Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
||
|
!"#$%
|
- The respondent National Labor Union, Inc. prayed for the vacation of the judgment
rendered by the majority of this Court and the remanding of the case to the
Court of Industrial Relations for a new trial. The union avers that: Teodoro's
claim that there was shortage of leather soles in ANG TIBAY making it necessary for
him to temporarily lay off the members of the union is entirely false and
unsupported by the records of the Bureau of Customs and the Books of Accounts
of native dealers in leather; that the National Worker's Brotherhood of ANG TIBAY is
a company or employer union dominated by Teodoro, the existence and functions of
which are illegal; that the employer Toribio Teodoro was guilty of unfair labor
practice for discriminating against the National Labor Union, Inc., and unjustly
favoring the National Workers' Brotherhood; that important documents attached are
inaccessible to the respondents.
WON the union was denied procedural due process by the CIR
&
'
The CIR, a special court created under CA 103, is more an administrative than a part
of the integrated judicial system of the nation. It is not intended to be a mere
receptive organ of the Government. Unlike a court of justice which is essentially
passive, acting only when its jurisdiction is invoked and deciding only cases that are
presented to it by the parties litigant, the function of the CIR is more active,
affirmative and dynamic. It not only exercises judicial or quasi - judicial functions in
the determination of disputes between employers and employees but its
functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees
but its functions are far more comprehensive and expensive. It has jurisdiction
over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle any
question, matter controversy or dispute arising between, and/or affecting employers
and employees or laborers, and regulate the relations between them. It may appeal
to voluntary arbitration in the settlement of industrial disputes; may employ mediation
or conciliation for that purpose, or recur to the more effective system of
official investigation and compulsory arbitration in order to determine specific
controversies between labor and capital industry and in agriculture. There is in
reality here a mingling of executive and judicial functions, which is a departure from
the rigid doctrine of the separation of governmental powers.
The CIR is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and the Act
requires it 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." It shall not be restricted to the specific relief claimed or demands made
by the parties to the industrial or agricultural dispute, but may include in the award,
order or decision any matter or determination which may be deemed necessary or
expedient for the purpose of settling the dispute or of preventing further industrial or
agricultural disputes. And in the light of this legislative policy, appeals to this Court
have been especially regulated by the rules recently promulgated by the rules
recently promulgated by this Court to carry into the effect the avowed legislative
purpose.
The fact, however, that the CIR may be said to be free from the rigidity of certain
procedural requirements does not mean that it can, in justifiable cases before it,
entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due
process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. There are
primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character:
(1) V
The liberty and property of the citizen shall be
protected by the rudimentary requirements of fair play.
(2)
the parties adversely affected by the result. Accordingly, the motion for a new trial is
grant ed, and the entire record of the case shall be remanded to the CIR.
6 |7|76 8,1()1(9
:$|
| | | ;)"#:
|
Special civil action of certiorari
|
- Leonides C. BASCONCILLO, filed a complaint with the Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration (POEA) Workers Assistance and Adjudication Office
for illegal dismissal against Vinta Maritime Co., Inc. and Elkano Ship Management,
Inc.
- The employers alleged that he was dismissed for his gross negligence and
incompetent performance as chief engineer of the o They claim that he
was /) * 2))/ ). )(/ (33(+)+ +( <3) , ,., not to
mention all the chances given to him to improve his substandard work
performance before he was dismissed.
- The employee denied the allegations against him; contrary to his employers claim,
he was actually surprised when he was told of his dismissal. This occurred after he
had a verbal altercation with a British national, regarding the lack of discipline of the
Filipino crew under the engineers supervision.
( )4 ( ),+/+()"
(2" /.)/ , ,33(,. )1(03+)1 ( )//)1 2,
1().1+.; neither was private respondent furnished with a notice or memorandum
regarding the cause of his dismissal.
- POEA considered the case submitted for resolution
| |.0),++(
|11(,( .++ 3+,3().)+2,/.,0,,..
- On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the POEA.
=
1. WON trial is indispensable in administrative proceedings
2. WON the employee was illegally dismissed
&
1. NO
Although bound by law and practice to observe due process, administrative
agencies exercising quasi-judicial powers are nonetheless free from the rigidity of
certain procedural requirements.
>.)0/+,
- In labor cases, this Court has consistently held that due process does not
necessarily mean or require a hearing, but simply an opportunity or a right to be
heard. The requirements of due process are deemed to have been satisfied when
parties are given the opportunity to submit position papers. The holding of an
adversarial trial is discretionary on the labor arbiter and the parties cannot demand it
as a matter of right.
Where there is no showing of a clear, valid, and legal cause for the
termination of employment, the law considers the matter a case of illegal
dismissal. Verily, the burden is on the employer to prove that the termination was
for a valid or authorized cause.
- Due process, the second element for a valid dismissal, requires NOTICE and
HEARING. The employer must furnish the worker with two written notices before
termination can be legally effected: (1) notice which apprises the employee of the
particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought and (2) subsequent
notice which informs the employee of the employers decision to dismiss him.
Petition is u o u.
Navigation" in the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland Journal.
-Nonetheless, private respondent was allowed to defend her dissertation. Four (4) out
of the five (5) panelists gave private respondent a passing mark for her oral defense
by affixing their signatures on the approval form.
-The CSSP College Faculty Assembly approved private respondents graduation
pending submission of final copies
of her dissertation.
-The University Council met to approve the list of candidates for graduation for the
second semester of school year
1992-1993. The list, which was endorsed to the Board of Regents for final approval,
included private respondents
name.
-Dean Paz sent a letter to Dr. Milagros Ibe, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs,
requesting the exclusion of private respondents name from the list of candidates
for graduation, pending clarification of the problems regarding her dissertation.
-Dean Pazs letter did not reach the Board of Regents on time, because the
next day, the Board approved the
University Councils recommendation for the graduation of qualified students,
including private respondent. Two days later, private respondent graduated with the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology.
-Dr. Medina formally charged private respondent with plagiarism and recommended
that the doctorate granted to her be withdrawn.
-Dean Paz formed an ad hoc committee to investigate the plagiarism charge against
private respondent. Meanwhile, she recommended to U.P. Diliman Chancellor, Dr.
Emerlinda Roman, that the Ph.D. degree conferred on private respondent be
withdrawn.
-In a letter Dean Paz informed private respondent of the charges against her.
-The CSSP College Assembly unanimously approved the recommendation to
withdraw private
respondents doctorate degree and forwarded its
recommendation to the University Council. The University Council, in turn,
approved and endorsed the same recommendation to the Board of Regents on
August 16, 1993.
-Meanwhile, in a letter, U.P. Diliman Chancellor Emerlinda Roman summoned private
respondent to a meeting on the
same day and asked her to submit her written explanation to the charges against her.
-During the meeting, Chancellor Roman informed private respondent of the charges
and provided her a copy of the findings of the investigating committee. Private
respondent, on the other hand, submitted her written explanation in a letter.
-Another meeting was held between Chancellor Roman and private respondent to
discuss her answer to the charges. | +. 0+)/ 2, ,1.. + 3+
,3().)+ .. )(+ ++). +" /)/ ++ + (. (* /)+,..
.1..1,*(,1(.*.'
-BOR withdrew degree
-TC dismissed petition for mandamus filed by Arokiaswamy. CA reversed
ordering BOR to restore her doctoral degree.
WON Arokiaswamy was denied due process
&
'
In this case, the trial court dismissed private respondents petition
precisely on grounds of academic
freedom but the Court of Appeals reversed holding that private respondent was
denied due process. It said:
It is worthy to note that during the proceedings taken by the College Assembly
culminating in its recommendation to
the University Council for the withdrawal of petitioners Ph.D. degree, petitioner was
not given the chance to be heard until after the withdrawal of the degree was
consummated. Petitioners subsequent letters to the U.P. President proved
unavailing.
|7| >|& | ' &
"
|7 BCC |
B
|&
|7 7|
|
'8&'9" '
#:!|$%
A";'7 "##
+D|33
1+,D
- GLORIOUS was found guilty of dollar-salting and misdeclaration of importations
by the GTEB and, as a result of which, the export quotas allocated to it were
cancelled. Soon after the rendition of the GTEB decision, GLORIOUS filed a
petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court, contending that its right to due
process of law was violated, and that the GTEB decision was not supported by
substantial evidence.
- Giving credence to the allegations of respondent GLORIOUS, the Court issued
a resolution ordering GTEB to conduct further proceedings in the administrative
case against respondent GLORIOUS.
- However, GLORIOUS filed a manifestation of its intention to withdraw the petition
which the Court granted
- GLORIOUS filed another motion to dismiss with prejudice, which was duly noted by
the Court in a resolution.
- More than 2 years later, GLORIOUS filed with the GTEB a petition for the
restitution of its export quota allocation and requested for a reconsideration of the
GTEB decision dated April 27, 1984.
- GLORIOUS again alleged that the charges against it were not supported by
evidence.
- Moreover, it alleged that the GTEB decision canceling its export quotas was
rendered as a result of duress, threats, intimidation and undue influence exercised
by former Minister Roberto V. Ongpin in order to transfer GLORIOUS' export
quotas to "Marcos crony-owned" corporations De Soleil Apparel Manufacturing
Corporation [DSA] and AIFC.
- GLORIOUS further alleged that it was coerced by Mr. Roberto Ongpin to withdraw
its petition and to enter into joint
venture agreements paving the way for the creation of DSA and petitioner AIFC
which were allowed to service
GLORIOUS' export quotas and to use its plant facilities, machineries and equipment.
- GTEB denied the petition of GLORIOUS. An appeal was then taken to the Office of
the President.
- At this point, AIFC sought to intervene in the proceedings and filed its opposition
to GLORIOUS' appeal claiming that the GTEB decision has long become final, and
that a favorable action on the appeal would result in the forfeiture of the export
quotas which were legally allocated to it.
- The Office of the President ruled in favor of GLORIOUS, finding the proceedings
before the GTEB in 1984 irregular, and remanded the case to GTEB for further
proceedings.
- The MR of AIFC was subsequently denied.
,,,:
1. WON the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION and
2. WON the final judgment constitutes res judicata on the ground that the final
judgment in was a judgment on the merits.
&.D
#' 'In finding that GTEB proceedings were irregular, the OP didnt commit GAD
as GTEB indeed violated the right to due process of Glorious. GTEB failed to
disclose evidence used by it in rendering the resolution against Glorious Sun. The
decision penned by Deputy Executive Secretary Magdangal B. Elma and the
resolution penned by Acting Deputy Executive Secretary Mariano Sarmiento II are
not tainted in the slightest by any grave abuse of discretion. They outline in
detail why the private respondent was denied due process when its export quotas
were cancelled by GTEB The findings are supported by the records.
| D.)1()1(.0,+*.,1(,.+(+3+,'
' ' - The dismissal of the first petition was clearly based on a technical matter
rather than on the merits of the petition. Hence, the dismissal of the petition
with the factual issues hanging in mid-air cannot, under the circumstances,
constitute res judicata.
,())/:
- For a judgment to be a bar to a subsequent case, the following requisites must
concur:
. . . (1) it must be a final judgment; (2) the court which resolved it had jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits;
and (4) there must be identity between the two cases, as to the parties, subject
matter and cause of action.
- The well-entrenched principle is that "a judgment on the merits is one rendered
after a determination of which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment
rendered upon preliminary or final or merely technical point." (Deang v. IAC).
- The protestation of Glorious Sun of non-disclosure of evidence had been effectively
remedied by the subsequent accommodation by the GTEB of its request for copies of
the relevant documents.
- The petitioner claims that the subsequent disclosure of the documents by GTEB to
Glorious Sun in 1987 cured the defect of non-disclosure of evidence in 1984
under the constitutional provision of due process enunciated in the landmark case
of Ang Tibay v. CIR and other subsequent cases.
- The documents used by the GTEB in its 1984 decision and referred to in the 1987
decision as being "intact" relates to what the GTEB labeled as Documents used by
GTEB and "Additional Documents" which, as earlier discussed, were either not
disclosed to Appellant for being privileged or unmarked as exhibits or not presented
in evidence.
- At any rate, the conclusions of GTEB as to the excessiveness of Appellant's import
prices drew a controverting statement from its own Raw Materials Importation
Regulation Division,
- Findings of administrative agencies are accorded respect and finality, and generally
should not be disturbed by the courts. This general rule, however, is not without
exceptions.
- As recently reiterated, it is jurisprudentially settled that absent a clear,
manifest and grave abuse of discretion amount to want of jurisdiction, the findings
of the administrative agency on matters falling within its competence will not be
disturbed by the courts.
- Specifically with respect to factual findings, they are accorded respect, if not
finality, because of the special
knowledge and expertise gained by these tribunals from handling the specific matters
falling under their jurisdiction.
- Such factual findings may be disregarded only if they "are not supported by
evidence; where the findings are initiated by fraud, imposition or collussion; where
the procedures which lead to the factual findings are irregular; when palpable errors
are committed; or when grave abuse of discretion arbitrarines or capriciousness is
manifest." (Mapa v. Arroyo, 175 SCRA 76 [1989])
- In the case at bar, the petitioner was never given the chance to present its side
before its export quota allocations were revoked and its officers suspended. While
it is true that such allocations as alleged by the Board are mere privileges which
it can revoke and cancel as it may deem fit, these privileges have been accorded to
petitioner for so long that they have become impressed with property rights especially
since not only do these privileges determine the continued existence of the petitioner
with assets of over P80,000,000.00 but also the livelihood of some 700 workers who
are employed by the petitioner and their families .
-Finally, American Inter-Fashion is hardly the proper party to question the
Malacaang decision. It was incorporated after the incidents in this case
happened. It was created obviously to be the recipient of export quotas arbitrarily
removed from the rightful owner. It was sequestered precisely because of the
allegation that it is a crony corporation which profited from an act of injustice inflicted
on another private corporation.
: MFR is GRANTED. The instant petition is DISMISSED. The
question decision and resolution of the
Office of the President are hereby AFFIRMED.
| -concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the Court, that is, that petitioner American Interfashion Corporation has failed to show any grave abuse of discretion or act without
or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the public respondent Office of the
President in rendering its decision in OP Case No. 3781 dated 7 September 1989.
| 6'7 |
|$
;)#" %%%
|
Petition for review of decision of CA
|
- Sec Pefianco of DECS seeks to nullify CA decision.
- Ex-Sec Gloria filed complaint against Moral, Chief Librarian of National Library for
dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service. The complaint charged respondent Moral with the pilferage of some
historical documents.
- DoJ Special Prosecutor represented Sec Gloria in the administrative case. Moral
was represented by her private counsel. Sec Gloria issued resolution finding Moral
guilty. She was ordered dismissed.
- Moral did not appeal but filed a Petition for Production of DECS Investigation
Committee Report. Her petition was twice denied.
- Moral instituted an action for
and injunction before regular courts
against Sec Gloria praying that she be
furnished a copy of the DECS Investigation Committee Report and that the
DECS Secretary be enjoined from enforcing the order of dismissal until she
received a copy of the said report.
- Secretary Gloria moved to dismiss the
case principally for lack of
cause of action, but the trial court
denied his motion. Thus, he elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on
CA sustained TC.
- Sec Gloria filed instant petition. Sec Gloria was replaced by Sec Pefianco.
1. WON the order of the TC is proper
2. WON Moral is entitled to a copy of the Report
&
1. NO.
- Section 3, Rule 16, of the
mandatorily requires
that the resolution on a motion to
dismiss should clearly and distinctly state the reasons therefor.
- The challenged Order of the trial court dated 23 April 1997 falls short of the
requirements prescribed in Rule 16. The
Order merely discussed the general concept of
and the trial courts
jurisdiction over the rulings and
actions of administrative agencies without stating the basis why petitioners motion to
dismiss was being denied.
- Judges should take pains in crafting their orders, stating therein clearly and
comprehensively the reasons for their issuance, which are necessary for the full
understanding of the action taken. Where the court itself has not st ated any basis for
its order, to be very strict in requiring a prior motion for reconsideration before
resort to higher courts on may be had, would be to expect too much. Since
the judge himself was not precise and specific in his order, a certain degree of
liberality in exacting from petitioner strict compliance with the rules was justified.
2. NO.
- o
is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of a
ministerial duty, this being its main
objective. It does not lie to require anyone to fulfill a discretionary duty. It is
essential to the issuance of a writ of
that petitioner should have a clear
legal right to the thing demanded and it must be the imperative duty of the
respondent to perform the act required.
- In her petition for
, respondent miserably failed to demonstrate that
she has a clear legal right to the
u
| 6'7 |
|$
;)#" %%%
|
Petition for review of decision of CA
|
- Sec Pefianco of DECS seeks to nullify CA decision.
- Ex-Sec Gloria filed complaint against Moral, Chief Librarian of National Library for
dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service. The complaint charged respondent Moral with the pilferage of some
historical documents.
- DoJ Special Prosecutor represented Sec Gloria in the administrative case. Moral
was represented by her private counsel. Sec Gloria issued resolution finding Moral
guilty. She was ordered dismissed.
- Moral did not appeal but filed a Petition for Production of DECS Investigation
Committee Report. Her petition was twice denied.
- Moral instituted an action for
and injunction before regular courts
against Sec Gloria praying that she be
furnished a copy of the DECS Investigation Committee Report and that the
DECS Secretary be enjoined from enforcing the order of dismissal until she
received a copy of the said report.
- Secretary Gloria moved to dismiss the
case principally for lack of
cause of action, but the trial court
denied his motion. Thus, he elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on
CA sustained TC.
- Sec Gloria filed instant petition. Sec Gloria was replaced by Sec Pefianco.
1. WON the order of the TC is proper
?
| '' ('>$%
|
|"';) "#!
|
Petition for a writ of
|
- Dr. Antonio Nubla, father of Alicia Nubla, a minor of 16 years, filed a verified
complaint against Emilio Suntay in the Office of the City Attorney of Quezon City,
as follows: The accused took Alicia Nubla from St. Paul's Colleges in Quezon
City with lewd design and took her to somewhere near the U.P. compound in
Diliman, Quezon City and was then able to have carnal knowledge of her. Alicia
Nubla is a minor of 16 years.
- Petitioner applied for and was granted a passport by the DFA. Petitioner left the
Philippines for San Francisco where he is at present enrolled in school. The offended
girl subscribed and swore to a complaint charging the petitioner with seduction which
was filed in the CFI of Quezon City after preliminary investigation had been
conducted. The private prosecutor filed a motion praying the Court to issue an
order "directing such government agencies as may be concerned, particularly the
NBI and the DFA, for the purpose of having the accused brought back to the
Philippines so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law." The Court granted
the motion.
- Respondent Secretary cabled the Ambassador to the United States instructing him
to order the Consul General in San Francisco to cancel the passport issued to the
petitioner and to compel him to return to the Philippines to answer the criminal
charges against him. The Embassy was likewise directed to make
representation with the State Department that Emilio Suntay's presence outside the
Philippines is considered detrimental to the best interest of this Government, that his
passport has been withdrawn, and that he is not considered under the
protection of the Philippines while abroad. However, this order was not
implemented or carried out in view of the commencement of this proceedings in
order that the issues raised may be judicially resolved. Counsel for the petitioner
wrote to the respondent Secretary requesting that the action taken by him be
reconsidered, and filed in the criminal case a motion praying that the respondent
Court reconsider its order. The respondent Secretary denied counsel's request and
the Court denied the motion for reconsideration.
- Petitioner contends that as the order of the respondent Court may be carried out
only "through the cancellation of his passport," the said order is illegal because "while
a Court may review the action of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs in cancelling a
passport and grant relief when the Secretary's discretion is abused, the court
cannot, in the first instance, take the discretionary power away from the Secretary
and itself order a passport to be cancelled."
- Petitioner further contends that while the Secretary for Foreign Affairs has
discretion in the cancellation of
passports, "such discretion cannot be exercised until after hearing," because the right
to travel or stay abroad is a personal liberty within the meaning and protection of the
Constitution and hence he cannot be deprived of such liberty without due process of
law.
1. WON the order of the respondent Court is beyond or in excess of its jurisdiction
2. WON petitioner is entitled to hearing before his passport can be cancelled
&
1. NO
Hearing would have been proper and necessary if the reason for the
withdrawal or cancellation of the passport were not clear but doubtful. But where the
holder of a passport is facing a criminal a charge in our courts and left the country to
evade criminal prosecution, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in the exercise of his
discretion to revoke a passport already issued, cannot be held to have acted
whimsically or capriciously in withdrawing and cancelling such passport. Due process
does not necessarily mean or require a hearing.
Petition is denied
& 6||
:| $$
7#"#
|
Appeal from an order of CFI.
|
- American citizen George de Bisschop (petitioner-appellee) was allowed to stay in
the Philippines for 3 years as a prearranged employee of the Bissmag Production,
Inc., of which he is president and general manager.
- He applied for extension of stay with the Bureau of Immigration. This was
denied when Immigration Officer
Benjamin de Mesa discovered that Bissmag Inc. was a gambling front, and that de
Bisschop is suspect of evading payment of his income tax. In a letter dated
September 5, 1959, the Board of Commissioners advised him to depart within 5
days. De Bisschop requested for a copy of the decision, but the legal officer of
Bureau of Immigration replied that no formal decision, order or resolution is
promulgated by the Board for reasons of practicability and expediency.
- To forestall his arrest and the filing of the corresponding deportation
proceedings, de Bisschop filed the present case.
1.
|
-22 Sept 1988: the Board issued an ex parte Order, signed by Board Chairman
Fulgencio Factoran, Jr., directing Solar immediately to cease and desist from
utilizing its wastewater pollution source installations which were discharging
untreated wastewater directly into a canal leading to the adjacent Tullahan-Tinejeros
River.
-Said order, issued pursuant to Sec7 of P.D. 984 and Sec38 of its IRR, was based on
findings of several inspections
of Solar's plant:
a. inspections conducted on 5 November 1986 and 12 November 1986 by the
National Pollution Control Commission
("NPCC"), the predecessor of the Board; and
b. the inspection conducted on 6 September 1988 by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
("DENR").
-A copy of the above Order was received by Solar on 26 Sept 1988. A Writ of
Execution issued by the Board was received by Solar on 31 March 1989. Meantime,
Solar filed MFR appeal with prayer for stay of execution of the Order dated 22 Sept
1988.
-Acting on this motion, the Board issued an Order dated 24 April 1989 allowing Solar
to operate temporarily, to enable the Board to conduct another inspection and
evaluation of Solar's wastewater treatment facilities. In the same Order, the Board
directed the Regional Executive Director of the DENR NCR to conduct the
inspection and evaluation within thirty (30) days.
-21 April 1989: Solar went to RTC QC on petition for certiorari with preliminary
injunction against the Board. RTC dismissed Solar's petition upon two (2) grounds:
that appeal and not certiorari from the questioned Order of the Board as well as the
Writ of Execution was the proper remedy, and that the Board's subsequent Order
allowing Solar to operate temporarily had rendered Solar's petition moot and
academic.
-Solar went on appeal to the CA. CA reversed the Order of dismissal of TC and
remanded the case to that court for further proceedings. CA also declared the Writ
of Execution null and void. At the same time, the CA said that the decision was
without prejudice to whatever action the Board may take relative to the
projected 'inspection and evaluation' of Solar's water treatment facilities.
-CA, in so ruling, held that certiorari was a proper remedy since the Orders of
the Board may result in great and irreparable injury to Solar; and that while the
case might be moot and academic, "larger issues" demanded that the question of
due process be settled. The Boards MFR was dismissed. Hence, this petition for
certiorari.
(.H,/,D
-that its ex parte Order dated 22 Sept 1988 and the Writ of Execution were issued
in accordance with law (PD984, Sec7(a)) and were not violative of due process; and
-that the ex parte Order and the Writ of Execution are not the proper subjects of a
petition for certiorari.
( contends that under the Board's own rules and regulations, an ex parte
order may issue only if the effluents
discharged pose an "immediate threat to life, public health; safety or welfare, or to
animal and plant life." In the instant case, according to Solar, the inspection reports
before the Board made no finding that Solar's wastewater discharged posed such a
threat.
WON the CA erred in reversing the RTC on the ground that Solar had been denied
due process by the Board.
&
NO.
1
-Section 7(a) of P.D. No. 984 authorized the Board to issue ex parte cease and
desist orders (a) whenever the wastes discharged by an establishment pose an
"immediate threat to life, public health, safety or welfare, or to animal
or plant life," or (b) whenever such discharges or wastes exceed "the allowable
standards set by the [NPCC]."
-It is not essential that the Board prove that an "immediate threat to life, public
health, safety or welfare, or to animal or plant life" exists before an ex parte cease
and desist order may be issued. It is enough if the Board finds that the wastes
discharged do exceed "the allowable standards set by the [NPCC]."
-Sec5 of the Effluent Regulations of 1982 sets out the max permissible levels of
physical and chemical substances which effluents from domestic wastewater
treatment plants and industrial plants must not exceed when discharged into
bodies of water classified as Class A, B, C, D, SB and SC in accordance with
the 1978 NPCC Rules and Regulations. Tullahan-Tinejeros River is classified as
inland waters Class D (for agriculture, irrigation, live stock watering, industrial
cooling and processing)
-Note: the plant under its previous owner, Fine Touch Finishing Corporation, was
issued a Notice of Violation on 20 Dec 1985 directing same to cease and desist
from conducting dyeing operation until such time the waste treatment plant is
already completed and operational. The new owner Solar Textile Corporation, after
informing the Commission of the plant acquisition, was summoned to a hearing held
on 13 October 1986 based on the adverse findings during the inspection/water
sampling test conducted on 08 August 1986.
-The inspection reports of November 1986 and September 1988 make clear that
there was at least prima facie evidence before the Board that the effluents
emanating from Solar's plant exceeded the max allowable levels of physical and
chemical substances set by the NPCC and that accordingly there was adequate
basis supporting the ex parte cease and desist order issued by the Board.
-The Board refrained from issuing an ex parte cease and desist order until after the
November 1986 and September
1988 re-inspections were conducted and the violation of applicable standards was
confirmed. The Board appears to
have been remarkably forbearing in its efforts to enforce the applicable standards
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?"P.D. 984, Section 7, paragraph (a), provides:
(a) Public Hearing . . . Provided, That whenever the Commission finds prima facie evidence
that the discharged sewage or wastes are of immediate threat to life, public health, safety or
welfare, or to animal or plant life, or exceeds the allowable standards set by the Commission,
the Commissioner may issue an ex-parte order directing the discontinuance of the same
or the temporary suspension or cessation of operation of the establishment or person
generating such sewage or wa stes without the necessity of a prior public hearing. The said
ex-parte order shall be immediately executory and shall remain in force until said
establishment or person prevents or abates the said pollution within the allowable standards or
modified or nullified by a competent court.".
vis-a-vis Solar. Solar, on the other hand, seemed very casual about its continued
discharge of untreated, pollutive effluents into the Tullahan-Tinejeros River,
presumably loath to spend the money necessary to put its Wastewater
Treatment Plant ("WTP") in an operating condition.
-In V
u
# , the SC upheld the summary closure
ordered by the Acting Mayor of Sta.
Maria, Bulacan, of a pollution-causing establishment. In the instant case, the ex parte
cease and desist Order was issued not by a local government official but by the
Pollution Adjudication Board, the very agency of the Government charged with the
task of determining whether the effluents of a particular industrial establishment
comply with or violate applicable anti-pollution statutory and regulatory provisions.
-Ex parte cease and desist orders are permitted by law and regulations in situations
like that here presented precisely because stopping the continuous discharge of
pollutive and untreated effluents into the rivers and other inland waters of the
Philippines cannot be made to wait until protracted litigation over the ultimate
correctness or propriety of such orders has run its full course, including multiple and
sequential appeals such as those which Solar has taken, which of course may take
several years. It is a constitutional common place that the ordinary requirements of
procedural due process yield to the necessities of protecting vital public interests
like those here involved, through the exercise of police power.
|& 7 " '
#%!& !
|
|| |3 "#!
|
Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Industrial Relations
|
- A complaint was filed by petitioner alleging that respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practice
- Hearings were conducted by the hearing examiner, Atty. Emiliano Tabigne, at
which both parties, represented by counsel, appeared.
- After the presentation of the evidence, the hearing examiner rendered his report
stating that the charge of unfair labor practice has not been substantiated by the
evidence and recommending its dismissal. He also found that the dismissal of
petitioner was for sufficient cause.
- The court approved the hearing examiner's recommendation and rendered the
following order:
Hearing Examiner Mr. Tabigne recommends the dismissal of this case on the
ground that the evidence by the complainant did not support the charges of unfair
labor practice. The facts are stated in the Hearing Examiner's dated May 16, 1955.
After a perusal of the record of the case, the Court finds no sufficient
justification for modifying said recommendation, findings and conclusions, and
consequently, this case is hereby dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the court en banc.
- Hence this petition for review.
- It is contended that the aforequoted order runs counter to the Constitution which
provides that "No decision shall be rendered by any court of record without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based"
(Article VIII, section 12); and to Rule 35, Section 1, of the Rules of Court, which
provides that a court decision shall state "clearly and distinctly the facts and the law
on which it is based." And the claim is made in view of the fact that the order does
not contain either a discussion of the evidence or any finding of fact based on
said evidence, which counsel claims does not meet the requirements of the law and
the Constitution.
WON the Court of Industrial Relations can issue an order dismissing a case
without stating the facts and the law support thereof.
&
YES
- The order, it is true, does not make its own discussion of the evidence or its own
findings of fact, but such is not necessary if the court is satisfied with the report of
its examiner or referee which already contains a full discussion of the evidence and
the findings of fact based thereon. The situation differs if the court disagrees with
the report in which case it should state the reasons for its disagreement. If it is in
full accord with the report, it is purposeless to repeat what the referee or examiner
has already found in it.
- Such is the present situation. The court approved the report of the hearing examiner
"after a perusal of the record of
the case." This presupposes that it has examined the evidence and found no
justification for modifying his findings and conclusions. This is a substantial
compliance with the law.
- When the Court of Industrial Relations refers a case to a commissioner
for investigation, report, and recommendation, and at such investigation the
parties were duly represented by counsel, heard or at least given an opportunity to
be heard, the requirement of due process has been satisfied, even if the court
failed to set the report for hearing, and a decision on the basis of such report, with
the other evidence of the case, is a decision which meets the requirement of a fair
and open hearing.
,3(,+()The order appealed from was affirmed.
|
$|:!
|
|/%"#:
|
Petition for review of a decision of the Public Service Commission.
|
- Serrano filed an application with the Public Service Commission requesting
authority to operate a taxicab automobile service within the City of Manila and
from said city to any place in Luzon open to motor vehicle traffic and vice versa.
Fifty units of taxicabs were to be used.
- Serrano was a public service bus operator in the City of Manila and was the holder
of several certificates of public convenience.
- His application was heard by Associate Commissioner Panganiban. Serrano
completed the presentation of his evidence, but the oppositors and no evidence
was presented to rebut his claims as to his qualification and financial capacity.
The Public Service Commission denied application
- A motion for reconsideration was filed and denied by the PSC.
- Serrano alleged that the Public Service Commission erred in failing to make a
statement of facts as to each case regarding the qualification and financial ability
of the applicant and the other factors constituting the criterion used as basis in
granting the application, in whole or in part, on the one hand, and dismissing or
denying the application on the other. He relies on the constitutional provision that no
decision shall be rendered by any court of record without expressing clearly and
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
WON the denial of the PSC of Serranos petition was correct
&
NO
|D
- petitioners are challenging the validity of Rule 168 of the "Revised Rules of
Practice before the Philippine Patent Office in Trademark Cases" as amended,
authorizing the Director of Patents to designate any ranking official of said office to
hear % proceedings. Said Rule likewise provides that "all judgments
determining the merits of the case shall be personally and directly prepared by the
Director and signed by him." These proceedings refer to the hearing of opposition
to the registration of a mark or trade name, interference proceeding instituted for the
purpose of
determining the question of priority of adoption and use of a trade-mark,
trade name or service-mark, and cancellation of registration of a trade-mark or
trade name pending at the Patent Office.
- Under the Trade-mark Law (Republic Act No. 166 ), the Director of Patents
is vested with jurisdiction over
opposition, interference and cancellation cases filed by petitioners. Likewise, the
Rules of Practice in Trade-mark
Cases contains a similar provision, thus:
168.
. - The Director of Patents shall
have original jurisdiction over proceedings. In the event that the
Patent Office should be provided with an Examiner of
Interferences, this Examiner shall have the original jurisdiction over these cases,
instead of the Director. In the case that the Examiner of Interferences takes over the
original jurisdiction over proceedings, his final decision subject to appeal
to the Director of Patents within three months of the receipt of notice of decisions.
Such appeals shall be governed by sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
and 22 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court insofar as said sections are applicable and
appropriate, and the appeal fee shall be P25.00.
- The Rules of Practice in Trade-mark Cases were drafted and promulgated by the
Director of Patents and approved by the then Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce.
- Subsequently, the Director of Patents, with the approval of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce, amended
the afore-quoted Rule 168 to read as follows:
168.
& . - The Director of Patents
shall have original jurisdiction
over proceedings, [In the event that the Patent Office is provided with an
Examiner of Interferences, this Examiner shall then have the original jurisdiction
over these cases, instead of the Director. In the case that the Examiner of
Interferences takes over the original jurisdiction over proceedings, his
final decisions shall be subject to appeal to the Director of Patents within three
months of the receipt of notice decision. Such appeals shall be governed by
Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 22 of Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court insofar as said sections are applicable and appropriate, and the appeal fee
shall be [P25.00.] Such proceedings in the Philippine Patent Office
under this Title shall be heard before the Director of Patents, any hearing officer,
'
u#
u
. (Emphasis supplied.)
- In accordance with the amended Rule, the Director of Patents delegated the
hearing of petitioners' cases to hearing officers, specifically, Attys. Amando
Marquez, Teofilo Velasco, Rustico Casia and Hector Buenaluz, the other
respondents herein.
proceeded to review
the entire proceedings had before the Board of Special Inquiry No. 1 relative to the
petitioner's case and that of his supposed relatives. A hearing officer of the Bureau
of Immigration was directed to conduct an investigation of the entire proceedings
of and the evidence presented before the Board of Special Inquiry No. 1. On
the basis of a memorandum of the hearing officer, the new Board of Immigration
Commissioners found that the petitioner had not satisfactorily established his claim
for admission as a Filipino citizen and, consequently, reversed the decision of the
Board of Special Inquiry No. 1, and ordered that the petitioner be excluded from
the Philippines as an alien not properly documented for admission and be returned
to the port from whence he came or to the country of which he is a national. The
petitioner moved for a reconsideration of said decision. This motion was denied by
the new Board.
- The petitioner filed a petition for and prohibition praying the Court of First
Instance of Manila to restrain the
Commissioner of Immigration and the Board of Immigration Commissioners from
arresting and expelling him, and prohibit them from taking any further steps or
actions contrary to the decision rendered by the Board of Special Inquiry No. 1.
This petition was given due course, and a writ of preliminary injunction was issued
as prayed for. But this petition was dismissed.
- On April 30, 1965 the present petition for was filed, the petitioner
claiming that the respondent's
agents picked him up at Rosario St., Manila, in the evening of the previous April 23
on the supposed claim that he was not properly documented for admission as a
Filipino citizen when he entered the Philippines; and that since then he "has been
unlawfully and illegally confined, restrained and deprived of his liberty in the
Bureau of Immigration Detention Station in the Engineering Island, Manila." On the
same date, the lower court required the respondent to bring the petitioner before
the court on May 3, 1965 at 8:30 O'clock in the morning. The clerk of court
issued the corresponding writ of directing the respondent to submit
his return. The latter's written return of May 6,
1965 states, among other things, that the petitioner was under lawful custody on a
valid process commanding his exclusion from the Philippines and ordering his return
to the port where he came from or to the country of which he is a national.
- On June 18, 1965 the lower court dismissed the petition stating that the petitioner
is legally detained on a warrant issued by the respondent Commissioner of
Immigration." On July 20, 1965 the lower court set aside its decision of June 17,
1965, and, on the same date, rendered an amended decision completely reversing
its decision of June 17, granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the
immediate release of the petitioner. The lower court held that "the decision rendered
by the new Board of Commissioners is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, and no
administrative action being possible because the question involved in this case is
purely a legal question, the doctrine of exhaust ion of administrative remedies has no
application in this case." On July 22 the clerk of court issued the corresponding writ of
habeas corpus.
WON the decision of the new Board of Immigration Commissioner is null and void for
having been rendered without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion, in violation of section 27 (b), Comm. Act 613
&
NO
- The Board of Commissioners rendered on September 4, 1962 its decision
reversing that of the Board of Special
Inquiry No, 1 dated September 11, 1961, well within the one-year period required by
law.
- It is true that the copy of the decision of the Board of Commissioners dated
September 4, 1962 was sent by mail to the petitioner's minor children herein only on
October 26, 1962, and received by the said minors on the same date. This fact,
however, does not work to vitiate said decision. All that the Immigration Law requires
is that the decision of reversal of the Board of Commissioners be promulgated
within one year from the rendition of the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry.
Notice of said decision of reversal may be sent even after the one-year period has
elapsed. In the case of Neria vs. Commissioner of Immigration (L-24800, May 27,
1968, 23 SCRA 807, citing Arocha vs. Vivo, supra), the Supreme Court ruled that
"the operative date of the Commissioners' action is that when the resolution (of
exclusion) was noted and adopted by them as a Board, regardless of the date
when the decision in extenso was prepared, written and signed," and with more
reason, as in this case, regardless of the date when such decision is mailed,
"because the decision in extenso must relate back to the day the resolution to
exclude was actually adopted. Necessarily the extended opinion had to be
posterior to the day when the Commissioners voted and resolved to reverse the
findings of the Board of Special Inquiry. The Secretary's certificate shows that the
Board of Immigration Commissioners acted upon not less than eight Immigration
cases (including that of the Gatchalians) on July 6, 1962; and it was of course
impracticable to prepare and sign fully reasoned decisions in all these cases."
|C&| 6
|
?|
| ";"#$
|D
- Private respondent Lucina C. Sendino entered into a reservation agreement with
Realty Exchange Venture, Inc. (REVI) for a 120-square meter lot in Raymondville
Subdivision in Sucat, Paranaque for P307,800.00 as its purchase price. She paid
P1,000.00 as partial reservation fee on January 15, 1989 and completed payment
of this fee on January 20, 1989 by paying P4,000.00.
- On July 18, 1989, private respondent paid REVI P16,600.00 as full downpayment
on the purchase price. However, she was advised by REVI to change her co-maker,
which she agreed, asking for an extension of one month to do so.
- For alleged non-compliance with the requirement of submission of the appropriate
documents under the terms of the original agreement, REVI, through its VicePresident for Marketing, informed respondent of the cancellation of the contract on
the 31st of July 1989.
- On April 20, 1990, private respondent filed a complaint for Specific Performance
against REVI with the office of Appeals, Adjudication and Legal Affairs (OAALA) of
the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) asking that respondent be
ordered: To comply and continue with the sale of the house and lot, Block 4,
Lot 17 at the Raymondville Subdivision, Sucat Road, Paranaque, Metro Manila;
- This petition was amended on August 17, 1990 by impleading petitioners
Magdiwang Realty Corporation (MRC)
which appeared to be the registered owner of the subject lot as per TCT No. 76023.
- On April 3, 1991 the HLURB, whose authority to hear and decide the
complaint was challenged by REVI in its answer, rendered its judgment in favor of
private respondent and ordered petitioners to continue with the sale of the
house and lot and to pay private respondent P5,000 as moral damages, P5,000 as
exemplary damages and P6,000 as attorney's fees and costs of the suit. An appeal
from this decision was taken to the HLURB OAALA Arbiter, which
affirmed the Board's decision. The decision of the OAALA Arbiter was appealed to
the Office of the President, herein
public respondent.
- On January 7, 1993, the public respondent rendered its decision dismissing
the petitioners' appeal. Motion for reconsideration of the decision was denied by
the public respondent on January 26, 1993. Consequently petitioners come before
this Court, in this petition.
WON the HLURB can act validly as a division composed of only 3 commissioners
&
Yes.
- Under section 5 of E.O. 648 which defines the powers and duties of the
commission, the board is specifically mandated to adopt rules of procedure for the
conduct of its business and to perform such functions necessary for the
accomplishment of its above mentioned functions. Since nothing in the provisions of
either E.O. 90 or E.O. 648 denies or withholds the power or authority to delegate
adjudicatory functions to a division, we cannot see how the Board, for the purpose
of effectively carrying out its administrative responsibilities and quasi-judicial
powers as a regulatory body should be denied the power, as a matter of
practical administrative procedure, to constitute its adjudicatory boards into various
divisions.
- After all, the power conferred upon an administrative agency to issue rules and
regulations necessary to carry out its
functions has been held "to be an adequate source of authority to delegate a
particular function, unless by express provision of the Act or by implication it has
been withheld." The practical necessity of establishing a procedure whereby
cases are decided by three (3) Commissioners furthermore assumes greater
significance when one notes that the HLURB, as constituted, only has four (4) full
time commissioners and five (5) part time commissioners to deal with all the
functions, administrative, adjudicatory, or otherwise, entrusted to it.
- As the Office of the President noted in its February 26, 1993 Resolution
denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, "it is impossible and very
impractical to gather the four (4) full time and five (5) part time
commissioners (together) just to decide a case." Considering that its part time
commissioners act merely in an ()capacity, requiring a majority of the Board
to sit on each and every case brought before it would result in an
administrative nightmare.