Alegre vs.

Collector of Customs
J. Johns
Facts:

Act No. 2380: "An Act providing for the inspection, grading, and baling of abaca (Manila hemp), maguey
(cantala), sisal, and other fibers" -enacted by the Philippine Legislature, February 28, 1914
Petitioner for a number of years has been and is now engaged in the production of abaca and its
exportation to foreign markets. November 8, 1927, he applied to the respondent for a permit to export 100
bales of abaca to England, which was denied, and advised that he would not be permitted to export the
abaca in question without a certificate of the Fiber Standardization Board. Alleging that the provisions of
the Administrative Code for the grading, inspection and certification of fibers and, in particular, sections
1772 and 1244 of that Code, are unconstitutional and void
Pertinent sections of Act 2380: "(a)
The Director of Agriculture is hereby enjoined and directed to
establish, define, and designate standards for the commercial grades of abaca, maguey, and sisal, which
shall become the official standards of classification throughout the Philippine Islands, calling to his
assistance the agencies of his Bureau, those of any other Bureau or branch of this Government, or such
other agencies as he may deem necessary; "(b) The Director of Agriculture shall prepare in suitable form
the official standard of each grade of the fibers covered by this Act and furnish the same; "(f)
The
Director of Agriculture shall establish one or several standards for abaca which may have been partially
cleaned or prepared in the form of tow, waste, or strings, at the request of a party concerned, if such
standards are required by the market. He shall also likewise establish a standard or standards for the fiber
of any species of Musa other than abaca for which there shall be a demand in the market. Such standards,
if established, shall be designated and defined in the general order referred to in section two (c) of this
Act. Note: there were a lot more portions cited on the number of bales of fibers, manner in w/c they are
to be kept, inspection, etc.
Original law (2380) was made part of Admin Code. Sec 1244 reads: "A collector of customs shall not permit
abaca, maguey, or sisal or other fibrous products for which standard grades have been established by the
Director of Agriculture to be laden aboard a vessel clearing for a foreign port, unless the shipment
conforms to the requirements of law relative to the shipment of such fibers."
Section 1772: "The Fiber Standardization Board shall determine the official standards for the various
commercial grades of Philippine fibers that are or may hereafter be produced in the Philippine Islands for
shipment abroad. Each grade shall have its proper name and designation which, together with the basis
upon which the several grades are determined, shall be defined by the said Board in a general order. Such
order shall have the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources; and for the
dissemination of information, copies of the same shall be supplied gratis to the foreign markets, provincial
governors, municipal presidents, and to such other persons and agencies as shall make request therefor.
purpose and intent of the original law was to provide in detail for the inspection grading and baling of
abaca, maguey, sisal and other fibers, and for a uniform scale for grading, and to issue official certificates
as to the kind and quality of the hemp, so that an intending purchaser from an examination of the
certificates might be assured and know the grade and quality of the hemp offered for sale

Issue: WON the authority vested in the FSB is an undue delegation of legislative power (NO, VALID DELEGATION)
Held:
The law provides for specific standards the admin agency should observe in issuing the certificate.
The Legislature has specifically provided for the creation of "official standards for commercial grades of fibers,"
and that "the Fiber Standardization Board shall determine the official standards for the various commercial
grades of Philippine fibers," and that:
"All fibers within the purview of this law which are intended for export shall be pressed in uniform bales. The
approximate volume and net weight of each bale, together with the manner of binding, marking, wrapping, and
stamping of the same, shall be defined in a general order by the Fiber Standardization Board."
And section 1788, as amended, provides that no fiber shall be exported in quantity greater than the amount
sufficient to make one bale, without being graded, baled, inspected, and certified as in this law provided. That is
to say, the law provides in detail for the inspection, grading and baling of hemp and by whom and how it should
be done, and creates the Fiber Board with power and authority to devise ways and means for its execution. In
legal effect, the Legislature has said that before any hemp is exported from the Philippine Islands it must be
inspected, graded and baled, and has created a board for that purpose and vested it with the power and authority
to do the actual work. That is not a delegation of legislative power. It is nothing more than a delegation of
administrative power in the Fiber Board, to carry out the purpose and intent of the law. In the very nature of
things, the Legislature could not inspect, grade and bale the hemp, and from necessity, the power to do that
would have to be vested in a board or commission.

petitioner's contention would leave the law, which provides for the inspection, grading and baling of hemp,
without any means of its enforcement.
Judgment of LC reversed, petition dismissed.

Land Bank vs CA
J. Francisco
P: LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

R: COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO L. YAP, HEIRS OF EMILIANO F. SANTIAGO, AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT &
DEVELOPMENT CORP
Law RA 6557 payment for landowners to be made in cash or bonds
Rule DAR Admin Order 9 allowed payment to be earmarked or the use of trust accounts
Facts:

Private respondents are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the DAR and subjected to
transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. Aggrieved by
the alleged lapses of the DAR and the Landbank with respect to the valuation and payment of
compensation for their land, they filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with prayer for preliminary
mandatory injunction. They questioned the validity of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992 and
DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990, and sought to compel the DAR to expedite the pending
summary administrative proceedings to finally determine the just compensation of their properties, and the
Landbank to deposit in cash and bonds the amounts respectively "earmarked," "reserved" and "deposited
in trust accounts" for private respondents, and to allow them to withdraw the same.
Private respondents argued that Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990 was issued without jurisdiction
and with grave abuse of discretion because it permits the opening of trust accounts by the Landbank, in
lieu of depositing in cash or bonds in an accessible bank designated by the DAR, the compensation for the
land before it is taken and the titles are cancelled as provided under Section 16(e) of RA 6657. 9 Private
respondents also assail the fact that the DAR and the Landbank merely "earmarked," "deposited in trust" or
"reserved" the compensation in their names as landowners despite the clear mandate that before taking
possession of the property, the compensation must be deposited in cash or in bonds.
Petitioner DAR, however, maintained that Administrative Order No. 9 is a valid exercise of its rule-making
power pursuant to Section 49 of RA 6557. 11 Moreover, the DAR maintained that the issuance of the
"Certificate of Deposit" by the Landbank was a substantial compliance with Section 16(e) of RA 6657 and
the ruling in the case of Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc., et al. vs. Hon. Secretary
of Agrarian Reform. Petitioner Landbank declared that the issuance of the Certificates of Deposits was in
consonance with Circular Nos. 29, 29-A and 54 of the Land Registration Authority where the words
"reserved/deposited" were also used
CA ruled in favor of private respondents.
RA 6557 Section 16 provides: "SECTION 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. . . . (e) Upon
receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no response from the
landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash
or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall
request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines. . . ."
Petitioners maintain that the word "deposit" as used in Section 16(e) of RA 6557 referred merely to the act
of depositing and in no way excluded the opening of a trust account as a form of deposit. Thus, in opting
for the opening of a trust account as the acceptable form of deposit through Administrative Circular No. 9,
petitioner DAR did not commit any grave abuse of discretion since it merely exercised its power to
promulgate rules and regulations in implementing the declared policies of RA 6657

Issue: WON the rule (DAR Admin Order 9) is valid (NO)

Held: Rule violates clear mandate of the law (RA) not only payment, but also prompt payment

It is very explicit therefrom that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds." Nowhere does
it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form. If it were the intention to
include a "trust account" among the valid modes of deposit, that should have been made express, or at
least, qualifying words ought to have appeared from which it can be fairly deduced that a "trust account" is
allowed. In sum, there is no ambiguity in Section 16(e) of RA 6657 to warrant an expanded construction of
the term "deposit."

The conclusive effect of administrative construction is not absolute. Action of an administrative agency may
be disturbed or set aside by the judicial department if there is an error of law, a grave abuse of power or
lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion clearly conflicting with either the letter or the spirit of a
legislative enactment. 18 In this regard, it must be stressed that the function of promulgating rules and
regulations may be legitimately exercised only for the purpose of carrying the provisions of the law into
effect. The power of administrative agencies is thus confined to implementing the law or putting it into
effect. Corollary to this is that administrative regulations cannot extend the law and amend a legislative
enactment, 19 for settled is the rule that administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions
of the law. And in case there is a discrepancy between the basic law and an implementing rule or
regulation, it is the former that prevailsIn the present suit, the DAR clearly overstepped the limits of its
power to enact rules and regulations when it issued Administrative Circular No. 9. There is no basis in
allowing the opening of a trust account in behalf of the landowner as compensation for his property
because, as heretofore discussed, Section 16(e) of RA 6657 is very specific that the deposit must be made
only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds." In the same vein, petitioners cannot invoke LRA Circular Nos. 29, 29-A
and 54 because these implementing regulations cannot outweigh the clear provision of the law.
Respondent court therefore did not commit any error in striking down Administrative Circular No. 9 for
being null and void