University of the Philippines College of Law

PubOff 1 H; TBLB

Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) v. Roberto

Case Name
Mabalot

Topic Concept and Principles — Public Office and Public Officers

Case No. | Date G.R. No. 138200 | 27 February 2002

Ponente Buena, J.

● This case concerns the order of DOTC Secretary Garcia, Jr. directing LTFRB Chairman
Lantin to transfer the regional functions of that office to the DOTC-CAR Regional Office
pending the creation of a regular Regional Franchising and Regulatory Office pursuant to
E.O. No. 202.
Case Summary ● Respondent filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for preliminary junction
assailing the legality of said order, which the trial court subsequently granted.
● Ruling on petitioner’s appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the creation and establishment of
LTFRB-CAR Regional Office was made pursuant to the third mode of the creation of a public
office—by authority of law.

● The elementary rule in administrative law and the law on public officers is that a public office
may be created through any of the three modes:
o By the Constitution;
o By law; or
o By authority of law
● Members of the Cabinet are alter egos of the president, and as such, their acts, if regular,
approved by the president, and ‘performed and promulgated in the regular course of business
are . . . presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.’
Doctrine ● The president is authorized to effect organizational changes including the creation of offices
in the department or agency concerned; in the instant case, the creation of DOTC-CAR as the
regional office of LTFRB in CAR fall within the scope of the continuing authority of the
president to effectively reorganize the DOTC.
● Reorganization is regarded as valid provided it is pursued in good faith; it is done so if it is
for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient.
● The general rule is that appointive officials are prohibited from holding any other office or
employment in the government; the exception to this is if said office or employment is held
in the exercise of the primary function of said official’s principal office.

RELEVANT FACTS
● On 19 February 1996 then DOTC Sec. Garcia, Jr. issued M.O. No. 96-735to transfer the regional
functions of LTFRB to the DOTC-CAR Regional Office pending the creation of a regular Regional
Franchising and Regulatory Office; said office was to perform the LTFRB functions on a concurrent
capacity subject to the direct supervision and control of LTFRB Central Office.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
PubOff 1 H; TBLB

● Respondent Mabalot assailed the order before the RTC-Quezon City through a petition for certiorari
and prohibition with prayer for preliminary injunction and/or restraining order.
○ The lower court granted the petition and issued a temporary restraining order and a writ of
preliminary injunction.
● On 29 January 1997, Sec. Lagdameo issued the assailed D.O. No. 97-1025 which established the
previously-created DOTC-CAR Regional Office as the Regional Office of fthe LTFRB exercising
the regional functions of the LTFRB in the CAR.
● The OSG moved to reopen the hearing in the lower court to allow petitioner to present D.O No. 97-
1025.
○ The lower court still ruled against herein petitioner, ruling both the M.O. and the D.O. as null
and void and without any legal effects.
○ The lower court declared these as being violative of the provision of the Constitution against
encroachment on the powers of the legislative department as well as the Constitutional
prohibition against appointive officials from holding any other office or employment in the
Government.

RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
 University of the Philippines College of Law
PubOff 1 H; TBLB

Whether or not the

● The Court disagrees. Absent any patent or latent constitutional or statutory infirmity
assailed M.O. and attending the issuance of the assailed orders, the Court upholds both as legal and valid
D.O. were administrative issuances.
promulgated through ● The president, through his duly constituted political agent and alter ego—the DOTC
an undue exercise of Secretary in the instant case—may legally and validly decree the reorganization of the
legislative power. department; the Court reiterates the ways in which public office may be created:
o By the Constitution (fundamental law);
o By law (statute duly enacted by Congress); or
o By authority of law.
● Congress can delegate the power to create positions, and at various times Congress has
done such in vesting power in the president to reorganize executive agencies and
redistribute functions.
● In the instant case, the creation and establishment of LTFRB-CAR Regional Office was
made by authority of law; more specifically, the assailed orders were issued pursuant to
A.O. No. 36 which explicitly provided for the creation of various departments and other
agencies of the National Government in the CAR.
● Under said A.O., the president did not merely authorize but directed the various
departments and agencies of government to create and establish their regional offices in
the CAR.
● It is as if the President himself carried out the creation and establishment of LTFRB-
CAR Regional Office; the DOTC Secretary, as alter ego of the president, directed and
merely sough to implement the President’s A.O.
● The Constitution vests the president the power of control, provided under Art. VII, Sec.
17, over ‘all executive department, bureaus, and offices.’
o Control ‘is the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what
a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute
the judgement of the former for that of the latter.
o It includes the authority to order the doing of an act by a subordinate or to undo
such act or to assume a power directly vested in him by law.
● Acts of the Members of the Cabinet, then, ‘performed and promulgated in the regular
course of business, are, unless disapproved or reported by the Chief Executive,
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.
o Thus, the lower court erred in holding that the M.O. and D.O. may not be made
by the president or his alter egos.
o Furthermore, in Larin v. Executive Secretary, the Court therein held that Sec.
62 of RA 7645 shows that the president ‘is authorised to effect organizational
changes including the creation of offices in the department or agency concerned
o Sec. 20, Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987 also grants the president
‘residual powers’ or such other powers vested in the president under the law.
● In sum, the designation and subsequent establishment of the DOTC-CAR as the
Regional Office of the LTFRB in the CAR and the concomitant exercise an performance
of functions by the former as the LTFRB-CAR Regional Office fall under the continuing
authority of the president to effectively reorganize the DOTC.
o Such reorganizations are also regarded as valid provided it is pursued in good
faith, if it is ‘for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more
efficient.’ Such is the case here.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
PubOff 1 H; TBLB

● Furthermore, specific provisions in E.O. 292 and E.O. also grant the Secretary of
Transportation and Communications administrative supervision and control over the
LTFRB.
 University of the Philippines College of Law
PubOff 1 H; TBLB

Whether or not the ● The Court holds that the orders do not contravene such provisions of the Constitution.
assailed orders ● In the case of M.O. No. 96-735 the organic personnel of the DOTC-CAR were in effect
contravene the merely designated to perform the additional duties and functions of an LTFRB Regional
statutory prohibition Office pending the creation of a regular LTFRB Regional Ofice.
against the holding ● Assuming arguendo that the appointive officials and employees of DOTC-CAR shall
of more than one be holding more than one office or employment at the same time due to the creation of
office of an the LTFRB-CAR, this still does not constitute a breach or violation of Sec 7, Art. IX-B
appointive official of the Constitution.
o Under the above provision, an office or employment held in the exercise of the
primary functions of one’s principal office is an exception to the above
provision.
o Furthermore, no evidence was adduced and presented to clearly establish that
the appointive facials and employees of DOTC-CAR shall receive any other
compensation.a

RULING
The instant petition is granted and the decision of the Regional Trial Court striking down the M.O and D.O.
is reversed and set aside.