You are on page 1of 14

Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center vs Garcia239 SCRA 538 (1994) G.R. No.

101279 August 6, 1992

Facts: Griño-Aquino, J.
The Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center (KMU) assails the FACTS:
constitutionality andvalidity of a memorandum which, among As a result of published stories regarding the abuses suffered by
others, authorize provincial bus and jeepneyoperators to Filipino housemaidsemployed in Hong Kong, then DOLE Secretary
increase or decrease the prescribed transportation fares Ruben Torres issued Department Order No.16, Series of 1991,
without applicationtherefore with the LTFRB, and without temporarily suspending the recruitment by private employment
hearing and approval thereof by said agency. agenciesof Filipino domestic helpers going to Hong Kong. The
Issue: DOLE itself, through the POEA took over the business
Whether or not the absence of notice and hearing and the of deploying such Hong Kong-bound workers. The POEA
delegation of authorityin the increase or decrease of Administrator alsoissued Memorandum Circular No. 37, Series
of 1991, on the processing of employment contracts of domestic
transportation fares to provincial bus and jeepneyoperators is
workers for Hong Kong.PASEI filed a petition for prohibition to annul
the aforementioned DOLE and POEA circularsand to prohibit their
implementation on the grounds that DOLE and POEA acted with
Under Section 16 (c) of the Public Service Act, as amended, graveabuse of discretion and/or in excess of their rule-making
the legislaturedelegated to the defunct Public Service authority in issuing said
Commission the power of fixing the rates of public services. circulars;t h a t t h e a s s a i l e d D O L E a n d P O E A c i r c
LTFRB, the existing regulatory body today, is likewise vested u l a r s a r e c o n t r a r y t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , a r e un
with thesame under Executive Order 202.The authority given reasonable, unfair and oppressive; and that the requirements
by the LTFRB to the bus operators to set fares over and above of publication and filing withthe Office of the National Administrative
theauthorized existing fare is illegal and invalid, as it is Register were not complied with.
tantamount to undue delegation of legislative authority. Under HELD:
the maxim potestas delegate non delegari potest The second and first grounds are unmeritorious. Article 36 of the
– Labor Code grantsthe Labor Secretary the power to restrict
and regulate recruitment and placement
“whathas been delegated cannot be delegated.” activities.I t r e a d s : “ T h e S e c r e t a r y o f L a b o r s h a l l h a
The policy allowing provincial bus operators to change and v e t h e p o w e r t o r e s t r i c t a n d r e g u l a t e t h e recruitm
increase their fares wouldresult not only to a chaotic situation ent and placement activities of all agencies within the
but to an anarchic state of affairs. This would leavethe riding c o v e r a g e o f t h i s t i t l e [Regulation of Recruitment and Plac
public at the mercy of transport operators who may increase ement Activities] and is hereby authorized to issueorders and
fares, everyhour, every day, every month or every year, promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the objectives and
whenever it pleases them or whenever theydeem it necessary implement theprovisions of this title.” On the other hand, the
to do so. Furthermore, under the Section 16 (a) of Public scope of the regulatory authority of thePOEA, which was
created by Executive Order No. 797 to take over the
Service Act, there must be proper notice and hearing in
functions of theOverseas Employment Development Board, the
the fixing of rates, to arrive at a just andreasonable rate
National Seamen Board, and the overseasemployment functions of
acceptable to both the public utility and the public. the Bureau of Employment Services, is broad and far-ranging
fora m o n g t h e f u n c t i o n s i n h e r i t e d b y t h e
P O E A f r o m t h e d e f u n c t B u r e a u o f E m p l o y m e n t Services
was the power and duty to establish and maintain a registration and/or
Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Torres licensingsystem to regulate private sector participation in
the recruitment and placement of d e c r e e s a n d e x e c u t i v e o r d e r s promulgated by the
workers,locally and overseas; it assumed President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever thesame are
from the defunct Overseas Employment DevelopmentBoard validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferredby
the power and duty to recruit and place workers for overseas the Constitution: Administrative rules and regulations must also
employment of Filipinocontract workers on a government be publishedif their purpose is to enforce or implement
to government arrangement and in such other sectors aspolicy may existing law pursuant to a
dictate; and from the National Seamen Board, the POEA validdelegation.I n t e r p r e t a t i v e r e g u l a t i o n s a n d t h o s e m e r
took over to regulateand supervise the activities of agents e l y i n t e r n a l i n n a t u r e , t h a t i s , regulating only the personnel of
or representatives of shipping companies in the hiringof seamen for the administrative agency and the public,
overseas employment; and secure the best possible terms of needn o t b e p u b l i s h e d . N e i t h e r i s p u b l i c a t i o n r e q u i r e d
employment forcontract seamen workers and secure compliance of the so-
therewith.Said administrative issuances merely restricted the scope c a l l e d l e t t e r o f instructions issued by the administrative su
or area of PASEI’s businessoperations by excluding therefrom periors concerning the rules orguidelines to be followed
recruitment and deployment of domestic helpers forHong by their subordinates in the performance of theirduties.”
Kong till after the establishment of the “mechanisms” that will enhance
the protectionof Filipino domestic helpers going to Hong Kong. Miriam Defensor- Santiago vs. COMELEC
In fine, other than the recruitment anddeployment of Filipino G.R No. 127325
domestic helpers for Hong Kong, PASEI may still deploy other class March 19, 1997
of Filipino workers either for Hong Kong and other countries
and all other classes of Filipino workers for other countries. Said FACTS:
administrative issuances, are intended to curtail, if not On December 6, 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, founding member of the Movement
toe n d , r a m p a n t v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e r u l e a g a i n s t e x c e s s i v for People's Initiative, filed with the COMELEC a "Petition to Amend the
e c o l l e c t i o n s o f p l a c e m e n t a n d documentation fees, travel Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative"
fees citing Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Acting on the petition, the
and other charges committed by private employmentagencie COMELEC set the case for hearing and directed Delfin to have the petition
s recruiting and deploying domestic helpers to Hong Kong. published. After the hearing the arguments between petitioners and opposing
They are parties, the COMELEC directed Delfin and the oppositors to file their
reasonable,v a l i d a n d j u s t i f i e d u n d e r t h e g e n e r a l w "memoranda and/or oppositions/memoranda" within five days. On December
e l f a r e c l a u s e o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , s i n c e t h e recruit 18, 1996, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria
ment and deployment business, as it is conducted today, Isabel Ongpin filed a special civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 raising
is affected with publicinterest. the following arguments, among others:
1.) That the Constitution can only be amended by people’s initiative if there is
Nevertheless, they are legally invalid, defective and unenforceable for an enabling law passed by Congress, to which no such law has yet been passed;
lack of powerpublication and filing in the Office of the National and
Administrative Register. As announced in 2.) That R.A. 6735 does not suffice as an enabling law on people’s initiative on
Tañada vs. Tuvera the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative.
,“All statutes
, including those of local application and private laws, shall ISSUE:
bepublished as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin WON R.A. No. 6735 sufficient to enable amendment of the Constitution by
fifteen days afterpublication unless a different effectivity date is fixed people’s initiative.
the legislature.C o v e r e d b y t h i s r u l e a r e p r e s i d e n t i a l WON RA 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to the
Constitution, and if so WON the Act as worded adequately covers such respondent to forthwith dismiss the Delfin Petition . TRO issued on 18
initiative. December 1996 is made permanent.

WON COMELEC Res. No. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on WHEREFORE, petition is GRANTED.
amendments to the constitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of
specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative? US VS ANG TANG HO

WON the lifting of term limits of elective national and local official, as Facts:
proposed in the draft petition would constitute a revision of , or an amendment During a special session, the Philippine Legislature passed and approved Act
of the constitution. No. 2868 entitled An Act Penalizing the Monopoly and Hoarding of Rice,
Palay and Corn. The said act under extraordinary circumstances authorizes
WON the COMELEC can take cognizance of or has jurisdiction over the petition. the Governor General to issue the necessary Rules and Regulations in
regulating the distribution of such products. Pursuant to this Act, the
WON it is proper for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the petition Governor General issued Executive Order 53 fixing the price at which rice
when there is a pending case before the COMELEC. should be sold.
Ang Tang Ho, a rice dealer, voluntarily, criminally and illegally sold a ganta of
HELD: rice to Pedro Trinidad at the price of eighty centavos. The said amount was
NO. R.A. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to way higher than that prescribed by the Executive Order. He was charged in
the Constitution. violation of the said Executive Order and was found guilty as charged and
was sentenced to 5 months imprisonment plus a P500.00 fine. He appealed
Under the said law, initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals
the sentence countering that there was an undue delegation of power to
to AMEND. The people are not accorded the power to "directly propose, enact,
the Governor General.
approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution" through the system of
initiative. They can only do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or
resolutions." The use of the clause "proposed laws sought to be enacted,
Whether or not there was an undue delegation of power to the Governor
approved or rejected, amended or repealed" denotes that R.A. No. 6735
excludes initiative on amendments to the Constitution.

Also, while the law provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum Discussions:
and for Local Initiative and Referendum, no subtitle is provided for initiative on By the terms of the Organic Act, subject only to constitutional limitations,
the Constitution. This means that the main thrust of the law is initiative and the power to legislate and enact laws is vested exclusively in the Legislative,
referendum on national and local laws. If R.A. No. 6735 were intended to fully which is elected by a direct vote of the people of the Philippine Islands. As
provide for the implementation of the initiative on amendments to the to the question here involved, the authority of the Governor-General to fix
Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in the maximum price at which palay, rice and corn may be sold in the manner
the order of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the right of power in violation of the organic law.
the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is far more Act No. 2868, as analysed by the Court, wholly fails to provide definitely and
important than the initiative on national and local laws. clearly what the standard policy should contain, so that it could be put in
use as a uniform policy required to take the place of all others without the
While R.A. No. 6735 specially detailed the process in implementing initiative determination of the insurance commissioner in respect to matters
and referendum on national and local laws, it intentionally did not do so on the involving the exercise of a legislative discretion that could not be delegated,
system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. and without which the act could not possibly be put in use. The law must be
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is hereby declared void and orders the complete in all its terms and provisions when it leaves the legislative branch
of the government and nothing must be left to the judgment of the electors
or other appointee or delegate of the legislature, so that, in form and Department of Agrarian Reform, represented by Secretary Jose Mari B.
substance, it is a law in all its details in presenti, but which may be left to Ponce (OIC) vs. Delia T.Sutton, Ella T. Sutton-Soliman and Harry T.
take effect in future, if necessary, upon the ascertainment of any prescribed SuttonG.R. No. 162070 (October 19, 2005)
fact or event.
FACTS:Respondents herein inherited a land which has been devoted
YNOT VS IAC exclusively to cow and calf breeding. Pursuant to the then existing agrarian
reform program of the government, respondentsmade a voluntary offer to sell
(VOS) their landholdings to petitioner DAR to avail of certainincentives
There had been an existing law which prohibited the slaughtering of under the law. a new agrarian law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, also
carabaos (EO 626). To strengthen the law, Marcos issued EO 626-A known as theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988, took
which not only banned the movement of carabaos from interprovinces effect. It included in its coveragefarms used for raising livestock, poultry and
but as well as the movement of carabeef. On 13 Jan 1984, Ynot was swine. Thereafter, in an en banc decision in the caseof Luz Farms v.
caught transporting 6 carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo. He was then Secretary of DAR this Court ruled that lands devoted to livestock and
charged in violation of EO 626-A. Ynot averred EO 626-A as poultry-raising are not included in the definition of agricultural land. Hence,
unconstitutional for it violated his right to be heard or his right to due we declared asunconstitutional certain provisions of the CARL insofar as
process. He said that the authority provided by EO 626-A to outrightly they included livestock farms in thecoverage of agrarian reform. Thus,
confiscate carabaos even without being heard is unconstitutional. The respondents filed with petitioner DAR a formal request towithdraw their
lower court ruled against Ynot ruling that the EO is a valid exercise of VOS as their landholding was devoted exclusively to cattle-raising and
police power in order to promote general welfare so as to curb down thusexempted from the coverage of the CARL. However, DAR issued A.O.
the indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos. No. 9, series of1993 which provided that only portions of private agricultural
ISSUE: Whether or not the law is valid. lands used for the raising oflivestock, poultry and swine as of June 15, 1988
shall be excluded from the coverage of theCARL. The DAR Secretary issued
HELD: The SC ruled that the EO is not valid as it indeed violates due an Order partially granting the application of respondents forexemption from
process. EO 626-A ctreated a presumption based on the judgment of the coverage of CARL but applying the retention limits outlined in the
the executive. The movement of carabaos from one area to the other DARA.O. No. 9. Respondents moved for reconsideration. They contend that
does not mean a subsequent slaughter of the same would ensue. their entire landholdingshould be exempted as it is devoted exclusively to
Ynot should be given to defend himself and explain why the carabaos cattle-raising and appealing that the DARA.O. No. 9 be declared
are being transferred before they can be confiscated. The SC found unconstitutional.
that the challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power
because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is not ISSUE:Whether or not DAR Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 1993
reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly which prescribes amaximum retention for owners of lands devoted to
oppressive. Due process is violated because the owner of the livestock raising is constitutional?
property confiscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and
is immediately condemned and punished. The conferment on the HELD:The A.O. sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in the
administrative authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of the coverage ofagrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for
supposed offender is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and their ownership is invalid as itcontravenes the Constitution.
militates against the doctrine of separation of powers. There is, finally, .
also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the officers The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swineand poultry-
mentioned therein who are granted unlimited discretion in the raising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of
distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken. “agriculture”or “agricultural activity.”
The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop ortree W/N Ordinance No. 11 Series of 1991 and Ordinance No. 7, Series of
farming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural activity. DAR has no power to 1998 are valid in the exercise of such delegated power to local government
regulatelivestock farms which have been exempted by the Constitution from acting only as agents of the national legislature?
the coverage of agrarianreform. It has exceeded its power in issuing
the assailed A.O. The assailed A.O. of petitionerDAR was properly stricken Held:
down as unconstitutional as it enlarges the coverage of agrarianreform
beyond the scope intended by the 1987 Constitution No, the Court rendered judgment: 1) declaring Ordinance No. 11,
Series of 1991, of the MMA and Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1998, of the
Solicitor General vs. Metropolitan Manila Authority Municipality of Mandaluyong, Null and Void; and 2) enjoining all law-
enforcement authorities in Metropolitan Manila from removing the license
Facts: plates of motor vehicles (except when authorized under LOI43) and
confiscating driver’s licenses for traffic violations within the said area.
On July 13, 1990 the Court held in the case of Metropolitan Traffic
Command, West Traffic District vs. Hon. Arsenio M. Gonong, that the To test the validity of said acts the principles governing municipal
confiscation of the license plates of motor vehicles for traffic violations was corporations was applied, according to Elliot for a municipal ordinance to be
not among the sanctions that could be imposed by the Metro Manila valid the following requisites should be complied: 1) must not contravene
Commission under PD 1605 and was permitted only under the conditions the Constitution or any statute; 2) must not be unfair or oppressive; 3) must
laid down by LOI 43 in the case of stalled vehicles obstructing the public not be partial or discriminatory; 4) must not prohibit but may regulate
streets. Even the confiscation of driver’s licenses for traffic violations was trade; 5) must not be unreasonable; and 6) must be general and consistent
not directly prescribed or allowed by the decree. After no motion for with public policy.
reconsideration of the decision was filed the judgment became final and
executor. In the Gonong decision it was shown that the measures under
consideration did not pass the first criterion because it did not conform to
Withstanding the Gonong decision still violations of the said existing law. PD 1605 does not allow either the removal of license plates or
decision transpired, wherein there were several persons who sent the confiscation of driver’s licenses for traffic violations committed in
complaint letters to the Court regarding the confiscation of driver’s licenses Metropolitan Manila. There is nothing in the decree authorizing the MMA
and removal of license plate numbers. to impose such sanctions. Thus Local political subdivisions are able to
legislate only by virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power from the
On May 24, 1990 the MMA issued Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1991, national legislature (except only that the power to create their own sources
authorizing itself “to detach license plate/tow and impound of revenue and to levy taxes is conferred by the Constitution itself). They
attended/unattended/abandoned motor vehicles illegally parked or are mere agents vested with what is called the power of subordinate
obstructing the flow of traffic in Metro Manila.” legislation. As delegates of the Congress, the local government unit cannot
On July 2, 1991, the Court issued a resolution regarding the matter contravene but must obey at all times the will of the principal. In the case
which stated that the Ordinance No. 11, Section 2 appears to be in conflict at bar the enactments in question, which are merely local in origin, cannot
with the decision of the Court, and that the Court has received several prevail against the decree, which has the force and effect of a statute.
complaints against the enforcement of such ordinance.

Issue: Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. vs. de la Serna228 SCRA 329, Dec. 10,
P.D. No. 851 provides for the Thirteen-Month Pay Law. Under Sec. 1 of said petitioner, petitioners, through common counsel,
law, “allemployers are required to pay all their employees receiving basic attributegrave abuse of discretion to respondent labor officialsHon. Dionisio
salary of not more than P1,000.00 a month, regardless of the nature of the dela Serna and Undersecretary Cresenciano B. Trajano.
employment, and such should be paid onDecember 24 of every year.” The
Rules and Regulations Implementing P.D. 851 containedprovisions defining ISSUE:
“13-month pay” and “basic salary” and the employers exempted Whether or not commissions are included in the computation of 13-
fromgiving it and to whom it is made applicable. Supplementary Rules and R month pay
egulationsImplementing P.D. 851 were subsequently issued by Minister
Ople which inter alia set items of compensation not included in the HELD:
computation of 13-month pay. (overtime pay, earnings NO. Contrary to respondent’s contention, M.O No. 28 did not repeal,
andother remunerations which are not part of basic salary shall not be inclu supersede orabrogate P.D. 851. As may be gleaned from the language of
ded in thecomputation of 13-month pay). Pres. Corazon Aquino promulgated MO No. 28, it merely “modified”Section 1 of the decree by removing the P
on August 13, 1985 M.O.No. 28, containing a single provision that modifies 1,000.00 salary ceiling. The concept of 13th Monthpay as envisioned,
P.D. 851 by removing the salary ceiling of P1,000.00 a month. More than a defined and implemented under P.D. 851 remained unaltered, and
year later, Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the13-month pay whileentitlement to said benefit was no longer limited to employees
law was promulgated by the then Labor Secretary Franklin Drilon, among receiving a monthly basicsalary of not more than P 1,000.00 said benefit
otherthings, defined particularly what remunerative items were and were no was, and still is, to be computed on the basicsalary of the employee-recipient
t included in theconcept of 13-month pay, and specifically dealt with as provided under P.D. 851. Thus, the interpretation given tothe term “basic
employees who are paid a fixed orguaranteed wage plus commission or salary” was defined in PD 851 applies equally to “basic salary” under M.O.
commissions were included in the computation of 13thmonth No.28. The term “basic salary” is to be understood in its common, generally
pay)A routine inspection was conducted in the premises of petitioner. Findin accepted meaning,i.e., as a rate of pay for a standard work period exclusive
g thatpetitioner had not been including the commissions earned by its of such additional payments asbonuses and overtime. In remunerative
medical representatives inthe computation of their 1-month pay, a Notice of schemes consists of a fixed or guaranteed wage pluscommission, the fixed or
Inspection Result was served on petitionerto effect restitution or correction guaranteed wage is patently the “basic salary” for this is what
of “the underpayment of 13-month pay for the years, 1986 to1988 of theemployee receives for a standard work period. Commissions are given for
Medical representatives. Petitioner wrote the Labor Department contesting extra effortsexerted in consummating sales of other related transactions.
the Noticeof Inspection Results, They are, as such, additionalpay, which the SC has made clear do not from
and expressing the view that the commission paid to its medicalrepresentati part of the “basic salary.”Moreover, the Supreme Court said that, including
ves are not to be included in the computation of the 13-moth pay since the commissions in the computation of the
lawand its implementing rules speak of REGULAR or BASIC salary 13thmonth pay, the second paragraph of Section 5(a) of the Revised Guideli
and therefore exclude allremunerations which are not part of the REGULAR nes on the Implementation of the 13th Month Pay Law unduly expanded the
salary. Regional Dir. Luna Piezas issued anorder for the payment of concept of "basic salary" asdefined in P.D. 851. It is a fundamental rule that
underpaid 13-month pay for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988. Amotion for implementing rules cannot add to or detractfrom the provisions of the law it
reconsideration was filed and the then Acting labor Secretary Dionisio de la is designed to implement. Administrative regulations adoptedunder
Sernaaffirmed the order with modification that the sales commission earned legislative authority by a particular department must be in harmony with the
of medicalrepresentatives before August 13, 1989 (effectivity date of MO 28 provisionsof the law they are intended to carry into effect. They cannot wide
and its implementingguidelines) shall be excluded in the computation of the n its scope. Anadministrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.
13-month pay.Similar routine inspection was conducted in the premises of
Phil. Fuji Xerox where itwas found there was underpayment of 13th month
pay since commissions were not included.In their almost identically-worded
UNITED BF HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATON, and HOME clubhouse, securing all entry and exit points, impeding orpreventing
INSURANCE AND GUARANTY CORPORATION, the execution and sale of properties and otherwise repudiating or
petitioners,vs. invalidating any contract or agreement or petitioner with the
BF HOMES, INC., BFHI.Without filing an answer to petitioner UBFHAI's petition with the
respondents. HIGC, respondent BFHI filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
G.R. No. 124873 July 14, 1999 prohibitionfor the issuance of preliminary injunction and temporary
F a c t s : United BF Homeowners Association, Inc.(UBFHAI) restraining order, to enjoin HIGC from proceeding with the case.
is the sole representative of all homeowners of BF Homes 14 The HIGC issued an order deferring the resolution of petitioner
while BF Homes, Inc (BFHI) ist h e o w n e r - UBFHAI's application for preliminary injunction, until such time that
d e v e l o p e r o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n . Due to financial difficulties, respondentBFHI's application for prohibition with the appellate court
BFHI was placed under receivership by SEC for 10 years under Atty. has been resolved. When the twenty-day (20) effectivity of the
Orendain for 10 years.Atty. Florencio B. Orendain took over temporary restrainingorder had lapsed, the HIGC ordered the parties
management of respondent BFHI. Preliminary to the rehabilitation, to maintain the status quo15
Atty. Orendain entered into anagreement with the two major Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals granted respondent BFHI's petition
homeowners' associations, the BF Parañaque Homeowners for prohibition. Motion for reconsideration by the petitioners was
Association, Inc. (BFPHAI) and the Confederation of BFHomeowners denied.Hence this petition.
Association, Inc. (CBFHAI), for the creation of a single, representative
homeowners' association and the setting up of an integratedsecurity Issues: whether or not HIGC has jurisdiction and authority to hear the
program that would cover the eight (8) entry and exit points to and case as provided for in s
from the subdivision. Subsequently, this tripartite agreement ec1(b) rule II of HIGC’s rules of procedure.
wasreduced into a memorandum of agreement, and was
amended.Pursuant to these agreements, petitioner UBFHAI was R u l i n g : HIGC has no jurisdiction to hear the case.Originally,
created and registered with the Home Insurance and Guaranty administrative supervision was vested by law with the SEC but
Corporation (HIGC), pursuant to PD902-A, this function was delegated to the HIGC. As
6And recognized as the sole representative of all the homeowners' statedin PD92-
association inside the subdivision.Respondent BFHI, through its A, HIGC was given the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
receiver, turned over to petitioner UBFHAI the administration and decide homeowner’s disputes arising out of the followin
operation of the subdivision's clubhouse and astrip of open space g intra-corporate relations: 1. Between and among members
respectively.The first receiver was relieved and a new committee of of the association; 2.Between any and/or all of them and the
receivers, composed of respondent BFHI's board of directors was association of which theyare member; and 3.In so far as it
appointed. concerns its right to exist as a corporate entity,
9Based on BFHI's title to the main roads, the newly appointed between the association and the state.
committee of receivers sent a letter to the different homeowners' When HIGCadopte
association in thesubdivision informing them that as a basic d its revised rules of procedure in the hearing of homeowners’
requirement for BFHI's rehabilitation, respondent BFHI would be disputes, it added the phrase “
responsible for the security of thesubdivision in order to centralize it between the association and the
and abate the continuing proliferation of squatters. On the same day, state/general public or other entity.”
petitioner UBFHAI filed with the HIGC apetition for The HIGC went beyond the authority provided by the law when it
Mandamus with preliminary injunction against respondent BFHI promulgated the revised rules of procedure. There was a clear
alleging that the committee of receivers illegally revoked their attempt to undulyexpand the provisions of Presidential Decree 902-
securityagreement with the previous receiver.The HIGC issued ex A.The inclusion of the phrase
parte a TRO which enjoined respondent BFHI from taking over the GENERAL PUBLIC OR OTHER ENTITY
is a matter which HIGC cannot legally do . The rule-making power of a situated like them, with the Regional Trial Court of Manila a complaint for
publicadministrative body is a delegated legislative power, which it injunction with a prayer with the issuance of a writ of a preliminary
may not use either to abridge the authority given it by Congress or the injunction against respondent PRC to restrain the latter from enforcing the
Constitution orto enlarge its power beyond the scope intended. The above-mentioned resolution and to declare the same unconstitutional.
rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the mode
or proceedings tocarry into effect the law as it has been enacted, and Respondent PRC filed a motion to dismiss on October 21, 1987 on the
it cannot be extended to amend or expand the statutory requirements ground that the lower court had no jurisdiction to review and to enjoin the
or to embrace mattersnot covered by the statute." enforcement of its resolution. In an Order of October 21, 1987, the lower
26 court declared that it had jurisdiction to try the case and enjoined the
If a discrepancy occurs between the basic law and an implementing respondent commission from enforcing and giving effect to Resolution No.
rule or regulation, it is the former that prevails.Moreover, where the 105 which it found to be unconstitutional. Not satisfied therewith, respondent
legislature has delegated to an executive or administrative officers PRC, on November 10, 1986, an appeal with the Court of Appeals. The
and boards authority to promulgate rules to carry out anexpress petition was granted.
legislative purpose, the rules of administrative officers and boards,
which have the effect of extending, or which conflict with the authority- Issue:
granting statute, do not represent a valid exercise of the rule-making Whether or not Resolution No. 105 is constitutional.
power but constitute an attempt by an administrative body to
legislate. "Astatutory grant of powers should not be extended by Held:
implication beyond what may be necessary for their just and CA stated as basis its conclusion that PCS and RTC are co-equal branches.
reasonable execution. They relied heavily on the case of National Electrification Administration vs.
Mendoza where the Court held that a Court of First Instance cannot interfere
Lupangco vs. CA (G.R. No. 77372) with the orders of SEC, the two being a co-equal branch.
On or about October 6, 1986, herein respondent Professional Regulation SC said the cases cited by CA are not in point. It is glaringly apparent that
Commission (PRC) issued Resolution No. 105 as parts of its "Additional the reason why the Court ruled that the Court of First Instance could not
Instructions to Examinees," to all those applying for admission to take the interfere with the orders of SEC was that this was provided for by the law.
licensure examinations in accountancy: Nowhere in the said cases was it held that a Court of First Instance has no
jurisdiction over all other government agencies. On the contrary, the ruling
No examinee shall attend any review class, briefing, conference or the like was specifically limited to the SEC. The respondent court erred when it place
conducted by, or shall receive any hand-out, review material, or any tip from he SEC and PRC in the same category. There is no law providing for the next
any school, college or university, or any review center or the like or any course of action for a party who wants to question a ruling or order of the
reviewer, lecturer, instructor official or employee of any of the PRC. What is clear from PD No. 223 is that PRC is attached to the Office of
aforementioned or similar institutions during the three days immediately the President for general direction and coordination. Well settled in our
proceeding every examination day including examination day. jurisprudence the view that even acts of the Office of the President may be
reviewed by the RTC. In view of the foregoing, SC rules that RTC has
Any examinee violating this instruction shall be subject to the sanctions jurisdiction to entertain the case and enjoin PRC from enforcing its
prescribed by Sec. 8, Art. III of the Rules and Regulations of the resolution.
As to the validity of Resolution No. 105, although the resolution has a
On October 16, 1986, herein petitioners, all reviewees preparing to take the commendable purpose which is to preserve the integrity and purity of the
licensure examinations in accountancy schedule on October 25 and licensure examinations, the resolution is unreasonable in that an examinee
November 2 of the same year, filed on their own behalf of all others similarly cannot even attend and review class, briefing, conference or the like or
receive hand-out, review material, or any tip from any school, college or sentencing him to suffer 6 months imprisonment, pay fine of P1,000 with
university, or any review center. The unreasonableness is more obvious in subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
that one who is caught committing the prohibited acts even without ill
motives will be barred from taking future examinations. ISSUE: Whether or not publication of Circular 20 in the Official Gazette is
needed for it to become effective and subject violators to corresponding
Resolution No. 105 is not only unreasonable and arbitrary, it also infringes penalties.
on the examinees’ right to liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. PRC has no
authority to dictate on the reviewees as to how they should prepare
themselves for the licensure examinations specially if the steps they take are
It was held by the Supreme Court, in an en banc decision, that as a rule,
circular and regulations of the Central Bank in question prescribing a penalty
Another evident objection to Resolution No. 105 is that it violates the for its violation should be published before becoming effective. This is based
academic freedom of the schools concerned. PRC cannot interfere with the on the theory that before the public is bound by its contents especially its
conduct of review that review schools and centers believe would best enable penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must first be published for the
their enrollees to pass the examination. Unless the means and methods of people to be officially and specifically informed of such contents including
instruction are clearly found to be inefficient, impractical, or riddled with its penalties.
corruption, review schools and centers may not be stopped from helping out
their students. Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and acquit
the appellant, with costs de oficio.
The enforcement of Resolution No. 105 is not a guarantee that the alleged
leakages in the licensure examinations will be eradicated or at least TAÑADA VS. TUVERA
minimized. What is needed to be done by the respondent is to find out the
source of such leakages and stop it right there. 146 SCRA 446 (December 29, 1986)

The decision of the CA was REVERSE and SET ASIDE.
This is a motion for reconsideration of the decision promulgated on April 24,
1985. Respondent argued that while publication was necessary as a rule, it
TITLE: People of the Phils v Que Po Lay was not so when it was “otherwise” as when the decrees themselves
CITATION: 94 Phil 640 | GR No. 6791, March 29, 1954 declared that they were to become effective immediately upon their
The appellant was in possession of foreign exchange consisting of US ISSUES:
dollars, US checks and US money orders amounting to about $7000 but
1. Whether or not a distinction be made between laws of general applicability
failed to sell the same to the Central Bank as required under Circular No. 20. and laws which are not as to their publication;
2. Whether or not a publication shall be made in publications of general
Circular No. 20 was issued in the year 1949 but was published in the Official circulation.
Gazette only on Nov. 1951 after the act or omission imputed to Que Po Lay.
Que Po Lay appealed from the decision of the lower court finding him guilty The clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity
of violating Central Bank Circular No. 20 in connection with Sec 34 of RA 265 and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot in any event be
omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law
effective immediately upon approval, or in any other date, without its previous Administrative Order No. 84-1. It was alleged that theyengaged in
publication. electro fishing.- Upon motion of the accused, the municipal court
dismissed the case. CFI affirmed. The lower court held that electro
“Laws” should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, fishing cannot be penalized because electric current is not an
for strictly speaking, all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are obnoxious orpoisonous substance as contemplated in section II of the
some that do not apply to them directly. A law without any bearing on the
Fisheries Law. The lower court furtherheld that, since the law does not
public would be invalid as an intrusion of privacy or as class legislation or as
an ultra vires act of the legislature. To be valid, the law must invariably affect clearly prohibit electro fishing, the executive and judicialdepartments
the public interest eve if it might be directly applicable only to one individual, cannot consider it unlawful.
or some of the people only, and not to the public as a whole. ISSUE/S
1. WON the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources exceeded
All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be his authority in issuingFisheries Administrative Order No. 84
published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin 15 days after HELD
publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. 1. YES.
Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all, since its purpose is to
The rule-making power must be confined to details for regulating the
inform the public of the content of the law.
mode or proceeding tocarry into effect the law as it his been enacted.
Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that publication of laws must be made in The power cannot be extended to amending orexpanding the statutory
the Official Gazette, and not elsewhere, as a requirement for their effectivity. requirements or to embrace matters not covered by the statute
The Supreme Court is not called upon to rule upon the wisdom of a law or to Reasoning
repeal or modify it if it finds it impractical. The Fisheries Law does not expressly prohibit electro fishing. As
electro fishing is not banned under that law, the Secretary of
The publication must be made forthwith, or at least as soon as possible. Agriculture and Natural Resources and the Commissionerof Fisheries
are powerless to penalize it. Had the lawmaking body intended to
J. Cruz: punish electro fishing, a penal provision to that effect could have been
easily embodied in the old Fisheries Law.Nowhere in the said law is
Laws must come out in the open in the clear light of the sun instead of electro fishing specifically punished.Administrative agents are clothed
skulking in the shadows with their dark, deep secrets. Mysterious
with rule-making powers because the lawmaking body
pronouncements and rumored rules cannot be recognized as binding unless
their existence and contents are confirmed by a valid publication intended to finds it impracticable, if not impossible, to anticipate and provide for
make full disclosure and give proper notice to the people. The furtive law is the multifarious and complexsituations that may be encountered in
like a scabbarded saber that cannot faint, parry or cut unless the naked blade enforcing the law. All that is required is that the regulationshould be
is drawn. germane to the defects and purposes of the law and that it
should conform to thestandards that the law prescribes
PEOPLE v MACEREN Disposition
79 SCRA 450AQUINO; October 18, 1977 Decision affirmed
Section 11 of the Fisheries Law prohibits "the use of any obnoxious or
poisonous substance" infishing.- The Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, upon the recommendation of theCommissioner of
Fisheries, promulgated Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84 (62
O.G. 1224),prohibiting electro fishing in all Philippine waters.- Jose
Buenaventura, Godofredo Reyes, Benjamin Reyes, Nazario Aquino
and Carlito del Rosariowere charged with having violated Fisheries
penalizes it. Nowhere inAct No. 1760 is a violation of the orders of the
G.R. No. L-9876US VS. PANLILIO Bureau of Agriculture made a penal offense, nor is suchviolation
Doctrine: punished in any way therein. However, the accused did violate Art.
The orders, rules and regulations of an administrative officers or body issued 581, par 2 of the PenalCode which punishes any person who violates
pursuant to a statute havethe force of law but are not penal in nature and a regulations or ordinances with reference to epidemicdisease among
violation of such orders is not a offense punishable by law unless the statute animals
expressly penalizes such violation.
FACTS: In Feb. 1913, all of the carabaos belonging to accused, Panlilio
having been exposed to the dangerousand contagious disease known PEOPLE VS SANTOS
as rinderpest, were, in accordance with an order of duly-
authorizedagent of the Director of Agriculture, duly quarantined in a On June 18, 1930, the provincial fiscal of Cavite filed against the accused
corral in the barrio of Masamat, Pampanga;that, on said place, -appellee Augusta A. Santos an information which reads as follows:
Panlilio, illegally and voluntarily and without being authorized so to
do, and whilethe quarantine against said carabaos was still in force, The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses Augusta A. Santos of
permitted and ordered said carabaos to betaken from the corral in violation of section 28 of Fish and Game Administrative Order No.
which they were then quarantined and conducted from one place to 2 and penalized by section 29 thereof committed as follows:
another;that by virtue of said orders of the accused, his servants
and agents took the said carabaos from thesaid corral and drove them That on or about April 29, 1935, within 1,500 yards north of
from one place to another for the purpose of working them.The Cavalry Point, Corregidor Island, Province of Cavite, P.I., the said
accused was convicted of violation of Act 1760 relating to accused Augusta A. Santos, the registered owner of two fishing
the quarantining of animals sufferingfrom dangerous communicable motor boats Malabon IIand Malabon III, did then and there
or contagious diseases and sentencing him to pay a fine of P40 willfully, unlawfully and criminally have his said boats, manned
withsubsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the and operated by his fishermen, fish, loiter and anchor without
costs of trial. The accused contendsthat the facts alleged in the permission from the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce
information and proved on the trial do not constitute a violation of within three (3) kilometers from the shore line of the Island of
Act No. 1760 Corregidor over which the naval and military authorities of the
United States exercise jurisdiction.
ISSUE:Whether accused can be penalized for violation of the order
of the Bureau of Agriculture? Contrary to law.

HELD:NO. Nowhere in the law is the violation of the orders of the Cavite, Cavite, June 18, 1935.
Bureau of Agriculture prohibited or madeunlawful, nor is there
provided any punishment for a violation of such orders. Section 8 of Section 28 of Administrative Order No. 2 relative to fish and game, issued
Act No.1760 provides that any person violating any of the provisions by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, provides as follows:
of the Act shall, upon conviction, bepunished. However, the only
sections of the Act which prohibit acts and pronounce them 28. Prohibited fishing areas. — No boats licensed in accordance
as unlawfulare Sections 3, 4 and 5. This case does not fall within any with the provisions of Act No. 4003 and this order to catch,
of them. A violation of the orders of theBureau of Agriculture, as collect, gather, take, or remove fish and other sea products from
authorized by paragraph, is not a violation of the provision of the Act. Philippine waters shall be allowed to fish, loiter, or anchor within 3
Theorders of the Bureau of Agriculture, while they may possibly be kilometers of the shore line of islands and reservations over
said to have the force of law, arestatutes and particularly not penal which jurisdiction is exercised by naval or military authorities of
statutes, and a violation of such orders is not a penal offenseunless the the United States, particularly Corregidor, Pulo Caballo, La
statute itself somewhere makes a violation thereof unlawful and Monja, El Fraile, and Carabao, and all other islands and detached
rocks lying between Mariveles Reservation on the north side of recommendation of the military and naval authorities of
the entrance to Manila Bay and Calumpan Point Reservation on concerned. (Emphasis supplied.)
the south side of said entrance: Provided, That boats not subject
to license under Act No. 4003 and this order may fish within the Act No. 4003 contains no similar provision prohibiting boats not subject to
areas mentioned above only upon receiving written permission license from fishing within three kilometers of the shore line of islands
therefor, which permission may be granted by the Secretary of and reservations over which jurisdiction is exercised by naval and military
Agriculture and Commerce upon recommendation of the military authorities of the United States, without permission from the Secretary of
or naval authorities concerned. Agriculture and Commerce upon recommendation of the military and
naval authorities concerned. Inasmuch as the only authority granted to
A violation of this paragraph may be proceeded against under the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, by section 4 of Act No. 4003,
section 45 of the Federal Penal Code. is to issue from time to time such instructions, orders, rules, and
regulations consistent with said Act, as may be necessary and proper to
The above quoted provisions of Administrative, Order No. 2 were issued carry into effect the provisions thereof and for the conduct of proceedings
by the then Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, now arising under such provisions; and inasmuch as said Act No. 4003, as
Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, by virtue of the authority vested stated, contains no provisions similar to those contained in the above
in him by section 4 of Act No. 4003 which reads as follows: quoted conditional clause of section 28 of Administrative Order No. 2, the
conditional clause in question supplies a defect of the law, extending it.
SEC. 4. Instructions, orders, rules and regulations. — The This is equivalent to legislating on the matter, a power which has not
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources shall from time to been and cannot be delegated to him, it being exclusively reserved to the
time issue such instructions, orders, rules and regulations then Philippine Legislature by the Jones Law, and now to the National
consistent with this Act, as may be necessary and proper to carry Assembly by the Constitution of the Philippines. Such act constitutes not
into effect the provisions thereof and for the conduct of only an excess of the regulatory power conferred upon the Secretary of
proceedings arising under such provisions. Agriculture and Commerce, but also an exercise of a legislative power
which he does not have, and therefore said conditional clause is null and
void and without effect (12 Corpus Juris, 845; Rubi vs. Provincial Board
The herein accused and appellee Augusto A. Santos is charged with
of Mindoro, 39 Phil., 660; U.S. vs. Ang Tang Ho, 43 Phil., 1; U.S. vs.
having ordered his fishermen to manage and operate the motor
Barrias, 11 Phil., 327).
launches Malabon II and Malabon Ill registered in his name and to fish,
loiter and anchor within three kilometers of the shore line of the Island of
Corregidor over which jurisdiction is exercised by naval and military For the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold that
authorities of the United States, without permission from the Secretary of the conditional clause of section 28 of Administrative Order No. 2. issued
Agriculture and Commerce. by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, is null and void and
without effect, as constituting an excess of the regulatory power
conferred upon him by section 4 of Act No. 4003 and an exercise of a
These acts constitute a violation of the conditional clause of section 28
legislative power which has not been and cannot be delegated to him.
above quoted, which reads as follows:
Wherefore, inasmuch as the facts with the commission of which Augusto
Provided, That boats not subject to license under Act No. 4003
A. Santos is charged do not constitute a crime or a violation of some
and this order may fish within the areas mentioned above (within
criminal law within the jurisdiction of the civil courts, the information filed
3 kilometers of the shore line of islands and reservations over
against him is dismissed, with the costs de oficio. So ordered.
which jurisdiction is exercised by naval and military authorities of
the United States, particularly Corregidor) only upon receiving
written permission therefor, which permission may be granted by
the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce upon
Perez v LPG Refillers (2006) regulations shall take effect fifteen (15) days from the date of its
publication in two(2) newspapers of general circulation.
Quisumbing, J. “The Bureau of Energy Utilization is empowered to impose i
n an administrative proceeding, after duenotice and hearing, upon any
FACTS: person who violates any provision of such rules and regulations, a fine
of notmore than ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or to suspend or
BP Blg. 33 was enacted to penalize illegal trading, hoarding, remove the license or permit of a hauler,marketer, refiller, dealer, sub-
overpricing, adulteration, underdelivery, andunderfilling of petroleum dealer or retail outlet:
products, as well as possession for trade of adulterated petroleum Provided,
products and ofunderfilled liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders. That hearing in any administrative proceedingsmay be waived by
The law sets a minimum of P20,000 and a maximum of P50,000 as respondent.
Provided, Further,
That during the pendency of such administrativeproceeding, the
The Department of Energy issued Circular No. 2000-06-010 to Bureau may suspend the business operations of such hauler,
implement the law. marketer, refiller, dealer, sub-dealer or retailer or retail outlet operator
Respondent LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines asked the when the suspension is consistent with public interest.

DOE to set aside the Circular for beingcontrary to law but to no avail,
hence they filed an action before the RTC to nullify the circular.
“The administrative sanction that may be imposed shall be without
RTC granted the petition and nullified the Circular on the ground prejud
that it introduced new offenses not included inthe statute. ice to the filing of a criminal
o Moreover, in providing penalties on a per cylinder basis for each action as the case may warrant.”
violation, there is a possibility that theP50,000 maximum penalty o
might be exceeded. §23 of RA 8479 (Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1998):
o The Circular has a range of P1,000-5,000/cylinder for first offenses Section 23.
and a range of P5,000-10k/cylinderfor third offenses. For retails I m p l em e nt i ng R u le s a nd R eg u l at i o ns
outlets, the max penalty is 20k. . –The DOE, in coordination with the Board, the DENR,DFA,
oAside from the monetary fines, some offenses also include the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), Department of Health
recommendation the closure of thebusiness to the proper LGU. (DOH), DOF, DTI, NationalEconomic and Development Authority
(NEDA) and TLRC, shall formulate and issue the
Meanwhile, petitioner Sec. Perez of the DOE argues that DOE is
necessaryimplementing rules and regulations within sixty (60)
empowered by the ff.provisions to penalize theacts it enumerated in days after the effectivity of this Act.
the circular: o §5(g) and §21 of RA 7638 (Department of Energy Act of 1992):
oBP Blg. 33, as amended: (g) Formulate and implement programs, including a system of
“SEC. 3 providing incentives and penalties, for the judicious and efficient use
-A. of energy in all energy-consuming sectors of the economy;xxxSubject
Rules and Regulations; Administrative sanctions for violation thereof. to existing rules and regulations, the funds and monies collected or
– which the otherwise come intothe possession of the Department and
The Bureau of EnergyUtilization shall issue such rules and its bureaus from fees, surcharges, fines, and penalties which
regulations as are necessary to carry into effect the provisions of theDepartment and its bureaus may impose and collect under this Act
thisAct, subject to the approval of the Minister of Energy, after ISSUES + RULING:
consultation with the affected industrysectors. Said rules and WoN the Circular is valid/legal.
For an administrative regulation, to have the force of penal law, the
following must concur:
othe violation of the administrative regulation must be made a crime
by the delegating statute itself; and
othe penalty for such violation must be provided by the statute itself
As for the
first requirement:
o BP Blg 33 only states merely lists the various modes by which the
said criminal acts may be perpetrated,namely: no price display board,
no weighing scale, no tare weight or incorrect tare weight markings,
noauthorized LPG seal, no trade name, unbranded LPG cylinders, no
serial number, no distinguishing color,no embossed identifying
markings on cylinder, underfilling LPG cylinders, tampering LPG
cylinders, andunauthorized decanting of LPG cylinders.
o The acts and omissions stated in the circular are well within the
modes contemplated by the law andserve the purpose of curbing
pernicious practices of LPG dealers.

As for the
second requirement:
o The statute provides a minimum and maximum amount as
oThe maximum pecuniary penalty for retail outlets is P20,000, an
amount within the range allowed bylaw. While the circular is silent as
to the max penalty for refillers, marketers, and dealers, such does
notamount to violation of the statutory maximum limit.
oThe mere fact that the Circular provides penalties on a per cylinder
basis does not in itself run counter tothe law since all that B.P. Blg. 33
prescribes are the minimum and the maximum limits of penalties.

The law was intended to provide the DOE with increased

administrative and penal measures with which toeffectively curtail
rampant adulteration and shortselling, as well as other acts involving
petroleum products, whichare inimical to public interest.
Petition granted.