Phil. Association of Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Torres, 212 SCRA 298; G.R. No.

101279, August 6, 1992 Posted by Pius Morados on November 13, 2011 (Admin Law, DOLE, quasi-legislative power) Facts: DOLE Dept. Order No. 16 temporarily suspends the recruitment by private employment agencies of Filipino DH going to Hong Kong in view of the need to establish mechanisms that will enhance the protection for the same. The DOLE, through POEA took over the business of deploying such HK-bound workers. Pursuant to the above order, POEA issued memorandum circular no. 30 providing guidelines on the government processing and deployment of Filipino domestic helpers to HK and the accreditation of HK recruitment agencies intending to hire Filipino domestic helpers, and the memorandum circular No. 30, pertaining to the processing of employment contracts of domestic workers for HK. Petitioner contends that respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of their rule-making authority in issuing said circulars. Issue: WON the take-over of the business deploying DH to HK by DOLE and POEA through an administrative order and circular is valid. Held: Yes. Article 36 of the Labor Code grants the Labor Secretary the power to restrict and regulate recruitment and placement activities. The challenge administrative issuance discloses that the same fall within the administrative and police powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred upon the respondents.

BLAS F. OPLE v. RUBEN D. TORRES, ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, HECTOR VILLANUEVA, CIELITO HABITO,ROBERT BARBERS, CARMENCITA REODICA, CESAR SARINO, RENATO VALENCIA, TOMAS P. AFRICA, HEADOF THE NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER and CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT Facts: The petition at bar is a commendable effort on the part of Senator Blas F. Ople to prevent the shrinking of the rightto privacy, which the revered Mr. Justice Brandeis considered as "the most comprehensive of rights and the rightmost valued by civilized men." Petitioner Ople prays that we invalidate Administrative Order No. 308 entitled"Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System" on two important constitutional grounds, viz :(1)it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate, and(2)it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of privacy.We grant the petition for the rights sought to be vindicated by the petitioner need stronger barriers against furthererosion.A.O. No. 308 was published in four newspapers of general circulation on January 22, 1997 and January 23, 1997. On January 24, 1997, petitioner filed the instant petition against respondents, then Executive Secretary Ruben Torresand the heads of the government agencies, who as members of the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee, arecharged with the implementation of A.O. No. 308. On April 8, 1997, we issued a temporary restraining orderenjoining its implementation. Issue: WON the petitioner has the stand to assail the validity of A.O. No. 308 Ruling: YES Rationale: As is usual in constitutional litigation, respondents raise the threshold issues relating to the standing to sue of thepetitioner and the justiciability of the case at bar. More specifically, respondents aver that petitioner has no legalinterest to uphold and that the implementing rules of A.O. No. 308 have yet to be promulgated. These submissions do not deserve our sympathetic ear. Petitioner Ople is a distinguished member of our Senate. Asa Senator, petitioner is possessed of the requisite standing to bring suit raising the issue that the issuance of A.O.No. 308 is a usurpation of legislative power. 4 As taxpayer and member of the Government Service InsuranceSystem (GSIS), petitioner can also impugn the legality of the misalignment of public funds and the misuse of GSISfunds to implement A.O. No. 308. The ripeness for adjudication of the Petition at bar is not affected by the fact that the implementing rules of A.O.No. 308 have yet to be promulgated. Petitioner Ople assails A.O. No. 308 as invalid per se and as infirmed on itsface. His action is not premature for the rules yet to be promulgated cannot cure its fatal defects. Moreover, therespondents themselves have started the implementation of A.O. No. 308 without waiting for the rules. As early as January 19, 1997, respondent Social Security System (SSS) caused the publication of a

notice to bid for themanufacture of the National Identification (ID) card. Respondent Executive Secretary Torres has publicly announcedthat representatives from the GSIS and the SSS have completed the guidelines for the national identificationsystem.All signals from the respondents show their unswerving will to implement A.O. No. 308 and we need not wait forthe formality of the rules to pass judgment on its constitutionality. In this light, the dissenters insistence that wetighten the rule on standing is not a commendable stance as its result would be to throttle an importantconstitutional principle and a fundamental right

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., vs. PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENTADMINISTRATION (POEA)166 SCRA 533, G.R. No. 76633, October 18, 1988Petitioner: Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. Respondents: 1. Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)2. Minister of Labor and Employment3. Abdul Basar (Hearing Officer)4. Kathleen D. Saco Ponente: Cruz, J. Facts: Vitaliano Saco was Chief Officer of the M/V Eastern Polaris when he was killed in an accidentin Tokyo, Japan on March 15, 1985.His widow sued for damages under Executive Order No. 797 and Memorandum Circular No. 2of the POEA.The petitioner, as owner of the vessel, argued that the complaint was cognizable not by thePOEA but by the Social Security System and should have been filed against the State FundInsurance.The POEA nevertheless assumed jurisdiction and after considering the position papers of theparties ruled in favour of the complainant.The petition is DISMISSED, with costs against the petitioner. The temporary restraining orderdated December 10, 1986 is hereby LIFTED. It is so ordered. Issue: 1. Whether or not the POEA had jurisdiction over the case as the husband was not an overseasworker.2. Whether or not the validity of Memorandum Circular No. 2 itself as violative of the principleof non-delegation of legislative power. Held: 1. Yes. The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration was created under Executive OrderNo. 797, promulgated on May 1, 1982, to promote and monitor the overseas employment of Filipinos and to protect their rights. It replaced the National Seamen Board created earlier underArticle 20 of the Labor Code in 1974. Under Section 4(a) of the said executive order, the POEAis vested with "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, including money claims,involving employee-employer relations arising out of or by virtue of any law or contractinvolving Filipino contract workers, including seamen." These cases, according to the 1985Rules and Regulations on Over seas Employment issued by the POEA, include, claims for death,disability and other benefits arising out of such employment. The award of P180,000.00 for death benefits and P12,000.00 for burial expenses was made bythe POEA pursuant to its Memorandum Circular No. 2, which became effective on February 1,1984. This circular prescribed a standard contract to be adopted by both foreign and domesticshipping companies in the hiring of Filipino seamen for overseas employment.2. No. Memorandum Circular No. 2 is an administrative regulation. The model contractprescribed thereby has been applied in a significant number of the cases without challenge by theemployer. The power of the POEA (and before it the National

Seamen Board) in requiring themodel contract is not unlimited as there is a sufficient standard guiding the delegate in theexercise of the said authority. That standard is discoverable in the executive order itself which, increating the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, mandated it to protect the rightsof overseas Filipino workers to "fair and equitable employment practices."GENERAL RULE: Non-delegation of powers; exceptionIt is true that legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated.What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced, not what thelaw shall be. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative of the legislature. Thisprerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by the legislature to the delegate.Two Tests of Valid Delegation of Legislative PowerThere are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislativepower, viz , the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the lawmust be complete in all its terms and conditions when it leaves the legislature such that when itreaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is to enforce it. Under the sufficientstandard test, there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the delegate, whois not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power essentially legislative.The delegation of legislative power has become the rule and its non-delegation the exception.

Ang Tibay v. CIR

Tags: ang tibay, ang tibay v. CIR, CIR, constitutional law, constitutional law 2, digest ANG TIBAY and NATIONAL WORKERS BROTHERHOOD v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and NATIONAL LABOR UNION, INC. 27 February 1940 | Laurel Decision on motion for reconsideration and on motion for new trial Remember this case for The cardinal primary requirements of due process in administrative proceedings Characterization of the CIR Facts An MfR was filed by the Solicitor-General on behalf of respondent CIR. National Labor Union on the other hand prays for the remanding of the case to CIR for a new trial. Ang Tibay filed an opposition for both the motion for reconsideration of CIR and the motion for a new trial by the National Labor Union (NLU). Toribio Teodoro owns and operates Ang Tibay, a leather company which supplies the Philippine Army. NLU avers that employer Toribio Teodoro (of the National Workers Brotherhood [NWB] of Ang Tibay) made a false claim that there was a shortage of leather soles in Ang Tibay, making it necessary for him to lay off workers. NLU alleges that such claim was unsupported by the Bureau of Customs records and the accounts of native dealers of leather. Such was just a scheme adopted to discharge all the members of the NLU from work. Hence, they say that Teodoro was guilty of unfair labor practice for discriminating against NLU and unjustly favoring NWB. As regards the exhibits attached to this case, NLU says that these are so inaccessible to the respondents that even with the exercise of due diligence they could not be expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the CIR. In addition, the attached documents and exhibits are of such far-reaching importance and effect that their admission would necessarily mean the modification and reversal of the judgment rendered herein. Resolution and Disposition The court observed that, except as to the alleged agreement between the Ang Tibay and the NWB, the record is barren and does not satisfy the thirst for a factual basis upon which to predicate a conclusion of law [see Primary cardinal requirements below]. Therefore, in the interest of justice, a new trial should commence giving the movant the opportunity to present new evidence. MfR denied. Motion for new trial granted. Case remanded to CIR. Characterization of CIR Special court whose functions are stated in CA No. 103 More of an administrative board than a part of the integrated judicial system Function is more active, affirmative, dynamic

Exercises judicial / quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees Has jurisdiction over the entire PH re: matters concerning employer-employee, landlordtenant/farm-laborer relations Can take cognizance of industrial or agricultural dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout provided that The number of employees involved exceeds 30 Such dispute is submitted to the Court by the Labor Sec. or by any / both of the parties to the controversy and certified by Labor Sec. as proper to be dealt with by the court Investigates and studies all pertinent facts related to the industry concerned when directed by the PH President There is a mingling of executive and judicial functions, a departure from the rigid doctrine of the separation of governmental powers In Goseco v. CIR, the Court said that CA 103 requires CIR to act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by

any technicalities or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable. HOWEVER, this does NOT mean that CIR can entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character.

Cardinal primary requirements of due process in administrative proceedings 1. Right to a hearing, including the right to present ones own case and submit evidence in support thereof 2. 3. 4. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented Decision must have something to support itself Evidence must be substantial 1. It must be relevant as a reasonable mind might accept it as adequate to support a conclusion 2. The rules of evidence shall not be controlling so that the mere admission of matter which would be deemed incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate the administrative order 3. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does NOT constitute substantial evidence 5. Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected 1. On boards of inquiry 1. They may be appointed for the purpose of investigating and determining the facts in any given case 2. Their report and decision are only advisory 3. CIR may refer any industrial or agricultural dispute to a board of inquiry, fiscal, justice of the peace, any public official but such delegation shall not affect the exercise of the Court itself or any of its powers 6. CIR or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at the decision 7. CIR should render its decision in such a manner that the parties can know the issues involved and the reasons for the decisions rendered.