BILL MILLER vs. ATANACIO A.

MARDO, and MANUEL GONZALES

G.R. No. L-15138 July 31, 1961
BARRERA, J.:
These appeals, although originating from different Courts of First Instance, are here treated
together in this single decision because they present but one identical question of law, namely,
the validity of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, prepared and submitted by the Government Survey
and Reorganization Commission under the authority of Republic Act No. 997, as amended by
Republic Act No. 1241, insofar as it confers jurisdiction to the Regional Offices of the
Department of Labor created in said Plan to decide claims of laborers for wages, overtime and
separation pay, etc.
Manuel Gonzales filed with Regional Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor, in Manila, a
complaint against Bill Miller claiming to be a driver of Miller. Gonzales was allegedly arbitrarily
dismissed, without being paid separation pay. He prayed for judgement for the amount due him
as separation pay plus damages. Upon receipt of said complaint, Chief Hearing Officer Regional
Office No. 3 of the Department of Labor required Miller to file an answer.
Whereupon, Miller filed with the Court of First Instance of Baguio a petition praying for
judgment prohibiting the Hearing Officer from proceeding with the case, for the reason that said
Hearing Officer had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the subject matter of the complaint.
The Gonzales on the otherhand file their separate motions to dismiss the petition, on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, it being
argued that pursuant to Republic Acts Nos. 997 and 1241, as implemented by Executive Order
No. 218, series of 1956 and Reorganization Plan No. 20-A, regional offices of the Department of
labor have exclusive and original jurisdiction over all cases affecting money claims arising from
violations of labor standards or working conditions. Said motions to dismiss were denied by the
court.
Thereafter, the court rendered a decision holding that Republic Acts Nos. 997 and 1241, as well
as Executive Order No. 218, series of 1956 and Reorganization Plan No. 20-A issued pursuant
thereto, did not repeal the provision of the Judiciary Act conferring on courts of first instance
original jurisdiction to take cognizance of money claims arising from violations of labor
standards.
From the decision of the Court of First Instance of Baguio, respondents Hearing Officer and
Gonzales interposed the present appeal now before us.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the Reorganization Plan No. 20-A which confers judicial power to Regional
Offices over cases falling within the Workmens Compensation on Law be valid, making the
Regional Trial Courts decision incorrect?
HELD:
No, In so far as the Reorganization Plan No. 20-A and to the Government Survey and
Reorganization Commission, is mandated not to carry out judicial functions but merely
administrative the Constitution expressly provides that the Judicial power shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be established by law. Thus, judicial power
rests exclusively in the judiciary. It may be conceded that the legislature may confer on
administrative boards or bodies quasi-judicial powers involving the exercise of judgment and
discretion, as incident to the performance of administrative functions. But in so doing, the
legislature must state its intention in express terms that would leave no doubt, as even such
quasi-judicial prerogatives must be limited, if they are to be valid, only to those incidental to or
in connection with the performance of jurisdiction over a matter exclusively vested in the courts.
The defect in the conferment of judicial or quasi-judicial functions to the Regional offices,
emanating from the lack of authority of the Reorganization Commission has been cured by the
non-disapproval of Reorganization Plan No. 20-A by Congress under the provisions of Section
6(a) of Republic Act No. 997, as amended. It is, in effect, argued that Reorganization Plan No.
20-A is not merely the creation of the Reorganization Commission, exercising its delegated
powers, but is in fact an act of Congress itself, a regular statute directly and duly passed by
Congress in the exercise of its legislative powers in the mode provided in the enabling act
On the basis of the foregoing considerations, we hold ad declare that Reorganization Plan No.
20-A, insofar as confers judicial power to the Regional Offices over cases other than these falling
under the Workmen's Compensation on Law, is invalid and of no effect.
G.R. No. L-24281 May 16, 1967
ROSITA C. TALEON and MIGUEL SOLIS, petitioners appellants, vs. THE SECRETARY
OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, THE DISTRICT ENGINEER,
Province of Davao, and LUCIA O . TOLENTINO, respondents-appellees
Petitioner-appellant Rosita Taleon is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Lupon, Davao,
which she acquired from her co-petitioner-appellant Miguel Solis who had constructed therein
man-made canals and fishpond dikes.
Respondent-appellee Lucia Tolentino wrote a letter-complaint to the Secretary of Public Works
stating that several fishpond operators and/or owners in Lupon, Davao have built dams across

and closed the Cabatan River, a public navigable stream, thereby depriving her and the residents
therein of passageway, fishing ground and water supply. This letter-complaint was formally
amended on June 9, 1961, wherein Tolentino specified appellants Taleon and Solis, and another
neighbor, one Humberto de los Santos, as those responsible for the closing of the alleged
Cabatan River, on the banks of which their lands abutted.
An administrative hearing was thereafter held. The Secretary of Public Works, through the
department undersecretary, rendered a decision finding that appellants were indeed obstructing
the Cabatan River, a Public navigable stream which used to pass inside their lands, with the dams
they constructed thereon, and ordering their demolition. Appellants filed a motion to reconsider
claiming that the ruling was contrary to the facts established and that the Secretary had no
jurisdiction over the Case. This was denied.
Appellants elevated the case to the Office of the President.
Appellants filed a motion to reconsider based on an alleged decision of Public Works Secretary
Moreno rendered reversing the former ruling. The Office of the President denied the motion.
Taking issue with this ruling, the petitioners instituted the present appeal, raising questions
purely of law. Appellants also reiterate that the Secretary of Public Works has no jurisdiction
over the case, since the dams and the body of water in question were located inside registered
private property.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Secretary of Public Works has no jurisdiction over the case and cannot
exercise its quasi- judicial power?
HELD:
NO, We upheld the power of the Public Works Secretary under Republic Act 2056 to declare as a
public navigable stream any alleged depression or bodies of water even inside titled properties.
That case involved a creek, located inside a titled land, which was alleged to be privately owned.
The Public Works Secretary declared it as part of a public stream which plaintiffs therein had
blocked with their dams. In sustaining the Secretary, We there ruled that such fact-finding power
on his part was merely incidental to his duly to clear all navigable streams of unauthorized
obstructions and, hence, its grant did not constitute an unlawful delegation of judicial power. And
we remarked there that although the title was silent as to the existence of any stream inside the
property, that did not confer a right to the stream, it being of a public nature and not subject to
private appropriation, even by prescription.