evangelista v jarencio

Evangelista vs Jarencio 68 SCRA 99 Topic under: IV. Investigatory Powers D. Importance of administrative investigations E. Executive power to investigate, source

Facts: Evalengista, petitioner, is head of the Presidential Agency on Reforms and Government Operations (PARGO) created by Executive Order No. 4, which, among others, provides: “The agency is hereby vested with all the powers of an investigating committee under Sections 71 and 580 of the Revised Administrative Code, including the power to summon witnesses by subpoena duces tecum, administer oaths, take testimony or evidence relevant to the investigation.” Respondent Manalastas (Asst. City Public Service Officer of Manila) was issued a subpoena ad testificandum commanding him to appear as witness at the office of the PARGO to testify in a certain investigation pending therein. Instead of obeying it, he filed a petition with the CFI of Manila for prohibition, certiorari and restraining order assailing its legality. Judge Jarencio issued a restraining order. Hence, this action. Issue: WON the PARGO enjoys the authority to issue subpoena in its conduct of fact-finding investigation Held: YES (1) Agency is with authority to enforce subpoenas issued. “Rightly, administrative agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations, WON adjudication is involved, and WON probable cause is shown and even before the issuance of a complaint. It is enough that the investigation be for a lawfully authorized purpose. The purpose of the subpoena is to discover evidence, not to prove a pending charge, but upon which to make one if discovered evidence so justifies. Because judicial power is reluctant if not unable to summon evidence until it is shown to be relevant to issues on litigations, it does not follow that an administrative agency charged with seeing that the laws are enforced may not have and exercise powers of original inquiry” (2) Authority delegated by statute. “The administrative agency has the power of inquisition which is not dependent upon a case of controversy in order to get evidence, but can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated or even just because it wants assurance that it is not. When investigative and accusatory duties are delegated by statute to an administrative body, it too may take steps to inform itself as to whether there is probable violation of the law. In sum, it may be stated that the subpoena meets the requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is: (a) within the authority of the agency (b) the demand is not too indefinite (c) the information is reasonable relevant” (3) Information sought reasonably relevant to the investigations. “There is no doubt that the fact-finding investigations being conducted by the PARGO upon sworn statements implicating certain public officials of the City Govt of Manila in anomalous transactions fall within the PARGO’s sphere of authority and

that the information sought to be elicited from respondent Manalastas of which he is claimed to be in possession, is reasonably relevant to the investigations.”