Conference of Maritime Agencies, Inc. vs.

POEA
Facts: Petitioner, Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies, Inc., is an incorporated association of licensed Filipino manning agencies, and its copetitioners, all licensed manning agencies who hire and recruit Filipino seamen for and in behalf of the irrespective foreign shipowner-principals, see to annul !esolution "o. #$, series of $%%&, of the 'overning (oard of the P)*A and P)*A Memorandum Circular "o. #+. ,he petitioners contended that P)*A does not have the power and authorit- to fi. and promulgate rates affecting death and wor men/s compensation of Filipino seam en wor ing in ocean-going vessels0 onl- Congress can. 'overning (oard !esolution "o. $: the P)*A 'overning (oard resolves to amend and increase the compensation and other benefits as specified under Part II, 1ection C, paragraph $ and 1ection 2, paragraphs $ and 3 of the P)*A 1tandard *mplo-ment Contract for 1eafarers (oard !esolution $, 4anuar- $%%& has amended the increase of compensation and benefits the P)*A5s 1tandard *mplo-ment Contract for 1eafarers, providing that In case of death, the emplo-er should pa- the beneficiaries in Peso the amount of 6+#,### and additional 67### to each child under 3$ but not more than & children0 if done within war or warli e area, it should be doubled: !esolution should ta e effect 8# da-s from publication in a newspaper of general circulation.: All licensed manning agencies which hire and recruit Filipino 1eamen filed a petition to annul resolution $, series of $%%& on the grounds that ,he P)*A does not have the power and authorit- to promulgate rates affecting death and wor men5s compensation0 onl- congress can *ven if P)*A has the power, it violated the standards of its e.ercises !esolution and Memorandum circular are unconstitutional because the- violatet he e9ual protection and non impairment of obligation of contracts !esolution are not the valid acts of governing board because the private sector representative has not been appointed b- the President. Issue: :hether or "ot the P)*A can promulgate rules b- virtue of delegation of legislative power. ;eld: <es. ,he constitutional challenge of the rule-ma ing power of the P)*A based on impermissible delegation of legislative power had been, as correctl-

contented b- the public respondents, brushed aside b- this Court in *astern 1hipping 2ines, Inc. vs. P)*A. ,he governing (oard of the Administration =P)*A> shall promulgate the necessarrules and regulations to govern the e.ercise of the ad?udicator- functions of the Administration =P)*A>. ,o man- of the problems attendant upon present-da- underta ings, the legislature ma- not have the competence to provide the re9uired direct and efficacious not to sa-, specific solutions. ,hese solutions ma-, however, be e.pected from its delegates, who are supposed to be e.perts in the particular fields assigned to them. Authori@ation had been granted the "ational 1eamen (oard, which had itself prescribed a standard shipping contract substantiall- the same as the format adopted b- the P)*A. : Principle of non-delegation of powers is applicable to all the three ma?or powers of the 'overnment but is especiall- important in the case of the legislative power because of the man- instances when its delegation is permitted. : it is a rare occasion where in e.ecutive or ?udicial powers has to be delegated but in case of legislative power, there is an e.ception because of comple.it- in the tas of government and inabilit- of the legislature to give attention to it. : ,he reason given for the delegation of legislative powers in general are particularlapplicable to administrative bodies. : legislature has found it more and more necessar- to entrust to administrative agencies the authorit- to issue to carr- out the general provisions of the statute. ,his is called the Apower of subordinate legislation. :hile the ma ing of laws is a non-delegable power that pertains e.clusivel- to Congress, nevertheless, the latter ma- constitutionall- delegate the authorit- to promulgate rules and regulations to implement a given legislation and effectuate its policies, for the reason that the legislature finds it impracticable, if not impossible, to anticipate situations that ma- be met in carr-ing the law into effect. All that is re9uired is that the regulation should be germane to the ob?ects and purposes of the law0 that the regulation be not in contradiction to but in conformit- with the standards prescribed b- the law. ,hat the challenged resolution and memorandum circular, which merel- further amended the previous Memorandum Circular "o. #3, strictl- conform to the sufficient and valid standard of Afair and e9uitable emplo-ment practicesA prescribed in *.). "o. 7%7 can no longer be disputed.

Realty Exchange Venture Corp. vs.

en!ino B Capunan 1

Admin Digests 01-07-2014 A

=$%%&>
"AC# - Private respondent 1endino entered into a reservation agreement with !ealt*.change Denture, Inc. =!*DI> for a house and lot in a subdivision. 1he paid a partial reservation fee and paid the full down pa-ment. - ;owever, for alleged non-compliance with the re9uirement of submission of the appropriate documents, !*DI, informed respondent of the cancellation of the contract. - 1endino filed a complaint for 1pecific Performance against !*DI with the Ad?udication and 2egal Affairs =)AA2A> of the ;ousing and 2and Ese !egulator(oard =;2E!(>. - ,he ;2E!(, whose authorit- to hear and decide the complaint was challenged b!*DI, rendered its ?udgment in favor of private respondent and ordered !*DI to continue with the sale of the house and lot. - An appeal from this decision was ta en to the ;2E!( )AA2A Arbiter, which affirmed the (oard/s decision. ,he decision of the )AA2A Arbiter was appealed to the )ffice of the President, herein public respondent. Appeal dismissed. I $E% & 'E()* :)" ,;* ;2E!( ;A1 QUASI-JUDICIAL FE"C,I)"1, "),:I,;1,A"FI"' A(1*"C* )F *GP!*11 '!A", (< *G*CE,ID* )!F*! "). %# :;IC; C!*A,*F I,. +E . RA#IO,A(E - :hile *.). H+ abolished the Ministr- of ;uman 1ettlements =M;1>, it is patentlclear from a reading of its provisions that the said e.ecutive order did not abolish the ;uman 1ettlements !egulator- Commission =;1!C> which continued to e.ercise its powers and functions. In spite of the A9uino 'overnment/s stated intention of eradicating what it considered the vestiges of the previous regime, it was not its intention to create a vacuum b- abolishing those ?uridical agencies which performed vital administrative functions. - ,he President subse9uentl- issued *.ecutive )rder "o. %#, series of $%H8, recogni@ing the ;uman 1ettlements !egulator- Commission =renamed the ;2E!(> as one of the principal housing agencies of the government. - Prior to this, *.ecutive )rder "o. 8&H in $%H$ transferred all the functions of the "ational ;ousing Authorit- to the ;uman 1ettlements !egulator- Commission =;1!C> consolidating all regulator- functions relating to land use and housing development in a single entit-. - (eing the sole regulatory bod- for housing and land development, the renamed bod-, the ;2E!(, would have been reduced to a functionall- sterile entit- if, as the petitioner contends, it lac ed the powers e.ercised b- its predecessor which included the power to settle disputes concerning land use and housing development and ac9uisition. - Moreover, this Court, in United Housing Corporation vs. Hon. Dayrit, has had the occasion to definitivel- rule that the ;2E!( could e.ercise the same 9uantum of ?udicial or 9uasi-?udicial powers possessed b- the ;1!C under the M;1 in the e.ercise of its regulator- functions.

- 1ection $ of PF $I&&: the "ational ;ousing Authorit- shall have e.clusive ?urisdiction to hear and decide cases of the following nature: =c> Cases involving specific performance of contractual and statutory o ligations filed y uyers of su division lot or condominium unit against t!e o"ner# developer# dealer# ro$er or salesman. - ,his is reinforced b- section H of *) 8&H: %ransfer of &unctions. J ,he !egulator- functions of the ";A are hereb- transferred to the ;uman 1ettlements !egulator- Commission. . . . Among the regulator- functions are . . . =$$> ;ear and decide cases of unsound real estate business practices, claims involving refund filed against pro?ect owners, developers, dealers, bro ers, or salesmen and cases of specific performance. - ,here is no 9uestion that a statute ma- vest e.clusive original ?urisdiction in an administrative agenc- over certain disputes and controversies falling within the agenc-/s special e.pertise. - In general, the 9uantum of ?udicial or 9uasi-?udicial powers which an administrative agenc- ma- e.ercise is defined in the agenc-/s enabling act. - 'oing to petitioners( contention t!at t!e decision of t!e )AALA s!ould !ave een rendered y t!e *oard of Commissioners sitting en anc# instead of y a division of t!ree: - Ender 1ection + of *.). 8&H which defines the powers and duties of the Commission, the (oard is specificall- mandated to A=a>dopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its businessA and perform such functions necessar- for the effective accomplishment of =its> above mentioned functions.A - "othing in the provisions of either *.). %# or *.). 8&H denies or withholds the power or authorit- to delegate ad?udicator- functions to a division. - :e cannot see how the (oard, for the purpose of effectivel- carr-ing out its administrative responsibilities and 9uasi-?udicial powers as a regulator- bod- should be denied the power, as a matter of practical administrative procedure, to constitute its ad?udicator- boards into various divisions. - After all, the power conferred upon an administrative agenc- to issue rules and regulations necessar- to carr- out its functions has been held Ato be an ade9uate source of authorit- to delegate a particular function, unless b- e.press provision of the Act or b- implication it has been withheld.A

- I v. .oar! of Commissioners / econ! )ivision0, '($R. /12320 Carpio-Morales, 4

"AC# * "ew 1an 4ose (uilders, Inc. ="14(I> mortgaged three parcels of land together with the improvements thereon tothe '1I1 as securit- for a loan in the amount of P8## million. "14(I sold one of the condominium units sub?ect of the mortgage to spouses Marcelino and Alma Fe los !e-es=the 1pouses>. Meanwhile, "14(I defaulted on its obligations under the loan agreement, prompting the '1I1 to foreclose the mortgage. At public auction, '1I1 was the

Admin Digests 01-07-2014 A

highest bidder. ,he 1pouses discovered the mortgage and sale to '1I1. ,hus, the- filed a complaint against "14(I et al. beforethe ;2E!(. '1I15 Answer: "o cause of action as the mortgage was e.ecuted prior to the sale of the condominium unit to the1pouses. '1I1 was not a part- to the sale. (efore the e.piration of the redemption period, the 1pouses applied for a writ of preliminar- in?unctionK,!) to restrain - I from consoli!ating its title over the con!ominium unit. '1I1 opposed: - 1ec. 3, PF IH+: L"o restraining order, temporar- or permanent in?unction shall be issued b- the court against an- government financial institution in an- action ta en b- such institution in compliance 4ith the man!atory foreclosure provided in 1ection $ hereofM ,he ;2E Arbiter granted the 1pouses5 motion and issued a Cease and Fesist )rder =CF)> restraining '1I1 from consolidating ownership of the condominium unit. )n appeal, the ;2E!( 1econd Fivision affirmed the ;2E Arbiter5s decision. It held that the aforecited 1ec. 3 applies onl- to ongoing foreclosure proceedings. In this case, what was sought to be restrained was the consolidation of title, not the foreclosure. Moreover, respondent (oard held that '1I1 failed to secure a mortgage clearance in violation of 1ec. $H, PF%+7, which provides that no mortgage on anunit or lot shall be made b- the owner or developer without priorw ritten approval of this (oard. ,hus, respondent (oard declared the mortgage D)IF. M! denied. '1I1 filed a petition for certiorari with the CA. It alleged that the respondent (oard committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac of ?urisdiction when onlthree out of its nine members entertained '1I15 appealKM!. CA dismissed the petition. It cited the ;2E!( !evised !ules of Procedure =!ules>. In 1ec. $#, !ule GG, it is provided: LAppeals shall be decided b- the (oard of Commissioners sitting en banc or 5y !ivision in accordancewith the internal rules of the (oard.M I $E 6 R$(I,-*

1ection + of *.). "o. 8&H specificall- mandates the ;2E!( (oard of Commissioners to adopt rules of procedure for the conduct of its business and perform such functions necessar- for the effective discharge thereof. ,his includes the power to delegate a particular function, unless b- e.press provision or b- implication, ithas been withheld. Composition of the (oard: + e.-officio members and & full-time commissioners. Practicalit- necessitates the establishment of a procedure whereb- a case on appeal ma- be decided b- members of a division. 1ec. $, !ule GGI of the !ules provides that a motion for reconsideration shall be assigned to the Fivision fromwhich the decision, order or ruling originated. It was thus proper for the 1econd Fivision to ta e cogni@ance of '1I15 motion for reconsideration. Is the issuance of the CF) violative of PF IH+N ,O. L1ec. $. It shall be mandator- for government financial institutions, after the lapse of si.t- =8#> da-s from theissuance of this Fecree, to foreclose the collaterals andKor securities for an- loan, credit, accommodation, andKorguarantees granted b- them. . .M L1ec 3. "o restraining order, temporar- or permanent in?unction shall be issued bthe court against an- government financial institution in an- action ta en b- such institution in compliance 4ith the man!atoryforeclosure provi!e! in ection 3 hereof. . .M It can thus be concluded that what the law prohibits is the issuance of an in?unction to restrain the foreclosure of am ortgage. Again, in this case, what is being restrained is not the foreclosure but the consolidation of title. ,he ?urisdiction of the ;2E!( is broad enough to include the grant of incidental reliefs such as the CF). 1ec. $8, PF %+7: L Cease and Fesist )rder. J :henever it shall appear to the Authorit- that an- person is engaged or about to engage in an- act or practice which constitutes or will constitute a violation of the provisions of this Fecree, or of an- rule or regulation thereunder, it ma-, upon due notice and hearing as provided in 1ection $I hereof, issue a cease and desist order to en?oin such act or practices.M )I PO I#IO,*

Is the (oard5s 1econd Fivision empowered b- the !ules to entertain appealsN +E .

Admin Digests 01-07-2014 A

Fecision affirmed.

Admin Digests 01-07-2014 A