide to do it himself. Supervision does not cover such authority. Supervising officers merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he himself does not lay down such rules, nor does he have the discretion to modify or replace

3.

In his complaint, plaintiff initially asked the Board

to issue a temporary restraining order to enjoin the defendant, through her security guards, from continued employment of threat and harassment against his person.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

54

Also, plaintiff asked the Board to issue a preliminary

agencies when supported by substantial evidence should be

injunction, during the pendency of the case, for the

final and conclusive.

maintenance of status quo and for the recognition of his

Reason:

right as tenant on the subject landholding. • 4.

On March 11, 1991, Araneta received, through her

assistant, a letter from the Municipal Agrarian Reform

We agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner

is not a tenant of the disputed land. Bautista admitted that he does not even know the landowner

Officer (MARO) of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan requesting for a meeting which had been set two (2) months prior to the receipt of said letter. Incidentally, not a single meeting

•

Factual findings of DARAB are not supported by

substantial evidence.

materialized. Instead, meetings with the Barangay Captain

•

of Tungkong Mangga, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan were

he is a tenant by virtue of the factual finding of the DARAB.

scheduled including one on July 17, 1991, which was

As discussed above, DARAB mainly relied on the

maliciously pre-empted by the filing of the complaint for

certifications issued in favor of petitioner in holding that he

Peaceful Possession with prayer for the issuance of a

is a tenant in the disputed landholding. In Oarde vs. Court

Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary

of

Injunction.

administrative agencies or officers that a certain person is a

5.

Araneta contended that Bautista has no cause of

action against her as the former is not a tenant on the subject landholding. She added that the subject landholding does not fall under the coverage of the comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL) as it appears to be 18% in slope. 6.

Appeals,

we

held

that

certifications

issued

by

tenant are merely provisional and not conclusive on courts. This Court is not necessarily bound by these findings specially if they are mere conclusions that are not supported by substantial evidence.1âwphi1 # 128 TERESITA G. FABIAN vs. NESTOR V. AGUSTIN By: Mae Bungabong

DARAB denied the petition of Araneta and favoured

Bautista.

Facts: 1.

7.

The CA reversed DARAB’s decision.

8.

Hence, this petition.

The instant controversy arose from the verified

letter-complaint1 dated July 24, 1995 filed by Teresita Fabian, petitioner, with the Office of the Ombudsman, charging Nestor Agustin, herein respondent, with grave misconduct,

Issue: •

This Court can not sustain Bautista’s argument that

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED

disgraceful and immoral acts, and oppression.

IN DISREGARDING SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE THAT

2.

FACTUAL FINDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES

stockholder and president of PROMAT Construction and

WHEN

Development

SUPPORTED

BY

SUBSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE

SHOULD BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE.

Corporation

(PROMAT)

engaged

in

construction business. In 1986, PROMAT participated in the various biddings for the construction of government

Held: •

Fabian alleged therein that she was the major

projects within the First Metro Manila Engineering District The CA did not erred in disregarding settled

jurisprudence that factual findings of administrative

(FMED) of the Department of Public Works and Highways

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

(DPWH). Respondent is the incumbent District Engineer of

6.

the FMED.

Eduardo

3.

Fabian further averred that "respondent became a

persistent suitor" and refused to deal with PROMAT’s liaison officer, insisting that she personally attend to her

55

After the investigation Graft Investigation Officer Benitez

found

respondent

guilty

of

grave

misconduct as well as irregular or immoral acts and recommended his dismissal from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits under the law

company’s projects with FMED, otherwise, her papers

7.

"would get stuck in his office." Respondent relentlessly

Ammuyutan made similar finding and recommendation

pursued her and one time invited her to a snack at the Philippine Plaza Hotel. After finishing her drink, she felt dizzy. Taking advantage of her "semi-conscious state," he brought her to a motel and raped her. That was the

8.

Graft Investigator and Legal Officer Andrew

Then Ombudsman Desierto, approved the said

finding and recommendation with modification in the sense that the offense is only misconduct and that the penalty is suspension from office for one (1) year without pay

beginning of a hateful relationship. Her attempts to extricate herself proved futile since he constantly warned her that PROMAT would no longer do business with FMED

9.

Eventually,

Deputy

Ombudsman

Guerrero

dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.

unless the relationship continues. Whenever she tried to

10.

avoid him, he would go to her house in the middle of the

reinstated Ombudsman Desierto’s Order dated February 26,

night and create a scene by blowing the horn of his car,

1996 finding respondent guilty of misconduct and imposing

pounding at the gate, shouting on top of his voice and

upon him the penalty of suspension from the service for one

pelting her windows with stones. As a result of these

(1) year without pay.

disturbances, she suffered nervous breakdown and was eventually operated for breast cancer on October 1994. 4.

On May 22, 1995, one Winnie Gutierrez and

respondent’s elder brother, Honorato Agustin, persuaded petitioner to meet respondent as he would apologize to her

11.

Then the Court of Appeals, in its original Decision,

Later, the Court of Appeals rendered an Amended

Decision, this time, affirming the Guerrero Joint Order dismissing the administrative complaint for insufficiency of evidence. 12.

Hence, this petition

for his misdeeds. She agreed and met respondent at Lasap Restaurant, Tomas Morato Street, in Quezon City. After

Issues:

sometime, his two companions went out of the restaurant.

1.

Not wanting to be alone with respondent, she attempted to

affirming the Guerrero Joint Order.

leave. But respondent suddenly embraced her and fondled her breast area, saying, "Tingnan nga kung talagang

2.

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in

Whether or not Fabian was able to prove her

charges by substantial evidence.

tinanggal na ang suso mo." Out of extreme outrage and embarrassment, she lost consciousness and had to be

Held:

brought to the nearest hospital.

1.

The CA erred in affirming the decision of Guerrero

5.

2.

Fabian was able to prove her charges by substantial

In his counter-affidavit, treated as his comment on

the complaint, Agustin vehemently denied petitioner’s allegations,

claiming

that

he

accepted

her

various

invitations in order to discuss the projects of PROMAT.

evidence. Reason:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

1.

56

The CA erred in affirming the decision the Guerrero

purpose of administrative disciplinary proceedings which is

Joint Order because in the first place Fabian was able to

to weed out the undesirables and secure the faithful and

prove her charges by substantial evidence against Agustin.

efficient performance of official functions."

After carefully reviewing all the evidence obtaining

It bears emphasis that respondent admitted that

in this case, we find the positive declarations of petitioner

because of his position, petitioner was awarded various

and her witnesses in their sworn statements more credible

government projects worth millions and that he had illicit

than those of respondent. In administrative proceedings,

relationship with her. His negative assertion relative to the

only substantial evidence is required to hold respondent

Lasap Restaurant incident is weak in light of the positive

liable for the charges against him. Here, we are convinced

declaration of petitioner and those of the employees who

that petitioner’s charges are supported by substantial

witnessed the same.

evidence jurisprudentially defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. We quote with approval the following findings and observations of Graft Investigation Officer Benitez, sustained by the Court of Appeals in its original Decision, thus:

We

thus

misconduct,

find

respondent

disgraceful

and

guilty

immoral

of acts

grave and

oppression.1a\^/phi1.net Indeed, by his conduct, respondent violated the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them

"The complainant’s evidence and respondent’s

with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency,

admissions stand for the requisite substantial evidence

act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.Public

which in an unprejudiced mind reasonably supports a

servants must bear in mind this constitutional mandate at

conclusion that indeed the administrative offenses, subject

all times to guide them in their actions during their entire

of the complaint had been committed. The uncontroverted

tenure in the government service.

facts show that respondent courted complainant and established intimate relationship with her. On account of that affair, or at least in the course thereof, her firm was awarded a number of contracts by the office of which respondent was the head. From these contracts even the

WHEN

MAY

COURTS

REVIEW

ADMINISTRATIVE

DECISIONS # 131 The Alexandra Condo Corp. vs. LLDA, 599 scra 453 by: Mides Cerbo

respondent averted that she derived ‘windfall profits.’ Times were,

through

complainant’s

persuasion,

respondent

interceded for complainant’s firm whenever it was involved in contract violations. This alone constitutes grave misconduct in office. "Here we have the inglorious spectacle of a married public works official carrying an illicit affair with a lady

(Please See Case #108 Under Distinction between Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies) THREE-FOLD RESPONSIBILITY #133 SPS. CHUA VS. HON. JACINTO G. ANG, G.R. NO. 156164, SEPTEMBER 4, 2009

contractor and in the course thereof, showering her with ‘windfall profits’ out of public works projects.

Refer to Case #13 under HLURB Topic

"This kind of misconduct in office amounts to a betrayal of public trust and we have to be true to the

#139 and #166 Garcia vs. Mojica, 314 scra 207

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

By: Mides Cerbo

57

voted for petitioner with knowledge of this particular aspect of his life and character.

FACTS: On May 7, 1998, petitioner, in his capacity as Cebu City mayor, signed a contract with F.E. Zuellig for the supply of

For his part, petitioner contends that “the only conclusive determining factor”

asphalt to the city. The contract covers the period 1998-2001,

As regards the people’s thinking on the matter is an

which period was to commence on September 1998 when

election. On this point, we agree with petitioner. That the

the first delivery should have been made by F.E. Zuellig.

people voted for an official with knowledge of his character

Sometime in March 1999, news reports came out regarding

is presumed, precisely to eliminate the need to determine,

the alleged anomalous purchase of asphalt by Cebu City,

in factual terms, the extent of this knowledge. Such an

through the contract signed by petitioner. This prompted

undertaking will obviously be impossible. Our rulings on

the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) to conduct an

the matter do not distinguish the precise timing or period

inquiry into the matter.

when the misconduct was committed, reckoned from the

Respondent Jesus Rodrigo T. Tagaan, special prosecution officer of the Office of the Ombudsman, was assigned to

date of the official’s re-election, except that it must be prior to said date.”

conduct the inquiry, docketed as INQ-VIS-99-0132. After his

The above ruling in Salalima applies to this case. Petitioner

investigation, he recommended that the said inquiry be

cannot anymore beheld administratively liable for an act

upgraded to criminal and administrative cases against

done during his previous term, that is, his signing of the

petitioner and the other city officials involved. Respondent

contract with F.E. Zuellig. The agreement between

Arturo C. Mojica, Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas,

petitioner (representing Cebu City) and F.E. Zuellig was

approved this recommendation.

perfected on the date the contract was signed, during petitioner’s prior term.

ISSUES:

At that moment, petitioner already acceded to the terms of

1. WON Garcia may be held administratively liable.NO.

the contract, including stipulations now alleged to be “In a number of cases, we have repeatedly held that a reelected local official may not be held administratively accountable for misconduct committed during his prior term of office.

prejudicial to the city government. Thus, any culpability petitioner may have in signing the contract already became extant on the day the contract was signed. It hardly matters that the deliveries under the contract are supposed to have

The rationale for this holding is that when the electorate

been made months later. While petitioner can no longer be

put him back into office, it is presumed that it did so with

held administratively liable for signing the contract with F.

full knowledge of his life and character, including his past

E. Zuellig, however, this should not prejudice the filing of

misconduct. If, armed with such knowledge, it still re-elects

any case other than administrative against petitioner. Our

him, then such re-election is considered a condonation of

ruling in this case, may not be taken to mean the total

his

case,

exoneration of petitioner for whatever wrongdoing, if any,

respondents point out that the contract entered into by

might have been committed in signing the subject contract.

petitioner with F.E. Zuellig was signed just four days before

The ruling now is limited to the question of whether or not

the date of the elections. It was not made an issue during

he may be held administratively liable therefor, and it is our

the election, and so the electorate could not be said to have

considered view that he may not.

past

misdeeds.

However,

in

the present

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

58

2. WON the Ombudsman was stripped of its powers by

been submitted for decision for a period of 90 days have

virtue of the LGC.No.

been determined and decided on or before January 31, 1989,

Indeed, there is nothing in the Local Government Code to indicate that it has repealed, whether expressly or impliedly, the pertinent provisions of the Ombudsman Act. The two statutes on the specific matter in question are not so inconsistent, let alone irreconcilable, as to compel us to only uphold one and strike down the other. The decision of the Ombudsman (6 month suspension) will prevail over the LGC (60day suspension) if the evidence of guilt is strong.* The power to preventively suspend is available not only to

when in truth and in fact, petitioner Maceda knew that no decision had been rendered in 5 civil and 10 criminal cases that have been submitted for decision. Respondent Abiera alleged that petitioner Maceda falsified his certificates of service for 17 months. Issue: Whether or not the investigation made by the Ombudsman constitutes an encroachment into the SC’s constitutional duty of supervision over all inferior courts

the Ombudsman but also to the Deputy Ombudsman. Held: “SEC. 24. Preventive Suspension. A judge who The Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment the evidence of guilt is strong.”

falsifies his certificate of service is

administratively liable to the SC for serious misconduct and under Sec. 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and criminally liable to the State under the Revised Penal Code for his felonious act.

OMB JURISDICTION #154 Honasan vs. DOJ Panel (superseded by OMB-DOJ MOA 3/29/12), 4/13/2004

In the absence of any administrative action taken against him by the Court with regard to his certificates of service, the investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the Court’s power of administrative

By: Mides Cerbo (Please See Case #58 under Implementing Rules or Interpretative Policies Topic)

supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. Art. VIII, Sec. 6 of the Constitution exclusively vests in the

WHO ARE NOT SUBJECT TO OMB DISCIPLINARY

SC administrative supervision over all courts and court

AUTHORITY?

personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the CA down to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. By virtue of this power, it

#158 and #162 Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 scra 46

is only the SC that can oversee the judges’ and court

By: Mides Cerbo

personnel’s compliance with all laws, and take the proper

Facts:

administrative action against them if they commit any violation thereof. No other branch of government may

Respondent Napoleon Abiera of PAO filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against petitioner RTC

intrude into this power, without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.

Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda. Respondent Abiera alleged that petitioner Maceda has falsified his certificate of service

Where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court

by certifying that all civil and criminal cases which have

employee arises from their administrative duties, the

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

59

Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint and refer

government. In Almonte vs. Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286, we

the same to the SC for determination whether said judge or

held that even unverified and anonymous letters may suffice

court employee had acted within the scope of their

to start an investigation. The Office of the Ombudsman is

administrative duties.

different from the other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the government because those subject to its

#161 and #165 Garcia vs. Miro, 582 scra 127

jurisdiction are public officials who, through official

by: Mides Cerbo

pressure and influence, can quash, delay, or dismiss

Facts:

investigations against them. The joint affidavits of State

City Mayor Garcia was charged by Ombudsman Special Prosecution Officer Jesus Rodrigo Tagaan for violation of the Anti-Graft Law as a result of his having entered into a

Auditors Cabreros and Quejada contain allegations specific enough for petitioner to prepare his evidence and counterarguments.

contract with F.E. Zuellig for the supply of asphalt batching

The fact that Special Prosecution Officer Tagaan already

plant for three years. The joint affidavits of State Auditors

resigned from his office and that his name was withdrawn as

Cabreros and Quejada alleged that petitioner entered into

complainant in the case is of no consequence. First,

the contract without available funds appropriated to cover

Tagaan’s report and affidavit still form part of the records of

the expenditure in violation of Sections 85 and 86 of P.D.

the case. He can still be called by subpoena, if necessary.

1445 or the State Audit Code of the Phil.; that petitioner

Second, Tagaan was only a nominal party whose duty as

exceeded the authority granted him by the Sangguniang

special prosecutor was to investigate the commission of

Panlungsod;

manifestly

crimes and file the corresponding complaint whenever

disadvantageous to the City. Note however that thereafter,

warranted. Since the illegal acts committed are public

Special Prosecution Officer Tagaan resigned from his office

offenses, the real complainant is the State, which is

and his name was withdrawn as complainant in the case.

represented by the remaining complainants.

and

that

the

contract

is

Instead of filing a counter-affidavit, Garcia filed with the

#162 Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 scra 46

Supreme Court a petition to prohibit the Ombudsman from conducting the preliminary investigation on the ground that there is no sufficient complaint.

By: Mides Cerbo (Please See Case #158 under Who are not subject to OMB Disciplinary Authority?)

Issue: Whether or not the complaint/affidavits filed against Garcia

#165 Garcia vs. Miro, 582 scra 127

is sufficient in form or manner.

by: Mides Cerbo

Held:

(Please See Case #161 under Who are not subject to OMB Disciplinary Authority?)

For purposes of initiating a preliminary investigation before the Office of the Ombudsman, a complaint in any form or

CASES ON PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION

manner is sufficient. The Constitution states that the Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people,

#166 Garcia vs. Mojica, 314 scra 207

shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or

By: Mides Cerbo

manner against public officials or employees of the

( See Case #139 under Three-Fold Responsibility Topic)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE BRIEF

60