Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
EH 405 Page 1
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
Such a provision does not declare, or set has laid down general rules for the
out, or indicate what information the guidance of the Commission, leaving to it
State requires, what is valuable to it, merely the carrying out of details in the
what it needs in order to impose correct exercise of the power so conferred. This,
and just taxation, supervision or control, we think, is not a delegation of legislative
or the facts which the State must have in authority.
order to deal justly and equitably with
such public utilities and to require them In the case at bar the provision
to deal justly and equitably with the complained of does not law "down the
State. The Legislature seems simply to general rules of action under which the
have authorized the Board of Public commission shall proceed." nor does it
Utility Commissioners to require what itself prescribe in detail what those
information the board wants. It would reports shall contain. Practically
seem that the Legislature, by the everything is left to the judgment and
provision in question, delegated to the discretion of the Board of Public Utility
Board of Public Utility Commissioners all Commissioners, which is unrestrained as
of its powers over a given subject-matter to when it shall act, why it shall act, how
in a manner almost absolute, and without it shall act, to what extent it shall act, or
laying down a rule or even making a what it shall act upon.
suggestion by which that power is to be
directed, guided or applied. The Legislature, by the provision in
question, has abdicated its powers and
The true distinction is between the functions in favor of the Board of Public
delegation of power to make the law, Utility Commissioners with respect to the
which necessarily involves a discretion as matters therein referred to, and that such
to what shall be, and conferring authority Act is in violation of the Act of Congress
or discretion as to its execution, to be of July 1, 1902. The Legislature, by the
exercised under and in pursuance of the provision referred to, has not asked for
law. The first cannot be done; to the the information which the State wants
latter no valid objection can be made. but has authorized and board to obtain
the information which the board wants.
The Supreme Court held that there was
no delegation of legislative power, it said:
The Congress may not delegate its US vs Tang Ho (1922) G.R. 17122
purely legislative powers to a
commission, but, having laid down Facts:
the general rules of action under
which a commission shall proceed, At its special session of 1919, the
it may require of that commission Philippine Legislature passed Act No.
the application of such rules to 2868, entitled "An Act penalizing the
particular situations and the monopoly and holding of, and
investigation of facts, with a view speculation in, palay, rice, and corn
to making orders in a particular under extraordinary circumstances,
matter within the rules laid down regulating the distribution and sale
by the Congress. thereof, and authorizing the Governor-
General, with the consent of the Council
In section 20 (of the Commerce Act), of State, to issue the necessary rules and
Congress has authorized the commission regulations therefor, and making an
to require annual reports. The act itself appropriation for this purpose".
prescribes in detail what those reports
shall contain. In other words, Congress
EH 405 Page 2
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
Section 3 defines what shall constitute a power is pointed out and clearly defined.
monopoly or hoarding of palay, rice or As the Supreme Court of Wisconsin says:
corn within the meaning of this Act, but That no part of the legislative power
does not specify the price of rice or can be delegated by the legislature to
define any basic for fixing the price. any other department of the
government, executive or judicial, is a
August 1, 1919, the Governor-General fundamental principle in constitutional
issued a proclamation fixing the price at law, essential to the integrity and
which rice should be sold. Then, on maintenance of the system of
August 8, 1919, a complaint was filed government established by the
against the defendant, Ang Tang Ho, constitution.
charging him with the sale of rice at an
excessive price. Upon this charge, he was Where an act is clothed with all the
tried, found guilty and sentenced. forms of law, and is complete in and of
The official records show that the Act was itself, it may be provided that it shall
to take effect on its approval; that it was become operative only upon some
approved July 30, 1919; that the certain act or event, or, in like
Governor-General issued his manner, that its operation shall be
proclamation on the 1st of August, 1919; suspended.
and that the law was first published on
the 13th of August, 1919; and that the The legislature cannot delegate its
proclamation itself was first published on power to make a law, but it can make
the 20th of August, 1919. a law to delegate a power to
determine some fact or state of things
Issue: upon which the law makes, or intends
to make, its own action to depend.
WON the delegation of legislative power
to the Governor General was valid. It must be conceded that, after the
passage of act No. 2868, and before any
Held: rules and regulations were promulgated
by the Governor-General, a dealer in rice
By the Organic Law, all Legislative power could sell it at any price, even at a peso
is vested in the Legislature, and the per "ganta," and that he would not
power conferred upon the Legislature to commit a crime, because there would be
make laws cannot be delegated to the no law fixing the price of rice, and the
Governor-General, or anyone else. The sale of it at any price would not be a
Legislature cannot delegate the crime. That is to say, in the absence of a
legislative power to enact any law. proclamation, it was not a crime to sell
rice at any price. Hence, it must follow
The case of the United States Supreme that, if the defendant committed a crime,
Court, supra dealt with rules and it was because the Governor-General
regulations which were promulgated by issued the proclamation. There was no
the Secretary of Agriculture for act of the Legislature making it a crime
Government land in the forest reserve. to sell rice at any price, and without the
proclamation, the sale of it at any price
These decisions hold that the legislative was to a crime.
only can enact a law, and that it cannot
delegate it legislative authority. When Act No. 2868 is analyzed, it is the
violation of the proclamation of the
The line of cleavage between what is and Governor-General which constitutes the
what is not a delegation of legislative crime. Without that proclamation, it was
EH 405 Page 3
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
no crime to sell rice at any price. In other for a permit to export one hundred bales
words, the Legislature left it to the sole of abaca to England, but was denied. He
discretion of the Governor-General to say was advised by the respondent that he
what was and what was not "any cause" would not be permitted to export the
for enforcing the act, and what was and abaca in question without a certificate
what was not "an extraordinary rise in from the Fiber Standardization Board.
the price of palay, rice or corn," and
under certain undefined conditions to fix So he filed a petition for a writ of
the price at which rice should be sold, mandamus, alleging that the provisions
without regard to grade or quality, also to of the Administrative Code for the
say whether a proclamation should be grading, inspection and certification of
issued, if so, when, and whether or not fibers, in particular, sections 1772 and
the law should be enforced, how long it 1244 of that Code, are unconstitutional
should be enforced, and when the law and void.
should be suspended. The Legislature did
not specify or define what was "any ISSUE:
cause," or what was "an extraordinary
rise in the price of rice, palay or corn," Whether or not the authority vested in
Neither did it specify or define the the Fiber Standardization Board is a
conditions upon which the proclamation delegation of legislative power.
should be issued. In the absence of the
proclamation no crime was committed. HELD: NO.
The alleged sale was made a crime, if at
all, because the Governor-General issued The Legislature has enacted a law which
the proclamation. The act or provides for the inspection, grading and
proclamation does not say anything baling of hemp before they can be
about the different grades or qualities of exported to other countries and the
rice, and the defendant is charged with creation of a board for that purpose,
the sale "of one ganta of rice at the price vesting it with the power and authority to
of eighty centavos (P0.80) which is a do the actual work.
price greater than that fixed by Executive
order No. 53." Such authority is not a delegation of
legislative power and is nothing more
We are clearly of the opinion and hold than a delegation of administrative
that Act No. 2868, in so far as it power in the Fiber Board to carry out the
undertakes to authorized the Governor- purpose and intent of the law. In the very
General in his discretion to issue a nature of things, the Legislature could
proclamation, fixing the price of rice, and not inspect, grade and bale the hemp,
to make the sale of rice in violation of the and from necessity, the power to do that
price of rice, and to make the sale of rice would have to be vested in a board or
in violation of the proclamation a crime, commission.
is unconstitutional and void.
The petitioner's contention would leave
the law, which provides for the
ALEGRE v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS inspection, grading and baling of hemp,
without any means of its enforcement. If
FACTS: the law cannot be enforced by such a
board or commission, how and by whom
Petitioner is engaged in the production of could it be enforced? The criticism that
abaca and its exportation to foreign there is partiality or even fraud in the
markets. He applied to the respondent
EH 405 Page 4
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
administration of the law is not an Works and Communications, in his
argument against its constitutionality. second indorsement addressed to the
Director of Public Works, approved the
recommendation of the latter that
PEOPLE v. VERA Rosario Street and Rizal Avenue be
closed to traffic of animal-drawn vehicles,
Calalang vs. Williams between the points and during the hours
[GR 47800, 2 December 1940] as indicated, for a period of 1 year from
the date of the opening of the Colgante
Facts: Bridge to traffic. The Mayor of Manila and
the Acting Chief of Police of Manila have
The National Traffic Commission, in its enforced and caused to be enforced the
resolution of 17 July 1940, resolved to rules and regulations thus adopted.
recommend to the Director of Public Maximo Calalang, in his capacity as a
Works and to the Secretary of Public private citizen and as a taxpayer of
Works and Communications that animal- Manila, brought before the Supreme
drawn vehicles be prohibited from court the petition for a writ of prohibition
passing along Rosario Street extending against A. D. Williams, as Chairman of
from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to the National Traffic Commission; Vicente
Dasmariñas Street, from 7:30 a.m. to Fragante, as Director of Public Works;
12:30 p.m. and from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 Sergio Bayan, as Acting Secretary of
p.m.; and along Rizal Avenue extending Public Works and Communications;
from the railroad crossing at Antipolo Eulogio Rodriguez, as Mayor of the City of
Street to Echague Street, from 7 a.m. to Manila; and Juan Dominguez, as Acting
11 p.m., from a period of one year from Chief of Police of Manila
the date of the opening of the Colgante
Bridge to traffic. The Chairman of the Issues:
National Traffic Commission, on 18 July
1940, recommended to the Director of Whether or not there is a undue
Public Works the adoption of the measure delegation of legislative power?
proposed in the resolution, in pursuance
of the provisions of Commonwealth Act Ruling:
548, which authorizes said Director of
Public Works, with the approval of the There is no undue deleagation of
Secretary of Public Works and legislative power. Commonwealth Act
Communications, to promulgate rules 548 does not confer legislative powers to
and regulations to regulate and control the Director of Public Works. The
the use of and traffic on national roads. authority conferred upon them and under
On 2 August 1940, the Director of Public which they promulgated the rules and
Works, in his first indorsement to the regulations now complained of is not to
Secretary of Public Works and determine what public policy demands
Communications, recommended to the but merely to carry out the legislative
latter the approval of the policy laid down by the National
recommendation made by the Chairman Assembly in said Act, to wit, “to promote
of the National Traffic Commission, with safe transit upon and avoid obstructions
the modification that the closing of Rizal on, roads and streets designated as
Avenue to traffic to animal-drawn national roads by acts of the National
vehicles be limited to the portion thereof Assembly or by executive orders of the
extending from the railroad crossing at President of the Philippines” and to close
Antipolo Street to Azcarraga Street. On them temporarily to any or all classes of
10 August 1940, the Secretary of Public traffic “whenever the condition of the
EH 405 Page 5
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
road or the traffic makes such action
necessary or advisable in the public FACTS
convenience and interest.”
The delegated power, if at all, therefore, - Petitioner was general manager in
is not the determination of what the law 1949 of NAFCO with annual salary
shall be, but merely the ascertainment of of P15,000.00
the facts and circumstances upon which - NAFCO Board of Directors granted
the application of said law is to be P400/mo. Quarters allowance to
predicated. petitioner amounting to P1,650 for
1949.
To promulgate rules and regulations on - This allowance was disapproved by
the use of national roads and to the Central Committee of the
determine when and how long a national government enterprise council
road should be closed to traffic, in view of under Executive Order No. 93 upon
the condition of the road or the traffic recommendation by NAFCO auditor
thereon and the requirements of public and concurred in by the Auditor
convenience and interest, is an general on two grounds
administrative function which cannot be a) It violates the charter of
directly discharged by the National NAFCO limiting manager’s
Assembly. salary to P15,000/year.
b) NAFCO is in precarious
It must depend on the discretion of some financial condition.
other government official to whom is
confided the duty of determining whether DECISION
the proper occasion exists for executing
the law. But it cannot be said that the 1. R.A. No. 51 is constitutional. It is
exercise of such discretion is the making not illegal delegation of legislative
of the law. power to the executive as argued
by petitioner but a mandate for the
President to streamline GOCC’s
CERVANTES v. AUDITOR GENERAL operation.
(G.R. No. L-4043, May 26, 1942) 2. Executive Order 93 is valid because
it was promulgated within the 1
This is a petition to review a decision of year period given.
Auditor General denying petitioner’s 3. Petition for review DISMISSED with
claim for quarters allowance as manager costs
of the National Abaca and other Fibers
Corp. (NAFCO).
PANGASINAN TRANS. CO. v. PUBLIC
ISSUES SERVICE COM
LOVINA v. MORENO
1. Whether or not Executive Order No. PELAEZ v. AUDITOR GENERAL
93 exercising control over
Government Owned and Controlled
Corporations (GOCC) implemented SEPARATION OF POWERS
under R.A. No. 51 is valid or null
and void. Manila Electric Company v. Pasay
2. Whether or not R.A. No. 51 Transportation Company, Inc.,
authorizing presidential control
over GOCCs is Constitutional. Facts:
EH 405 Page 6
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
The preliminary and basic question extenuation, it remains true that the
presented by the petition of the Manila decision of the board of arbitrators is
Electric Company, requesting the made final, which if literally enforced
members of the Supreme Court, sitting would leave a public utility, not a party to
as a board of arbitrators, to fix the terms the contract authorized by Act No. 1446,
upon which certain transportation without recourse to the courts for a
companies shall be permitted to use the judicial determination of the question in
Pasig bridge of the Manila Electric dispute.
Company and the compensation to be
paid to the Manila Electric Company by We run counter to this dilemma. Either
such transportation companies, relates to the members of the Supreme Court,
the validity of section 11 of Act No. 1446 sitting as a board of arbitrators, exercise
and to the legal right of the members of judicial functions, or the members of the
the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of Supreme Court, sitting as board of
arbitrators, to act on the petition. Act No. arbitrators, exercise administrative
1446 above referred to is entitled. "An or quasi judicial functions. The first case
Act granting a franchise to Charles M. would appear not to fall within the
Swift to construct, maintain, and operate jurisdiction granted the Supreme Court.
an electric railway, and to construct, Even conceding that it does, it would
maintain, and operate an electric light, presuppose the right to bring the matter
heat, and power system from a point in in dispute before the courts, for any
the City of Manila in an easterly direction other construction would tend to oust the
to the town of Pasig, in the Province of courts of jurisdiction and render the
Rizal." Opposition was entered to the award a nullity. But if this be the proper
petition by a number of public utility construction, we would then have the
operators. anomaly of a decision by the members of
the Supreme Court, sitting as a board of
Issue: arbitrators, taken therefrom to the courts
and eventually coming before the
Validity of SEC. 11 of ACT No. 1446? Supreme Court, where the Supreme
Court would review the decision of its
Held: members acting as arbitrators. taThe
present petition also furnishes an apt
The law calls for arbitration which illustration of another anomaly, for we
represents a method of the parties' own find the Supreme Court as a court asked
choice. A submission to arbitration is a to determine if the members of the court
contract. The parties to an arbitration may be constituted a board of
agreement may not oust the courts of arbitrators, which is not a court at all.l
jurisdiction of the matters submitted to
arbitration. These are familiar rules which The Supreme Court of the Philippine
find support in articles 1820 and 1821 of Islands represents one of the three
the Civil Code. divisions of power in our government. It
is judicial power and judicial power only
We can also perceive a distinction which is exercised by the Supreme Court.
between a private contract for Just as the Supreme Court, as the
submission to arbitration and guardian of constitutional rights, should
agreements to arbitrate falling within the not sanction usurpations by any other
terms of a statute enacted for such department of the government, so should
purpose and affecting others than the it as strictly confine its own sphere of
parties to a particular franchise. Here, influence to the powers expressly or by
however, whatever else may be said in implication conferred on it by the Organic
EH 405 Page 7
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
Act. The Supreme Court and its members
should not and cannot be required to Facts:
exercise any power or to perform any
trust or to assume any duty not Administrative complaint filed by one Paz
pertaining to or connected with the M. Garcia against the Honorable Catalino
administering of judicial functions. Macaraig, Jr., formerly Judge of the Court
of First Instance of Laguna, Branch VI.
The Organic Act provides that the Respondent took his oath as Judge of the
Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands Court of First Instance of Laguna and San
shall possess and exercise jurisdiction as Pablo City on June 29, 1970. The court
heretofore provided and such additional was a newly created CFI branch and it
jurisdiction as shall hereafter be had to be organized from scratch. Under
prescribed by law (sec. 26). When the Section 190 of the Revised
Organic Act speaks of the exercise of Administrative Code, space for his
"jurisdiction" by the Supreme Court, it courtroom, other items and supplies
could not only mean the exercise of must be furnished by the provincial
"jurisdiction" by the Supreme Court government. The provincial officials of
acting as a court, and could hardly mean Laguna, however, informed the
the exercise of "jurisdiction" by the respondent that the province was not in a
members of the Supreme Court, sitting position to do so. Forces and
as a board of arbitrators. There is an circumstances beyond his control
important distinction between the prevented him from discharging his
Supreme Court as an entity and the judicial duties. When respondent realized
members of the Supreme Court. A board that it would be sometime before he
of arbitrators is not a "court" in any could actually preside over his court, he
proper sense of the term, and applied for an extended leave. Secretary
possesses none of the jurisdiction of Justice, however, prevailed upon
which the Organic Act contemplates respondent to forego his leave and
shall be exercised by the Supreme instead to assist him, without being
Court.lawph extended a formal detail, whenever
aw Confirming the decision to the basic respondent was not busy attending to
question at issue, the Supreme Court the needs of his court.
holds that section 11 of Act No. 1446
contravenes the maxims which guide the Issue:
operation of a democratic government
constitutionally established, and that it Whether or not respondent should be
would be improper and illegal for the charged for dishonesty, violation of his
members of the Supreme Court, sitting oath of office, gross incompetence, and
as a board of arbitrators, the decision of violation of RA 296 of the Judiciary Act of
a majority of whom shall be final, to act 1948.
on the petition of the Manila Electric
Company. As a result, the members of Ruling:
the Supreme Court decline to proceed
further in the matter. Court is convinced that the complaint
must be dismissed. Complainant's theory
is that respondent collected or received
NOBLEJAS v. TEEHANKEE salaries as judge when in fact he has
never acted as such, since the date he
took his oath up to the filing of the
PAZ M. GARCIA, vs. HON. CATALINO complaint. In the sense that respondent
MACARAIG, JR., has not yet performed any judicial
EH 405 Page 8
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
function, it may be admitted that before they can have legal effect, by any
respondent has not really performed the authority other than the Court of Appeals
duties of judge. What is lost sight of, or this Supreme Court, as the case may
however, is that after taking his oath and be. Needless to say, this Court feels very
formally assuming this position as judge, strongly that, it is best that this practice
respondent had a perfect right to earn is discontinued.
the salary of a judge even in the extreme
supposition that he did not perform any
judicial function. In this case, Macariola v. Asuncion
government officials or officers in duty A.M. No. 133-J May 31, 1982
are bound to furnish him the necessary
place and facilities for his court and the FACTS:
performance of his functions have failed
to provide him therewith without any A complaint for partition was filed by
fault on his part. plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010 in CFI
against Bernardita R. Macariola
Admittedly respondent has not prepared concerning the properties left by the
and submitted any of the reports of deceased Francisco Reyes, their common
accomplishments and status of cases in father. A decision was rendered by
his sala which are usually required of respondent Judge Asuncion in said civil
judges under existing laws as well as the case awarding their share on the
corresponding circulars of the properties to both the plaintiffs and
Department of Justice for the reason that Macariola
He has not yet started performing any
judicial functions. None of those laws and The decision became and subsequently,
circulars apply to him for all of them a project of partition was submitted to
contemplate judges who are actually Judge Asuncion which was approved by
holding trials and hearings and making the latter notwithstanding the fact that
decisions and others. On the other hand, the project of partition was not signed by
respondent could not be blamed for the parties themselves but only by the
taking his oath as he did, for he had a respective counsel of plaintiffs and
valid confirmed appointment in his favor. defendant. However, both counsels of
the respective parties assured that the
The line between what a judge may do Project of Partition, had been made after
and what he may not do in collaborating a conference and agreement of the
or working with other offices or officers plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010 and
under the other great departments of the Macariola approving the Project of
government must always be kept clear Partition, and that both lawyers had
and jealously observed, least the represented to the court that they are
principle of separation of powers on given full authority to sign by themselves
which our government rests by mandate the Project of Partition.
of the people thru the Constitution be
gradually eroded. It is of grave One of the properties mentioned in the
importance to the judiciary under our project of partition was Lot 1184 or
present constitutional scheme of rather one-half thereof which according
government that no judge or even the to the decision was the exclusive
lowest court in this Republic should place property of the deceased Francisco
himself in a position where his actuations Reyes, was adjudicated in said project of
on matters submitted to him for action or partition to the plaintiffs Luz, Anacorita
resolution would be subject to review and Ruperto, Adela, and Priscilla all surnamed
prior approval and, worst still, reversal, Reyes in equal shares, and when the
EH 405 Page 9
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
project of partition was approved by the Industries, Inc., as a stockholder
trial court, the adjudicatees caused Lot and a ranking officer while he was
1184 to be subdivided into five lots a judge of the Court of First
denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E Instance of Leyte;
inclusive.
that respondent was guilty of
Lot 1184-D was conveyed to Enriqueta D. coddling an impostor and acted in
Anota, a stenographer in Judge disregard of judicial decorum by
Asuncion's court, while Lot 1184-E was closely fraternizing with a certain
sold to Dr. Arcadio Galapon who was Dominador Arigpa Tan who openly
issued transfer certificate of title No. and publicly advertised himself as
2338. Thereafter, Dr. Arcadio Galapon a practising attorney when in truth
and his wife sold a portion of Lot 1184-E and in fact his name does not
to Judge Asuncion and his wife, Victoria appear in the Rolls of Attorneys and
S. Asuncion, which particular portion was is not a member of the Philippine
declared by the latter for taxation Bar; and
purposes.
that there was a culpable defiance
Spouses Asuncion and spouses Galapon of the law and utter disregard for
then conveyed their respective shares ethics by respondent Judge.
and interest in Lot 1184-E to "The Traders
Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc. The case was referred to Justice Cecilia
At the time of said sale the stockholders Muñoz Palma of the Court of Appeals, for
of the corporation were Dominador investigation, report and
Arigpa Tan, Humilia Jalandoni Tan, Jaime recommendation. After hearing, the said
Arigpa Tan, Judge Asuncion, and the Investigating Justice submitted her report
latter's wife, Victoria S. Asuncion, with recommending that respondent Judge
Judge Asuncion as the President and Mrs. should be reprimanded or warned in
Asuncion as the secretary. connection with the first cause of action
alleged in the complaint, and for the
Complainant Bernardita R. Macariola filed second cause of action, respondent
the instant complaint alleging four should be warned in case of a finding
causes of action: that he is prohibited under the law to
that respondent Judge Asuncion engage in business. On the third and
violated Article 1491, paragraph 5, fourth causes of action, Justice Palma
of the New Civil Code in acquiring recommended that respondent Judge be
by purchase a portion of Lot No. exonerated.
1184-E which was one of those
properties involved in Civil Case Complainant herein then instituted an
No. 3010 decided by him action before the Court of First which was
docketed as Civil Case No. 4234, seeking
that he likewise violated Article 14, the annulment of the project of partition
paragraphs I and 5 of the Code of made pursuant to the decision in Civil
Commerce, Section 3, paragraph H, Case No. 3010 and the two orders issued
of R.A. 3019, otherwise known as by respondent Judge approving the
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices same, as well as the partition of the
Act, Section 12, Rule XVIII of the estate and the subsequent conveyances
Civil Service Rules, and Canon 25 with damages. The action was dismissed.
of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, by Hence, this petition
associating himself with the
Traders Manufacturing and Fishing RULING:
EH 405 Page 10
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
Macariola contended that the sale
THE RESPONDENT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF of Lot 1184-E to Dr. Arcadio
THE COURT OF APPEALS IS HEREBY Galapon by Priscilla Reyes, Adela
REMINDED TO BE MORE DISCREET IN HIS Reyes and Luz R. Bakunawa was
PRIVATE AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. only a mere scheme to conceal the
1. There is no merit in the contention of illegal and unethical transfer of
complainant Bernardita R. Macariola, said lot to respondent Judge as a
under her first cause of action, that consideration for the approval of
respondent Judge Elias B. Asuncion the project of partition.
violated Article 1491, paragraph 5, of
the New Civil Code in acquiring by o no evidence showing that Dr.
purchase a portion of Lot No. 1184-E Arcadio Galapon acted as a
which was one of those properties mere "dummy" of respondent in
involved in Civil Case No. 3010. acquiring Lot 1184-E from the
Reyeses.
In the aforesaid Article applies only
to the sale or assignment of the Macariola contended that
property which is the subject of respondent Judge acted illegally in
litigation to the persons approving the project of partition
disqualified therein. For the although it was not signed by the
prohibition to operate, the sale or parties.
assignment of the property must
take place during the pendency of o Respondent should have
the litigation involving the property. required the signature of the
parties more particularly that of
o respondent judge purchased a Mrs. Macariola on the project of
portion of Lot 1184-E, the partition submitted to him for
decision in Civil Case No. 3010 approval; however, whatever
which he rendered on June 8, error was committed by
1963 was already final, not in respondent in that respect was
litigation anymore. done in good faith as according
to Judge Asuncion he was
o Furthermore, respondent judge assured by Atty. Bonifacio Ramo,
did not buy the lot in directly the counsel of record of Mrs.
from the plaintiffs in Civil Case Macariola, That he was
No. 3010 but from Dr. Arcadio authorized by his client to
Galapon who earlier purchased submit said project of partition.
Lot 1184-E from the plaintiffs. While it is true that such written
authority if there was any, was
o Civil Case No. 4234 is of no not presented by respondent in
moment. It can no longer alter, evidence, nor did Atty. Ramo
change or affect the aforesaid appear to corroborate the
facts that the questioned sale to statement of respondent, his
respondent Judge, now Court of affidavit being the only one that
Appeals Justice, was effected was presented, certain
and consummated long after the actuations of Mrs. Macariola
finality of the aforesaid decision lead this investigator to believe
or orders. that she knew the contents of
the project of partition and that
she gave her conformity thereto.
EH 405 Page 11
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
o The provision partakes of the
While it is. true that respondent nature of a political law as it
Judge did not violate paragraph 5, regulates the relationship
Article 1491 of the New Civil Code between the government and
in acquiring by purchase a portion certain public officers and
of Lot 1184-E which was in employees, like justices and
litigation in his court, it was, judges.
however, improper for him to have
acquired the same. He should be o Political Law has been defined
reminded of Canon 3 of the Canons as that branch of public law
of Judicial Ethics. which deals with the
organization and operation of
2. Respondent Judge violated paragraphs the governmental organs of the
1 and 5, Article 14 of the Code of State and define the relations of
Commerce when he associated the state with the inhabitants of
himself with the Traders its. It may be recalled that
Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, political law embraces
Inc. as a stockholder and a ranking constitutional law, law of public
officer, said corporation having been corporations, administrative law
organized to engage in business. including the law on public
officers and elections.
Article 14 — The following cannot Specifically, Article 14 of the
engage in commerce, either in Code of Commerce partakes
person or by proxy, nor can they more of the nature of an
hold any office or have any direct, administrative law because it
administrative, or financial regulates the conduct of certain
intervention in commercial or public officers and employees
industrial companies within the with respect to engaging in
limits of the districts, provinces, or business: hence, political in
towns in which they discharge their essence.
duties:
o It is significant to note that the
1. Justices of the Supreme Court, present Code of Commerce is
judges and officials of the the Spanish Code of Commerce
department of public prosecution in of 1885, with some
active service. This provision shall modifications made by the
not be applicable to mayors, "Commission de Codificacion de
municipal judges, and municipal las Provincias de Ultramar,"
prosecuting attorneys nor to those which was extended to the
who by chance are temporarily Philippines by the Royal Decree
discharging the functions of judge of August 6, 1888, and took
or prosecuting attorney. effect as law in this jurisdiction
on December 1, 1888.
xxx xxx xxx
Upon the transfer of sovereignty
5. Those who by virtue of laws or from Spain to the United States
special provisions may not engage and later on from the United
in commerce in a determinate States to the Republic of the
territory. Philippines, Article 14 of this
Code of Commerce must be
deemed to have been abrogated
EH 405 Page 12
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
because where there is change thereunder, particularly Section 12 of
of sovereignty, the political laws Rule XVIII, do not apply to the
of the former sovereign, members of the Judiciary.
whether compatible or not with
those of the new sovereign, are Under Section 67 Judiciary Act of
automatically abrogated, unless 1948, the power to remove or
they are expressly re-enacted dismiss judges was then vested in
by affirmative act of the new the President of the Philippines, not
sovereign. in the Commissioner of Civil
Service, and only on two grounds,
o No enabling or affirmative act namely, serious misconduct and
that continued the effectivity of inefficiency, and upon the
the aforestated provision of the recommendation of the Supreme
Code of Commerce after the Court, which alone is authorized,
change of sovereignty from upon its own motion, or upon
Spain to the United States and information of the Secretary (now
then to the Republic of the Minister) of Justice to conduct the
Philippines. Consequently, corresponding investigation.
Article 14 of the Code of Clearly, the aforesaid section
Commerce has no legal and defines the grounds and prescribes
binding effect and cannot apply the special procedure for the
to the respondent. discipline of judges.
FACTS: HELD:
EH 405 Page 21
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
stealing of cellular phone units. The restraining order. Both alleged, inter
Memorandum directed CMTS operators alia, that the NTC has no jurisdiction
to: to regulate the sale of consumer
a. strictly comply with Section B(1) of goods such as the prepaid call cards
MC 13-6-2000 requiring the since such jurisdiction belongs to
presentation and verification of the the Department of Trade and
identity and addresses of prepaid SIM Industry under the Consumer Act of
card customers; the Philippines; that the Billing
b. require all your respective prepaid Circular is oppressive, confiscatory
SIM cards dealers to comply with and violative of the constitutional
Section B(1) of MC 13-6-2000; prohibition against deprivation of
c. deny acceptance to your respective property without due process of law;
networks prepaid and/or postpaid that the Circular will result in the
customers using stolen cellphone impairment of the viability of the
units or cellphone units registered to prepaid cellular service by unduly
somebody other than the applicant prolonging the validity and
when properly informed of all expiration of the prepaid SIM and
information relative to the stolen call cards; and that the
cellphone units; requirements of identification of
d. share all necessary information of prepaid card buyers and call balance
stolen cellphone units to all other announcement are unreasonable.
CMTS operators in order to prevent Hence, they prayed that the Billing
the use of stolen cellphone units; and Circular be declared null and void ab
e. require all your existing prepaid SIM initio. Petitioners Globe Telecom, Inc and
card customers to register and Smart Communications, Inc. filed a joint
present valid identification cards. Motion for Leave to Intervene and to
Admit Complaint-in-Intervention which
Another Memorandum dated October 6, was granted. Court issued a temporary
2000 addressed to all public restraining order. Motion to dismiss and
telecommunications entities, reads: reconsideration were denied by the RTC.
This is to remind you that the validity Respondent NTC thus filed a special civil
of all prepaid cards sold on 07 October action for certiorari and prohibition with
2000 and beyond shall be valid for at the Court of Appeals which was granted,
least two (2) years from date of first hence this petition.
use pursuant to MC 13-6-2000.
In addition, all CMTS operators are ISSUE:
reminded that all SIM packs used by
subscribers of prepaid cards sold on Whether or not validity or
07 October 2000 and beyond shall be constitutionality of a rule or regulation
valid for at least two (2) years from issued by the administrative agency in
date of first use. Also, the billing unit the performance of its quasi-legislative
shall be on a six (6) seconds pulse function is under the jurisdiction of
effective 07 October 2000. regular courts.
US vs. BARRIOS NO
Section 9 of said Act provides that: "To be We held in the many cases that said
eligible for examination, a candidate section 3 was a provision punishing the
shall have the following crime of perjury generally. We find no
requirements: . . . (6) Have no criminal reason, either in law or in the argument
record." of the appellant in the present case, to
modify or reverse our conclusions in that
In accordance with the requirements of case. The defendant was guilty of the
said law, the Director of Constabulary crime charged.
prepared an examination manual,
prescribing at the same time rules for
conducting examinations, which PP. v. MACEREN
examination manual was approved by GR No. L-32166
the Secretary of Commerce and Police,
and thereby was given the force of law. FACTS:
We have, therefore, a law which
authorizes the administration of an oath This is a case involving the validity of a
in the present case. 1967 regulation, penalizing electro
fishing in fresh water fisheries,
A violation of a regulation prescribed by promulgated by the Secretary of
an executive officer of the Government in Agriculture and Natural Resources and
EH 405 Page 30
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
the Commissioner of Fisheries under the Thus, the phrase "in any portion of the
old Fisheries Law and the law creating Philippine waters" found in section 2, was
the Fisheries Commission. changed by the amendatory order to
read as follows: "in fresh water fisheries
Jose Buenaventura, Godofredo Reyes, in the Philippines, such as rivers, lakes,
Benjamin Reyes, Nazario Aquino and swamps, dams, irrigation canals and
Carlito del Rosario were charged by a other bodies of fresh water."
Constabulary investigator in the
municipal court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna with ISSUE:
having violated Fisheries Administrative
Order No. 84-1. WHETHER OR NOT THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE EXCEEDED ITS
The lower court held that electro fishing AUTHORITY IN ISSUING
cannot be penalize because electric ADMINISTARTIVE ORDERS.
current is not an obnoxious or poisonous
substance as contemplated in section I I HELD:
of the Fisheries Law and that it is not a
substance at all but a form of energy The Court is of the opinion that the
conducted or transmitted by substances. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
The lower court further held that, since Resources and the Commissioner of
the law does not clearly prohibit electro Fisheries exceeded their authority in
fishing, the executive and judicial issuing Fisheries Administrative Orders
departments cannot consider it unlawful. Nos. 84 and 84-1 and that those orders
are not warranted under the Fisheries
As legal background, it should be stated Commission, Republic Act No. 3512.
that section 11 of the Fisheries Law
prohibits "the use of any obnoxious or The reason is that the Fisheries Law does
poisonous substance" in fishing. not expressly prohibit electro fishing. As
electro fishing is not banned under that
Section 76 of the same law punishes any law, the Secretary of Agriculture and
person who uses an obnoxious or Natural Resources and the Commissioner
poisonous substance in fishing with a fine of Fisheries are powerless to penalize it.
of not more than five hundred pesos nor In other words, Administrative Orders
more than five thousand, and by Nos. 84 and 84-1, in penalizing electro
imprisonment for not less than six fishing, are devoid of any legal basis.
months nor more than five years.
Had the lawmaking body intended to
It is noteworthy that the Fisheries Law punish electro fishing, a penal provision
does not expressly punish .electro to that effect could have been easily
fishing." embodied in the old Fisheries Law.
The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural That law punishes (1) the use of
Resources, upon the recommendation of obnoxious or poisonous substance, or
the Fisheries Commission, issued explosive in fishing; (2) unlawful fishing
Fisheries Administrative Order No. 84-1, in deepsea fisheries; (3) unlawful taking
amending section 2 of Administrative of marine molusca, (4) illegal taking of
Order No. 84, by restricting the ban sponges; (5) failure of licensed fishermen
against electro fishing to fresh water to report the kind and quantity of fish
fisheries (63 O.G. 9963). caught, and (6) other violations.
EH 405 Page 31
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
Nowhere in that law is electro fishing for the multifarious and complex
specifically punished. Administrative situations that may be encountered in
Order No. 84, in punishing electro fishing, enforcing the law. All that is required is
does not contemplate that such an that the regulation should be germane to
offense fails within the category of "other the defects and purposes of the law and
violations" because, as already shown, that it should conform to the standards
the penalty for electro fishing is the that the law prescribes (People vs.
penalty next lower to the penalty for Exconde 101 Phil. 1125; Director of
fishing with the use of obnoxious or Forestry vs. Muñ;oz, L-24796, June 28,
poisonous substances, fixed in section 1968, 23 SCRA 1183, 1198; Geukeko vs.
76, and is not the same as the penalty Araneta, 102 Phil. 706, 712).
for "other violations" of the law and
regulations fixed in section 83 of the The lawmaking body cannot possibly
Fisheries Law. provide for all the details in the
enforcement of a particular statute (U.S.
The lawmaking body cannot delegate to vs. Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil. 119, 125, citing
an executive official the power to declare U.S. vs. Grimaud 220 U.S. 506;
what acts should constitute an offense. It Interprovincial Autobus Co., Inc. vs. Coll.
can authorize the issuance of regulations of Internal Revenue, 98 Phil. 290, 295-6).
and the imposition of the penalty
provided for in the law itself. (People vs. The grant of the rule-making power to
Exconde 101 Phil. 11 25, citing 11 Am. administrative agencies is a relaxation of
Jur. 965 on p. 11 32). the principle of separation of powers and
is an exception to the nondeleption of
However, at present, there is no more legislative, powers. Administrative
doubt that electro fishing is punishable regulations or "subordinate legislation
under the Fisheries Law and that it calculated to promote the public interest
cannot be penalized merely by executive are necessary because of "the growing
revolution because Presidential Decree complexity of modem life, the
No. 704, which is a revision and multiplication of the subjects of
consolidation of all laws and decrees governmental regulations, and the
affecting fishing and fisheries and which increased difficulty of administering the
was promulgated on May 16, 1975 (71 law" Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726;
O.G. 4269), expressly punishes electro People vs. Rosenthal and Osmeñ;a, 68
fishing in fresh water and salt water Phil. 328).
areas.
Administrative regulations adopted under
n examination of the rule-making power legislative authority by a particular
of executive officials and administrative department must be in harmony with the
agencies and, in particular, of the provisions of the law, and should be for
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural the sole purpose of carrying into effect its
Resources (now Secretary of Natural general provisions. By such regulations,
Resources) under the Fisheries Law of course, the law itself cannot be
sustains the view that he ex his authority extended. (U.S. vs. Tupasi Molina, supra).
in penalizing electro fishing by means of An administrative agency cannot amend
an administrative order. an act of Congress (Santos vs. Estenzo,
109 Phil. 419, 422; Teoxon vs. Members
Administrative agent are clothed with of the d of Administrators, L-25619, June
rule-making powers because the 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 585; Manuel vs.
lawmaking body finds it impracticable, if General Auditing Office, L-28952,
not impossible, to anticipate and provide December 29, 1971, 42 SCRA 660;
EH 405 Page 32
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
Deluao vs. Casteel, L-21906, August 29, destruction of his property during the
1969, 29 SCRA 350). war.
Republic Act No. 1792 changed the The case of People v. Que Po Lay (50
definition of "compensation" to: O.G. 2850) also cited by appellant is not
(f) Compensation — All applicable to the present case, because
remuneration for employment the penalty that may be incurred by
include the cash value of any employers and employees if they refuse
remuneration paid in any medium to pay the corresponding premiums on
other than cash except that part of bonus, overtime pay, etc. which the
the remuneration in excess of employer pays to his employees, is not
P500.00 received during the by reason of non-compliance with
month. Circular No. 22, but for violation of the
specific legal provisions contained in
It will thus be seen that whereas prior to Section 27(c) and (f) of Republic Act No.
the amendment, bonuses, allowances, 1161.
and overtime pay given in addition to the
regular or base pay were expressly We find, therefore, that Circular No. 22
excluded, or exempted from the purports merely to advise employers-
definition of the term "compensation", members of the System of what, in the
such exemption or exclusion was deleted light of the amendment of the law, they
by the amendatory law. It thus became should include in determining the
necessary for the Social Security monthly compensation of their
Commission to interpret the effect of employees upon which the social security
such deletion or elimination. Circular No. contributions should be based, and that
22 was, therefore, issued to apprise such circular did not require presidential
those concerned of the interpretation or approval and publication in the Official
understanding of the Commission, of the Gazette for its effectivity.
law as amended, which it was its duty to
enforce. It did not add any duty or detail It hardly need be said that the
that was not already in the law as Commission's interpretation of the
amended. It merely stated and amendment embodied in its Circular No.
circularized the opinion of the 22, is correct. The express elimination
Commission as to how the law should be among the exemptions excluded in the
construed. old law, of all bonuses, allowances and
overtime pay in the determination of the
The case of People v. Jolliffe (G.R. No. L- "compensation" paid to employees
9553, promulgated on May 30, 1959) makes it imperative that such bonuses
cited by appellant, does not support its and overtime pay must now be included
contention that the circular in question is in the employee's remuneration in
a rule or regulation. What was there said pursuance of the amendatory law. It is
EH 405 Page 35
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
true that in previous cases, this Court has G.R. No. L-46496 February 27,
held that bonus is not demandable 1940
because it is not part of the wage, salary,
or compensation of the employee. But FACTS:
the question in the instant case is not
whether bonus is demandable or not as Teodoro Toribio owns and operates Ang
part of compensation, but whether, after Tibay a leather company which supplies
the employer does, in fact, give or pay the Philippine Army. Due to alleged
bonus to his employees, such bonuses shortage of leather, Toribio caused the
shall be considered compensation under layoff of members of National Labor
the Social Security Act after they have Union Inc. (NLU). NLU averred that
been received by the employees. While it Toribio’s act is not valid as it is not within
is true that terms or words are to be the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
interpreted in accordance with their well- They also alleged that there are two
accepted meaning in law, nevertheless, labor unions in Ang Tibay; NLU and
when such term or word is specifically National Worker’s Brotherhood (NWB).
defined in a particular law, such They further contend that NWB is
interpretation must be adopted in dominated by Toribio himself hence he
enforcing that particular law, for it can favors it over NLU. NLU prays for a new
not be gainsaid that a particular phrase trial as they were able to come up with
or term may have one meaning for one new evidence/documents that they were
purpose and another meaning for some not able to obtain before, as they were
other purpose. Such is the case that is inaccessible and they were not able to
now before us. Republic Act 1161 present it before in the Court of Industrial
specifically defined what "compensation" Relations.
should mean "For the purposes of this
Act". Republic Act 1792 amended such ISSUE:
definition by deleting same exemptions
authorized in the original Act. By virtue of Whether or not there has been a due
this express substantial change in the process of law.
phraseology of the law, whatever prior
executive or judicial construction may HELD:
have been given to the phrase in
question should give way to the clear The SC ruled that there should be a new
mandate of the new law. trial in favor of NLU.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the
Resolution appealed from is hereby The Court of Industrial Relations is a
affirmed, with costs against appellant. So special court whose functions are
ordered. specifically stated in the law of its
creation (Commonwealth Act No. 103). It
is more an administrative than a part of
PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS v. SSS the integrated judicial system of the
nation. It has jurisdiction over the entire
Philippines, to consider, investigate,
A. QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS decide, and settle any question, matter
1. INSPECTION, INVESTIGATION controversy or dispute arising between,
AND ADJUDICATION and/or affecting employers and
employees or laborers, and regulate the
ANG TIBAY vs. THE COURT OF relations between them, subject to, and
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS in accordance with, the provisions of
Commonwealth Act No. 103 (Section 1).
EH 405 Page 36
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
In fine, it may appeal to voluntary (5) The decision must be rendered on
arbitration in the settlement of industrial the evidence presented at the hearing, or
disputes; may employ mediation or at least contained in the record and
conciliation for that purpose, or recur to disclosed to the parties affected.
the more effective system of official (6) The Court of Industrial Relations or
investigation and compulsory arbitration any of its judges, therefore, must act on
in order to determine specific its or his own independent consideration
controversies between labor and capital of the law and facts of the controversy,
industry and in agriculture. There is in and not simply accept the views of a
reality here a mingling of executive and subordinate in arriving at a decision.
judicial functions, which is a departure (7) The Court of Industrial Relations
from the rigid doctrine of the separation should, in all controversial questions,
of governmental powers. render its decision in such a manner that
the parties to the proceeding can know
The fact, however, that the Court of the various issues involved, and the
Industrial Relations may be said to be reasons for the decisions rendered. The
free from the rigidity of certain performance of this duty is inseparable
procedural requirements does not mean from the authority conferred upon it.
that it can, in justifiable cases before it,
entirely ignore or disregard the In the right of the foregoing fundamental
fundamental and essential requirements principles, it is sufficient to observe that,
of due process in trials and investigations except as to the alleged agreement
of an administrative character. There are between the Ang Tibay and the National
primary rights which must be respected Worker's Brotherhood, the record is
even in proceedings of this character; barren and does not satisfy the thirst for
(1) The right to a hearing, which a factual basis upon which to predicate,
includes the right of the party interested in a national way, a conclusion of law.
or affected to present his own case and
submit evidence in support thereof. The SC further held that that the interest
(2) Not only must the party be given of justice would be better served if the
an opportunity to present his case and to movant is given opportunity to present at
adduce evidence tending to establish the the hearing the documents referred to in
rights which he asserts but the tribunal his motion and such other evidence as
must consider the evidence presented. may be relevant to the main issue
(3) While the duty to deliberate does involved. Thus, the motion for a new trial
not impose the obligation to decide right, was granted, and the entire record of the
it does imply a necessity which cannot be case was remanded to the Court of
disregarded, namely, that of having Industrial Relations, with instruction that
something to support its decision. A it reopen the case, receive all such
decision with absolutely nothing to evidence as may be relevant and
support it is a nullity, a place when otherwise proceed in accordance with the
directly attached. requirements set forth hereinabove.
(4) Not only must there be some
evidence to support a finding or
conclusion but the evidence must be IN RE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
“substantial.” Substantial evidence is AGAINST ARMANDO RAMOS, JESUS
more than a mere scintilla; it means such L. CARMELO v. ARMANDO RAMOS
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a Facts:
conclusion.
EH 405 Page 37
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
Mayor of Manila issued an executive The rule is that Rule 64 of the Rules of
order creating a committee "to Court applies only to inferior and superior
investigate the anomalies involving the courts and does not comprehend
license inspectors and other personnel of contempt committed against
the License Inspection Division of the administrative officials or bodies like the
Office of the City Treasurer and of the one in this case, unless said contempt is
License and Permits Division of this clearly considered and expressly defined
Office. Petitioner is the chairman of the as contempt of court, as is done in
committee. The committee issued paragraph 2 of Section 580 of the
subpoenas to Armando Ramos, a private Revised Administrative Code.
citizen working as a bookkeeper in the
Casa de Alba, requiring him to appear Section 580 of the Revised
before it. Claiming that Ramos' refusal Administrative Code which provides as
tended "to impede, obstruct, or degrade follows:
the administrative proceedings,"
petitioner filed in the Court of First Powers incidental to taking of testimony.
Instance of Manila a petition to declare — When authority to take testimony or
Armando Ramos in contempt. After evidence is conferred upon an
hearing, during which petitioner was administrative officer or upon any
required to show a prima facie case, the nonjudicial person, committee, or other
trial court dismissed the petition. The body, such authority shall be understood
lower court held that there is no law to comprehend the right to administer
empowering committees created by oaths and summons witnesses and shall
municipal mayors to issue subpoenas include authority to require the
and demand that witnesses testify under production of documents under a
oath. It appears that in a statement given subpoena duces tecum or otherwise,
to investigators of the Office of the subject in all respects to the same
Mayor, Ramos admitted having restrictions and qualifications as apply in
misappropriated on several occasions, judicial proceedings of a similar
sums of money given to him by the character.
owner of Casa de Alba for the payment of
the latter's taxes for 1956-1959 and that One who invokes this provision of the law
this fact had not been discovered earlier must first show that he has "authority to
because Ramos used to entertain take testimony or evidence" before he
employees in the City Treasurer's office can apply to the courts for the
at Casa de Alba where Ramos was a punishment of hostile witnesses. There is
bookkeeper as stated above. nothing said in the executive order of the
Mayor creating the committee about
Issue: such a grant of power. All that the order
gives to this body is the power to
The main issue in this case is WON the investigate anomalies involving certain
power, if any, of committee, like the city employees. SC does not agree with
committee of which petitioner is the the petitioner that a delegation of such
chairman, to subpoena witnesses to power to investigation implies also a
appear before it and to ask for their delegation of the power to take
punishment in case of refusal? testimony or evidence of witnesses
whose appearance may be require by the
Held: compulsory process of subpoena.
Furthermore, it is doubtful whether the
Petition is bereft of merit. provisions of section 580 of the
Administrative Code are applicable to the
EH 405 Page 38
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
City of Manila as these pertain to national misleading statements and that they
bureaus or offices of the government. were not lawfully admissible at the time
Even granting that the Mayor has the of entry, not being properly documented
implied power to require the appearance for admission." The warrants directed
of witnesses before him, the rule, is that any immigration office or officer of the
the Mayor can not delegate this power to law to bring the respondents before the
a body like the committee of the Commissioner, for them to show cause, if
petitioner. any there be, why they should not be
deported. Manuel Calacday was
subsequently arrested. The others
VIVO v MONTESA G.R. No. L-24576 remained at large.
July 29, 1968
On 26 April 1965, the respondents filed
Facts: before the respondent court a petition,
docketed as Civil Case No. 60906,
The private respondents Juan, Pedro, praying for three principal reliefs,
Julio, Marcelo, Jose, Manuel and Benito, namely: to restrain the arrest of those
all surnamed "Calacday" arrived in the petitioners who have not been arrested;
Philippines from Hongkong, the first four to release Manuel Calacday who had
on 18 November 1959, and the last three been arrested; and to prohibit the
on 6 December 1959. Upon their arrival deportation of all the petitioners, all upon
they sought admission as Filipino the claim that they are Filipino citizens.
citizens. After investigation, a board of RTC granted the petition.
special inquiry, in its decisions of 7 and
11 December 1959, found them to be the Issue:
legitimate sons of a Filipino citizen, one
Isaac Calacday, and thus admitted them Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction to
into this country. The Bureau of restrain the deportation proceedings
Immigration then issued to each of them
an identification certificate as a Filipino Held:
citizen. Sometime in February, 1963,
however, Isaac Calacday confessed We agree with petitioning Commissioner
before an immigration official that the that the court below is without
seven respondents were not his sons. He jurisdiction to restrain the deportation
retracted his confession in March, 1963, proceedings of respondents Calacdays.
in an investigation in the Department of These proceedings are within the
Justice, with the explanation that, in a fit jurisdiction of the Immigration authorities
of anger, he disclaimed, under oath, under Sections 28 and 37 of the
paternity of the respondents because Philippine Immigration Act (C.A. No. 613).
they refused to give him money (Annex That jurisdiction is not tolled by a claim
"I" to Answer). of Filipino citizenship, where the
On 9 May 1963, Commissioner of Commissioner or Commissioners have
Immigration Martiniano Vivo issued reliable evidence to the contrary; and
warrants of arrest against the herein said officers should be given
private respondents, stating in said opportunity to determine the issue
warrants their deportability under of citizenship before the courts
Section 37 (a) (1) and Section 37 (a) (2) interfere in the exercise of the
in relation to Section 29(a) (17) of the power of judicial review of
Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as administrative decisions.
amended, for having entered the
Philippines "by means of false and
EH 405 Page 39
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
in Miranda vs. Deportation Board, 94 Phil. there be, why he should not be deported
531, 533, this Court said: from the Philippines", as expressly
While the jurisdiction of the Deportation recited therein. There was no case of
Board as an instrument of the Chief "summarily arresting and deporting" the
Executive to deport undesirable aliens respondents Calacdays, as unwarrantedly
exists only when the person arrested is assumed by the court below.
an alien, however, the mere plea of
citizenship does not divest the Board of The Calacdays have alluded in this Court
its jurisdiction over the case. Petitioners to certain documents in support of their
should make "a showing that his claim is claim to Philippine citizenship. The proper
frivolous" (Ng Fung Ho vs. White, 259 procedure is for said respondents to
U.S., 275), and must prove by sufficient appear before the Immigration officials
evidence that they are Filipino citizens. and there submit these documents as
[Kessler vs. Strecker (1939) 307 U.S., 21, evidence on their part to show cause why
35-36.] If such is the primary duty of they should not be deported.
petitioners, it follows that the
Deportation Board has the necessary IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the writ
power to pass upon the evidence that prayed for is hereby granted, the order
may be presented and determine in the issued in Civil Case No. 60906 of the
first instance if petitioners are Filipino Court of First Instance of Manila is set
citizens or not. This is inherent-in, or aside, and the proceedings ordered
essential to the efficient exercise of, the discontinued. But the warrants of arrest
power of the Deportation Board heretofore issued by the petitioner,
(Laurencio vs.Collector of Customs, 35 Immigration Commissioner, against
Phil., 37). herein respondents Calacdays are
declared null and void, without prejudice
It is well to note here that when the to said respondents being required to
petition for certiorari and prohibition (the furnish bonds in such reasonable sums as
respondent judge considered it as such) the Immigration Commissioners may fix,
was filed, deportation proceedings had in order to guarantee their appearance at
been started against the respondents the hearings and other proceedings in
(petitioners below) but had not been their case, until final determination of
completed. In view of the non-completion their right to stay in the Philippines
of the proceedings, the Board of
Commissioners has not rendered as yet
any decision. The respondents PLDT v. PSC
Calacdays, therefore, are not being
deported. Before the Board reaches a
decision, it has to conduct a hearing EVANGELISTA v. JARENCIO
where the main issue will be the
citizenship or alienage of the FACTS:
respondents. Therefore, there is nothing
so far for the courts to review. This is an original action for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction,
It is clear from the order complained of under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court,
that the court below misapprehended the seeking to annul and set aside the order
import of the warrants issued by the of respondent Judge, the Honorable
Commissioner herein. Said warrants Hilarion J. Jarencio, Presiding Judge of the
required the respondents to be brought Court of First Instance of Manila, dated
to the immigration authorities, not to be July 1, 1968, in Civil Case No. 73305,
deported, but "to show cause, if any
EH 405 Page 40
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
entitled "Fernando Manalastas vs. Sec. Public Service Officer of Manila, a
Ramon D. Bagatsing, etc subpoena ad testificandum commanding
him "to be and appear as witness at the
Pursuant to his special powers and duties Office of the PRESIDENTIAL AGENCY ON
under Section 64 of the Revised REFORMS AND GOVERNMENT
Administrative Code, 1 the President of OPERATIONS ... then and there to declare
the Philippines created the Presidential and testify in a certain investigation
Agency on Reforms and Government pending therein."
Operations (PARGO) under Executive
Order No. 4 of January 7, 1966. 2 ISSUE:
Purposedly, he charged the Agency with
the following functions and Whether the Agency, acting thru its
responsibilities: 3 officials, enjoys the authority to issue
b. To investigate all activities involving subpoenas in its conduct of fact-finding
or affecting immoral practices, graft investigations.
and corruptions, smuggling (physical
or technical), lawlessness, subversion, HELD: YES.
and all other activities which are
prejudicial to the government and the It has been essayed that the life blood of
public interests, and to submit proper the administrative process is the flow of
recommendations to the President of fact, the gathering, the organization and
the Philippines. the analysis of evidence. 7 Investigations
c. To investigate cases of graft and are useful for all administrative functions,
corruption and violations of Republic not only for rule making, adjudication,
Acts Nos. 1379 and 3019, and gather and licensing, but also for prosecuting,
necessary evidence to establish prima for supervising and directing, for
facie, acts of graft and acquisition of determining general policy, for
unlawfully amassed wealth ... . recommending, legislation, and for
h. To receive and evaluate, and to purposes no more specific than
conduct fact-finding investigations of illuminating obscure areas to find out
sworn complaints against the acts, what if anything should be done. 8 An
conduct or behavior of any public administrative agency may be authorized
official or employee and to file and to make investigations, not only in
prosecute the proper charges with the proceedings of a legislative or judicial
appropriate agency. nature, but also in proceedings whose
sole purpose is to obtain information
For a realistic performance of these upon which future action of a legislative
functions, the President vested in the or judicial nature may be taken 9 and
Agency all the powers of an investigating may require the attendance of witnesses
committee under Sections 71 and 580 of in proceedings of a purely investigatory
the Revised Administrative Code, nature. It may conduct general inquiries
including the power to summon into evils calling for correction, and to
witnesses by subpoena or subpoena report findings to appropriate bodies and
duces tecum, administer oaths, take make recommendations for actions. 10
testimony or evidence relevant to the
investigation. 4 We recognize that in the case before Us,
petitioner Agency draws its subpoena
Whereupon, on June 7, 1968, petitioner power from Executive Order No. 4, para.
Quirico Evangelista, as Undersecretary of 5 which, in an effectuating mood,
the Agency, issued to respondent empowered it to "summon witness,
Fernando Manalastas, then Acting City administer oaths, and take testimony
EH 405 Page 41
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
relevant to the investigation" 11 with the Facts:
authority "to require the production of
documents under a subpoena duces The Philippine Airlines Inc provides both
tecum or otherwise, subject in all domestic and international air service. In
respects to the same restrictions and its domestic service PAL provides, among
qualifications as apply in judicial others, services between Tuguegarao and
proceedings of a similar character." 12 Manila (designated as Flight 213) and
Such subpoena power operates in between Baguio and Manila (designated
extenso to all the functions of the Agency as Flight 205).
as laid out in the aforequoted sub-
paragraphs (b),(e), and (h). It is not On May 12, 1970, PAL had an excess of
bordered by nor is it merely exercisable, twenty (20) passengers from Baguio to
as respondents would have it, in quasi- Manila who cannot be accommodated in
judicial or adjudicatory function under its regular flight. To accommodate these
sub-paragraph (b). The functions twenty passengers, PAL required the
enumerated in all these sub-paragraphs aircraft operating Flight 213 (Tuguegarao
(b), (e), and (h) interlink or intertwine to Manila) to pass Baguio City on its way
with one another with the principal aim to Manila and pick up these passengers.
of meeting the very purpose of the Flight 213 at that time was carrying only
creation of the Agency, which is to five (5) passengers.
forestall and erode nefarious activities
and anomalies in the civil service. To hold Claiming that PAL should have first
that the subpoena power of the Agency obtained the permission of the CIVIL
is confined to mere quasi-judicial or AERONAUTICS BOARD (CAB) before
adjudicatory functions would therefore operating the flagstop and that such
imperil or inactiviate the Agency in its failure is a violation of Republic Act No.
investigatory functions under sub- 776, the CAB imposed a fine of
paragraphs (e) and (h). More than that, P5,000.00 upon PAL in a resolution. Upon
the enabling authority itself (Executive motion for reconsideration filed by PAL,
Order No. 4, para. 5) fixes no distinction the CAB reduced the fine to P2,500.00
when and in what function should the
subpoena power be exercised. Similarly, PAL, in its motion for reconsideration,
We see no reason to depart from the argued that there is nothing in Republic
established rule that forbids Act No. 776 in general, nor in Section
differentiation when the law itself makes 42(k) thereof in particular, which
none. expressly empowers CAB to impose a
fine and order its payment in the manner
There is no doubt that the fact-finding pursued in this case and under CAB
investigations being conducted by the Resolution No. 109(70). It further
Agency upon sworn statements stressed that "the power and authority to
implicating certain public officials of the impose fines and penalties is a judicial
City Government of Manila in anomalous function exercised through the regular
transactions 23 fall within the Agency's courts of justice, and that such power
sphere of authority and that the and authority cannot be delegated to the
information sought to be . Civil Aeronautics Board my mere
implication or interpretation".
EH 405 Page 42
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
Whether or not CAB possesses the a civil penalty on an erring airline for
necessary legal authority to impose a violation of its rules and regulations it
fine. would have to resort to courts of justice
in protracted litigations then it could not
Ruling: serve its purpose of exercising a
competent, efficient and effective
We have no quarrel with appellant PAL's supervision and control over air carriers
contention that the C.A.B. has no power in their vital role of rendering public
to impose fines in the nature of criminal service by affording safe and convenient
penalty and that only courts of justice air transit.
can do so. It could easily be discerned
from a scrutiny of the provision on There is no doubt that the fine imposed
Chapter VII of Republic Act 776, on on appellant PAL in CAB resolution
"Violation and penalties" that whenever 109(70) and 132(70) is that fine or civil
the law provides a penalty for a violation penalty contemplated and mentioned in
involving fine and/or imprisonment the foregoing provisions of Republic Act
(criminal in nature), the words "in the 776 and not a fine in the nature of
discretion of the court" always appear criminal penalty as contemplated in the
(Sec. 42 (E) (F) (G) (N) Republic Act 776) Revised Penal Code, because the "fine" in
for the very simple reason that the C.A.B. this case was imposed by the C.A.B.
is not authorized to impose a criminal because of appellant PAL's violation of
penalty, but in those cases where the C.A.B. rules on flagstops without previous
violation is punishable by a fine or civil authority on "May 12, 1970 and on
penalty, the law does not include the previous occasions", said C.A.B.
words "in the discretion of the court. explaining clearly in its resolution No.
132(70) that the "imposition of the fine is
There exists but an insignificant doubt in not so much on exacting penalty for the
Our mind that the C.A.B. is fully violation committed as the need to stress
authorized by law (Republic Act 776) to upon the air carriers to desist from
impose fines in the nature of civil wanton disregard of existing rules,
penalty for violations of its rules and regulations or requirements of the
regulations. To deprive the C.A.B. of that government regulating agency. In other
power would amount to an absurd words, it is an administrative penalty
interpretation of the pertinent legal which administrative officers are
provision because the CAB is given full empowered to impose without criminal
power on its own initiative to determine prosecution.
whether to "impose, remit, mitigate,
increase or compromise" "fines and civil Republic Act 776 created the Civil
penalties", a power which is expressly Aeronautics Board (CAB) and the Civil
given to the Civil Aeronautics Aeronautics Administration. In the
Administrator whose orders or decision exercise and performance of their powers
may be reviewed, revised, reversed, and duties, they shall consider among
modified or affirmed by the CAB. Besides, other things, "as being in the public
to deprive the C.A.B. of its power to interest, and in accordance with the
impose civil penalties would negate its public convenience and necessity"
effective general supervision and control certain declared policies which include —
over air carriers if they can just disregard (c) The regulation of air transportation
with impunity the rules and regulations in such manner as to recognize and
designed to insure public safety and preserve the inherent advantage
convenience in air transportation. If of, assure the highest degree of
everytime the C.A.B. would like to impose safety in, and foster sound
EH 405 Page 43
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
economic condition in, such subdivision project, Mr. Yuson paid only
transportation, and to improve the the arrearages pertaining to the period
relation between, and coordinate up to, and including, the month of August
transportation by, air carriers; 1972 and stopped all monthly installment
(f) To promote safety of flight in air payments falling due thereafter. On
commerce in the Philippines October 14 1976, the president of
Antipolo Realty sent a notice to private
The CAB has the power to "investigate, respondent Yuson advising that the
upon complaint or upon its own initiative, required improvements in the subdivision
whether any individual or air carrier, had already been completed, and
domestic or foreign, is violating any requesting resumption of payment of the
provision of this act, or the rules and monthly installments on Lot No. 15.
regulations issued thereunder, and shall
take such action, consistent with the Mr. Yuson refused to pay the September
provisions of this Act, as may be 1972-October 1976 monthly installments
necessary to prevent further violation of but agreed to pay the post October 1976
such provision, or rules and regulations installments. Antipolo Realty responded
so issued" (Section 10(D) Republic Act by rescinding the Contract to Sell, and
776). claiming the forfeiture of all installment
payments previously made by Mr. Yuson.
Likewise, the CAB has the power to Mr. Yuson brought his dispute with
"review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm Antipolo Realty before public respondent
on appeal any administrative decision or NHA.
order" of the Civil Aeronautics After hearing, the NHA rendered a
Administrator on matters pertaining to decision on 9 March 1978 ordering the
"imposition of civil penalty or fine in reinstatement of the Contract to Sell.
connection with the violation of any Antipolo Realty filed a Motion for
provision of this Act or rules and Reconsideration asserting that the
regulations issued thereunder." It has the jurisdiction to hear and decide Mr.
power also "either on its own initiative or Yuson's complaint was lodged in the
upon review on appeal from an order or regular courts, not in the NHA.
decision of the Civil Aeronautics
Administrator, to determine whether to The motion for reconsideration was
impose, remit, mitigate, increase, or denied by respondent NHA, which
compromise, such fine and civil sustained its jurisdiction to hear and
penalties, as the case may be. decide the Yuson complaint. Hence, this
petition.
EH 405 Page 50
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
Demolition Order No. 1-96 was
subsequently implemented by the COSLAP is not justified in assuming
Office of the City Mayor and the City jurisdiction over the controversy. It
Engineer's Office of Baguio City. may not assume jurisdiction over
However, petitioner avers that private cases which are already pending in
respondents returned and the regular courts.
reconstructed the demolished Section 3(2) of Executive Order
structures. 561 speaks of any resolution,
To forestall the re-implementation of order or decision of the COSLAP
the demolition order, private as having the "force and effect
respondents filed on September 29, of a regular administrative
1998 a petition for annulment of resolution, order or decision."
contracts with prayer for a temporary The qualification places an
restraining order in the Commission unmistakable emphasis on the
on the Settlement of Land Problems administrative character of the
(COSLAP) against petitioner, HIGC, COSLAP's determination,
PMS, the City Engineer's Office, the amplified by the statement that
City Mayor, as well as the Register of such resolutions, orders or
Deeds of Baguio City. On the very decisions "shall be binding upon
same day, public respondent COSLAP the parties therein and upon the
issued the contested order requiring agency having jurisdiction over
the parties to maintain the status quo. the same." An agency is defined
Without filing a motion for by statute as "any of the various
reconsideration from the aforesaid units of the Government,
status quo order, petitioner filed the including a department, bureau,
instant petition questioning the office, instrumentality, or
jurisdiction of the COSLAP. government-owned or controlled
corporation, or a local
ISSUE government or a distinct unit
therein."
IS THE COMMISSION ON THE
SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS section 3(2) of Executive Order
[COSLAP] CREATED UNDER EXECUTIVE 561 patently indicates that the
ORDER NO. 561 BY THE OFFICE OF THE COSLAP's dispositions are
PHILIPPINES EMPOWERED TO HEAR AND binding on administrative or
TRY A PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF executive agencies.
CONTRACTS WITH PRAYER FOR A
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND Private respondents, in filing
THUS, ARROGATE UNTO ITSELF THE multiple petitions, have mocked
POWER TO ISSUE STATUS QUO ORDER our attempts to eradicate forum
AND CONDUCT A HEARING THEREOF? shopping and have thereby upset
the orderly administration of
ASSUMING THAT THE COMMISSION ON justice. They sought recourse from
THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS three (3) different tribunals in order
HAS JURISDICTION ON THE MATTER, IS IT to obtain the writ of injunction they
EXEMPTED FROM OBSERVING A CLEAR so desperately desired.
CASE OF FORUM SHOPPING ON THE PART A scrutiny of the pleadings filed
OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS? before the trial courts and the
COSLAP sufficiently establishes
RULING private respondents' propensity
EH 405 Page 51
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASE DIGESTS
for forum shopping. We lay the
premise that the certification
against forum shopping must be
executed by the plaintiff or
principal party, and not by his
counsel. Hence, one can deduce
that the certification is a
peculiar personal representation
on the part of the principal
party, an assurance given to the
court or other tribunal that there
are no other pending cases
involving basically the same
parties, issues and causes of
action. In the case at bar,
private respondents' litany of
omissions range from failing to
submit the required certification
against forum shopping to filing
a false certification, and then to
forum shopping itself. First, the
petition filed before the COSLAP
conspicuously lacked a
certification against forum
shopping. Second, it does not
appear from the record that the
ASSOCIATION informed Branch 4
of the Regional Trial Court of
Baguio City before which Civil
Case No. 3316-R was pending,
that another action, Civil Case
No. 3382-R, was filed before
Branch 61 of the same court.
Another group of homeless
residents of Dominican Hill, the
LAND REFORM BENEFICIARIES
ASSOCIATION, INC. initiated the
latter case.
EH 405 Page 52