Date post: | 05-Jul-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | bebs-cacho |
View: | 225 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 18
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
1/18
IRON AND STEEL AUTHORITY vs COURT OF
APPEALS
FACTS:
Petitioner Iron and Steel Authority (ISA) was created
by Presidential Decree No. 272 dated August 9, 97!
in order, to de"elo# and #ro$ote the iron and steel
industry in the Phili##ines. P.D. No. 272 initially
created #etitioner ISA %or a ter$ o% & years, and when
ISAs original ter$ e'#ired on ctober , 97*, its
ter$ was e'tended %or another years. +he National
Steel or#oration (NS) then a wholly owned
subsidiary o% the National De"elo#$ent or#oration,
which is itsel% an entity wholly owned by the National
-o"ern$ent, e$bared on an e'#ansion #rogra$
e$bracing, a$ong other things, the construction o%
an integrated steel $ill in Iligan ity. Pursuant to thee'#ansion #rogra$ o% the NS, Procla$ation No. 22!9
was issued by the President o% the Phili##ines on
No"e$ber /, 9*2 withdrawing %ro$ sale or
settle$ent a large tract o% #ublic land located in Iligan
ity and reser"ing that land %or the use and
i$$ediate occu#ancy o% NSs. Since certain #ortions
o% the #ublic land sub0ect $atter o% Procla$ation No.
22!9 were occu#ied by a non1o#erational che$ical
%ertilier #lant owned by #ri"ate res#ondent 3aria
ristina 4ertilier or#oration (34), 5I No. 277,
also dated/ No"e$ber 9*2, was issued directing
the NS to 6negotiate with the owners o% 34, %or
and on behal% o% the -o"ern$ent, %or the
co$#ensation o% 34s #resent occu#ancy rights
on the sub0ect land. 5I No. 277 also directed that
should NS and #ri"ate res#ondent 34 %ail to reach
an agree$ent within a #eriod o% / days %ro$ the
date o% the 5I, #etitioner ISA was to e'ercise its
#ower o% e$inent do$ain under P.D. No. 272 and to
initiate e'#ro#riation #roceedings in res#ect o%
occu#ancy rights o% #ri"ate res#ondent 34 relating
to the sub0ect #ublic land as well as the #lant itsel%
and related %acilities and to cede the sa$e to the
NS. Negotiations between NS and #ri"ate
res#ondent 34 did %ail.
ISSUE:
hether or not the 8e#ublic o% the Phili##ines is
entitled to be substituted %or ISA in "iew o% the
e'#iration o% ISAs ter$.
HELD:
learly, ISA was "ested with so$e o% the #owers or
attributes nor$ally associated with 0uridical
#ersonality but did not #ossess general or
co$#rehensi"e 0uridical #ersonality se#arate and
distinct %ro$ that o% the -o"ern$ent. +he ISA in %act
a##ears to the ourt to be a non1incor#orated agency
or instru$entality o% the -o"ern$ent o% the 8e#ublic
o% the Phili##ines. ISA $ay thus be #ro#erly regarded
as an agent or delegate o% the 8e#ublic o% the
Phili##ines. hen the statutory ter$ o% a non1
incor#orated agency e'#ires, the #owers, duties and
%unctions as well as the assets and liabilities o% that
agency re"ert bac to, and are re1assu$ed by, the
8e#ublic o% the Phili##ines, in the absence o% s#ecial
#ro"isions o% law s#eci%ying so$e other dis#osition
thereo% such as, e.g., de"olution or trans$ission o% such #owers, duties, %unctions, etc. to so$e other
identi:ed successor agency or instru$entality o% the
8e#ublic o% the Phili##ines. hen the e'#iring agency
is an incor#orated one, the conse;uences o% such
e'#iry $ust be looed %or in the charter o% that
agency and, by way o% su##le$entation, in the
#ro"isions o% the or#oration ode. Since, in the
instant case, ISA is a non1incor#orated agency or
instru$entality o% the 8e#ublic, its #owers, duties,
%unctions, assets and liabilities are #ro#erly regarded
as %olded bac into the -o"ern$ent o% the 8e#ublic o%
the Phili##ines and hence assu$ed once again by the
8e#ublic, no s#ecial statutory #ro"ision ha"ing been
shown to ha"e $andated succession thereto by so$e
other entity or agency o% the 8e#ublic. In the instant
case, ISA instituted the e'#ro#riation #roceedings in
its ca#acity as an agent or delegate or re#resentati"e
o% the 8e#ublic o% the Phili##ines #ursuant to its
authority under P.D. No. 272.4ro$ the %oregoing
#re$ises, it %ollows that the 8e#ublic o% the
Phili##ines is entitled to be substituted in the
e'#ro#riation #roceedings as #arty1#lainti< in lieu o%
ISA, the statutory ter$ o% ISA ha"ing e'#ired. Put a
little di
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
2/18
hether or not the Ad$inistrati"e ode o% 9*7
re#ealed or abrogated Section /99 o% the 8e"ised
Ad$inistrati"e ode o% 97.
HELD:
N. Petition granted. 8es#ondent ordered to gi"e due
course on #etitioner=s clai$ %or bene:ts.
8e#eal by i$#lication #roceeds on the #re$ise that
where a statute o% later date clearly re"eals an
intention on the #art o% the legislature to abrogate a
#rior act on the sub0ect, that intention $ust be gi"en
econo$ic Intelligence and In"estigation
ureau (>II) to #ri$arily conduct anti1s$uggling
o#erations in areas outside the 0urisdiction o% the
ureau o% usto$s. In the year 2, President
>strada issued an order deacti"ating the >II. e
subse;uently ordered the e$#loyees o% >II to be
se#arated %ro$ the ser"ice. +herea%ter, he created the
Presidential Anti1S$uggling +as 4orce @AduanaE,
which >II e$#loyees clai$ to be essentially the
sa$e as >II. +he e$#loyees o% >II, through the
ulod ng Fawaning >II, in"oed the Su#re$e
ourt=s #ower o% 0udicial re"iew in ;uestioning thesaid orders. >II e$#loyees $aintained that the
#resident has no #ower to abolish a #ublic oGce, as
that is a #ower solely lodged in the legislatureB and
that the abolition "iolates their constitutional right to
security o% tenure.
ISSUE:
hether or not the #etition has $erit.
HELD:
No. It is a general rule that the #ower to abolish a
#ublic oGce is lodged with the legislature. +he
e'ce#tion is when it co$es to agencies, bureaus, and
other oGces under the e'ecuti"e de#art$ent, the
#resident $ay deacti"ate the$ #ursuant to control
#ower o"er such oGces, unless such oGce is created
by the onstitution. +his is also ger$ane to the
#resident=s #ower to reorganie the Gce o% the
President. asis o% such #ower also has its roots in
two laws i.e., PD 772 and PD H/. +hese decrees
e'#ressly grant the President o% the Phili##ines the
continuing authority to reorganie the national
go"ern$ent, which includes the #ower to grou#,
consolidate bureaus and agencies, to abolish oGces,
to trans%er %unctions, to create and classi%y %unctions,ser"ices and acti"ities and to standardie salaries and
$aterials.
Also, it cannot be said that there is bad %aith in the
abolition o% >II. >II allocations ha"e always
e'ceeded P $illion #er year. +o sa"e the
go"ern$ent so$e $oney, it needed to abolish it and
re#lace it with +4 Aduana which has %or its allocation
0ust P& $illion. 4urther, +4 Aduana is in"ested $ore
#ower that >II ne"er had, i.e., search and seiure
and arrest.
5astly, >>I e$#loyees= right to security o% tenure is
not "iolated. Since there is no bad %aith in the
abolition o% >II, such abolition is not in:r$. Jalid
abolition o% oGces is neither re$o"al nor se#aration
o% the incu$bents. I% the #ublic oGce ceases to e'ist,
there is no se#aration or dis$issal to s#ea o%.
Indeed, there is no such thing as an absolute right to
hold oGce. >'ce#t constitutional oGces which #ro"ide
%or s#ecial i$$unity as regards salary and tenure, noone can be said to ha"e any "ested right in an oGce
or its salary.
BAGAOISAN VS NAT'L TOBACCO
ADMINISTRATION. G.R. No. 15!"5 : A#$#s% 5&
(.
FACTS:
+he #etitioner was ter$inated %ro$ there #osition in
the national tobacco ad$inistration as a result o% the
e'ecuti"e order issued by #resident >strada which
$andates %or the strea$ lining o% the national
tobacco ad$inistration, a go"ern$ent agency under
the de#art$ent o% agriculture. +he #etitioners :led a
letter o% a##eal to the ci"il ser"ice co$$ission to
recall the order. Petitioner all :le a #etition %or
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
3/18
certiorari with #rohibition an $anda$us with #rayer
%or #reli$inary $andatory in0unction and a te$#orary
restraining order with the regional trial court o% ata
to #re"ent the res#ondent %ro$ en%orcing the notice
o% ter$ination and %ro$ austing the #etitioners in
there res#ecti"e oGces.
+he regional trial court issued an order ordering the
national tobacco ad$inistration to a##oint the
#etitioner to the o #osition si$ilar to the one that they
hold be%ore. +he national tobacco ad$inistration
a##ealed to the court o% a##eals who re"ersed the
decision o% the 8+. Petitioner a##ealed to the
su#re$e court.
ISSUE:
hether or not, the reorganiation o% the national
tobacco ad$inistration is "alid true issuance o%
e'ecuti"e order by the #resident.
HELD:
According to the su#re$e court, the #resident has the
#ower to reorganie an oGce to achie"e si$#licity
,econo$y and eGciency as #ro"ided under e'ecuti"e
order 292 sec. ! and section H* o% 8A 7/H& which#ro"ides that acti"ities o% e'ecuti"e agencies $ay be
scaled down i% it is no longer essential %or the deli"ery
o% #ublic ser"ice.
>8>48>, the 3otion to Ad$it Petition %or >n anc
resolution and the Petition %or an >n anc 8esolution
are D>NI>D %or lac o% $erit. 5et entry o% 0udg$ent be
$ade in due course. No costs.
PIMENTEL VS. COMELEC GR 1)1)5!& NOV. (&
(
FACTS:
ongress #assed 8A 9/&, o$#rehensi"e Dangerous
Drugs Act o% 22, and $aes it $andatory %or
candidates %or #ublic oGce, students o% secondary
and tertiary schools, oGcers and e$#loyees o% #ublicand #ri"ate oGces, and #ersons charged be%ore the
#rosecutor=s oGce with certain o
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
4/18
hether or not the S had #owers to e'ecute its
resolution or 0udg$ent.
HELD:
+he i"il Ser"ice o$$ission, lie the o$$ission on
>lections and the o$$ission on Audit, is a
constitutional co$$ission in"ested by the
onstitution and rele"ant laws not only with authority
to ad$inister the ci"il ser"ice, but also with ;uasi1
0udicial #owers. It has the authority to hear and
decide ad$inistrati"e disci#linary cases instituted
directly with it or brought to it on a##eal. +he i"il
Ser"ice o$$ission #ro$ulgated 8esolution No. *91
779 ado#ting, a##ro"ing and #utting into e 927 %urther de:ned and enlarged the %unctions
and #owers o% the 55DA and enu$erated the towns,
cities and #ro"inces enco$#assed by the ter$
@5aguna de ay 8egionE.
L#on i$#le$entation o% 8A 7/ (5ocal -o"ern$ent
ode o% 99), the $unici#alities assu$ed e'clusi"e 0urisdiction O authority to issue :shing #ri"ileges
within their $unici#al waters since Sec.H9 thereo%
#ro"idesM @3unici#al cor#orations shall ha"e the
authority to grant :shery #ri"ileges in the $unici#al
waters and i$#ose rental %ees or charges there%oreE
ig :sh#en o#erators too ad"antage o% the occasion
to establish :sh#ens O :sh cages to the consternation
o% the 55DA.
+he i$#le$entation o% se#arate inde#endent #olicies
in :sh cages O :sh #en o#eration and the
indiscri$inate grant o% :sh#en #er$its by the
laeshore $unici#alities ha"e saturated the lae with
:sh#ens, thereby aggra"ating the current
en"iron$ental #roble$s and ecological stress o%
5aguna 5ae.
+he 55DA then ser"ed notice to the general #ublic
that () :sh#ens, cages O other a;ua1culture
structures unregistered with the 55DA as o% 3arch !,
99! are declared illegalB (2) those declared illegal
shall be sub0ect to de$olition by the Presidential +as
4orce %or Illegal 4ish#en and Illegal 4ishingB and (!)
owners o% those declared illegal shall be cri$inally
charged with "iolation o% Sec.!91A o% 8A H*& as
a$ended by PD *!.
A $onth later, the 55DA sent notices ad"ising the
owners o% the illegally constructed :sh#ens, :shcages
and other a;ua1culture structures ad"ising the$ todis$antle their res#ecti"e structures otherwise
de$olition shall be e
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
5/18
should e'ercise 0urisdiction o"er the 5aguna lae and
its en"irons inso%ar as the issuance o% #er$its %or
:shery #ri"ileges is concernedK
hether the 55DA is a ;uasi10udicial agencyK
HELD:
. Sec.H() o% the charter o% the 55DA, 8A H*&, the
#ro"isions o% PD *!,and Sec.2 o% > No.927,
s#eci:cally #ro"ide that the 55DA shall ha"e e'clusi"e
0urisdiction to issue #er$its %or the use o% all sur%ace
water %or any #ro0ects or acti"ities in or achegaray y Pilo %or the cri$e o% ra#e o% the year1
old daughter o% his co$$on1law s#ouse and the
i$#osition u#on hi$ o% the death #enalty %or the said
cri$e.
e :led an 348 and a su##le$ental 348 raising %or
the :rst ti$e the issue o% the constitutionality o%
8e#ublic Act No. 7/&9 and the death #enalty %or ra#e.
+he ourt denied both $otions.
In the $eanti$e, ongress had seen it :t to change
the $ode o% e'ecution o% the death #enalty %ro$
electrocution to lethal in0ection, and #assed 8e#ublic
Act No. *77, AN A+ D>SI-NA+IN- D>A+ 5>+A5
IN?>+IN AS +> 3>+D 4 A88IN- L+API+A5 PLNIS3>N+, A3>NDIN- 48 +> PL8PS>
A8+I5> * 4 +> 8>JIS>D P>NA5 D>, AS
A3>ND>D S>+IN 2H 4 8>PL5I A+ N.
7/&9.
+he con"ict :led a Petition %or #rohibition %ro$
carrying out the lethal in0ection against hi$ under the
grounds that it constituted cruel, degrading, or
unusual #unish$ent, being "iolati"e o% due #rocess, a
"iolation o% the Phili##ines obligations underinternational co"enants, an undue delegation o%
legislati"e #ower by ongress, an unlaw%ul e'ercise
by res#ondent Secretary o% the #ower to legislate, and
an unlaw%ul delegation o% delegated #owers by the
Secretary o% ?ustice to res#ondent Director.
In his $otion to a$end, the #etitioner added e;ual
#rotection as a ground.
+he Gce o% the Solicitor -eneral stated that this
ourt has already u#held the constitutionality o% the
Death Penalty 5aw, and has re#eatedly declared that
the death #enalty is not cruel, un0ust, e'cessi"e or
unusual #unish$entB e'ecution by lethal in0ection, as
authoried under 8.A. No. *77 and the ;uestioned
rules, is constitutional, lethal in0ection being the $ost
$odern, $ore hu$ane, $ore econo$ical, sa%er and
easier to a##ly (than electrocution or the gas
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
6/18
cha$ber)B the International o"enant on i"il and
Political 8ights does not e'#ressly or i$#liedly
#rohibit the i$#osition o% the death #enaltyB 8.A. No.
*77 #ro#erly delegated legislati"e #ower to
res#ondent DirectorB and that 8.A. No. *77 con%ers
the #ower to #ro$ulgate the i$#le$enting rules to
the Secretary o% ?ustice, Secretary o% ealth and the
ureau o% orrections.
+he o$$ission on u$an 8ights :led a 3otion %or
5ea"e o% ourt to Inter"ene andRor A##ear as A$icus
uriae with the attached Petition to Inter"ene andRor
A##ear as A$icus uriae. +hey alleged si$ilarly with
>chegaray=s argu$ents.
+he #etitioner :led a re#ly si$ilar to his :rst
argu$ents. +he court ga"e due course to the #etition.
oncisely #ut, #etitioner argues that 8.A. No. *77
and its i$#le$enting rules do not #ass constitutional
$uster %orM (a) "iolation o% the constitutional
#roscri#tion against cruel, degrading or inhu$an
#unish$ent, (b) "iolation o% our international treaty
obligations, (c) being an undue delegation o%
legislati"e #ower, and (d) being discri$inatory.
ISSUE:
hether or not there was an undue delegation o%
legislati"e #owerK
HELD:
8.A. No. *77 liewise #ro"ides the standards which
de:ne the legislati"e #olicy, $ar its li$its, $a# out
its boundaries, and s#eci%y the #ublic agencies which
will a##ly it. It indicates the circu$stances underwhich the legislati"e #ur#ose $ay be carried out. 8.A.
No. *77 s#eci:cally re;uires that the death
sentence shall be e'ecuted under the authority o% the
Director o% the ureau o% orrections, endea"oring so
%ar as #ossible to $itigate the suS+A5ISIN- +>
PI5IPPIN> NA+INA5 P5I> LND>8 A 8>8-ANI>D
D>PA8+3>N+ 4 +> IN+>8I8 AND 5A5
-J>8N3>N+, AND 48 +>8 PL8PS>S,E
allegedly contra"ened Art. TJI, sec. / o% the 9*/
onstitutionM @+he State shall establish and $aintain
one #olice %orce, which shall be national in sco#e and
ci"ilian in character, to be ad$inistered and
controlled by a national #olice co$$ission. +he
authority o% local e'ecuti"es o"er the #olice units in
their 0urisdiction shall be #ro"ided by law.E
ISSUEsM
hether or not 8A /97& is contrary to the
onstitution
hether or not Sec. 2 8A /97& constitutes an
@encroach$ent u#on, inter%erence with, and an
abdication by the President o%, e'ecuti"e control and
co$$ander1in1chie% #owersE
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
7/18
HELD:
Power o% Ad$inistrati"e ontrol
NAP53 is under the Gce o% the President.
S held that the President has control o% all e'ecuti"e
de#art$ents, bureaus, and oGces. +his #residential
#ower o% control o"er the e'ecuti"e branch o%
go"ern$ent e'tends o"er all e'ecuti"e oGcers %ro$
abinet Secretary to the lowliest cler. In the
land$ar case o% 3ondano "s. Sil"osa, the #ower o%
control $eans @the #ower o% the President to alter or
$odi%y or nulli%y or set aside what a subordinate
oGcer had done in the #er%or$ance o% his duties and
to substitute the 0udg$ent o% the %or$er with that o%
the latter.E It is said to be at the "ery @heart o% the$eaning o% hie% >'ecuti"e.E
As a corollary rule to the control #owers o% the
President is the @Doctrine o% Uuali:ed Political
Agency.E As the President cannot be e'#ected to
e'ercise his control #owers all at the sa$e ti$e and
in #erson, he will ha"e to delegate so$e o% the$ to
his abinet $e$bers.
Lnder this doctrine, which recognies the
establish$ent o% a single e'ecuti"e, @all e'ecuti"e
and ad$inistrati"e organiations are ad0uncts o% the
>'ecuti"e De#art$ent, the heads o% the "arious
e'ecuti"e de#art$ents are assistants and agents o%
the hie% >'ecuti"e, and, e'ce#t in cases where the
hie% >'ecuti"e is re;uired by the onstitution or law
to act in #erson or the e'igencies o% the situation
de$and that he act #ersonally, the $ulti%arious
e'ecuti"e and ad$inistrati"e %unctions o% the hie%
>'ecuti"e are #er%or$ed by and through the
e'ecuti"e de#art$ents, and the acts o% the
Secretaries o% such de#art$ents, #er%or$ed and
#ro$ulgated in the regular course o% business, unless
disa##ro"ed or re#robated by the hie% >'ecuti"e, are
#resu$#ti"ely the acts o% the hie% >'ecuti"e.
+hus, @the President=s #ower o% control is directly
e'ercised by hi$ o"er the $e$bers o% the abinet
who, in turn, and by his authority, control the bureaus
and other oGces under their res#ecti"e 0urisdictions
in the e'ecuti"e de#art$ent.E
+he #lacing o% NAP53 and PNP under the
reorganied DI5- is $erely an ad$inistrati"e
realign$ent that would bolster a syste$ o%
coordination and coo#eration a$ong the citienry,
local e'ecuti"es and the integrated law en%orce$ent
agencies and #ublic sa%ety agencies.
Power o% >'ecuti"e ontrol
Sec. 2 does not constitute abdication o% co$$ander1
in1chie% #owers. It si$#ly #ro"ides %or the transition
#eriod or #rocess during which the national #olice
would gradually assu$e the ci"ilian %unction o%
sa%eguarding the internal security o% the State. Lnder
this instance, the President, to re#eat, abdicates
nothing o% his war #owers. It would bear to here state,
in reiteration o% the #re#onderant "iew, that the
President, as o$$ander1in1hie%, is not a $e$ber o%
the Ar$ed 4orces. e re$ains a ci"ilian whose duties
under the o$$ander1in1hie% #ro"ision @re#resent
only a #art o% the organic duties i$#osed u#on hi$.
All his other %unctions are clearly ci"il in nature.E is
#osition as a ci"ilian o$$ander1in1hie% is consistent
with, and a testa$ent to, the constitutional #rinci#lethat @ci"ilian authority is, at all ti$es, su#re$e o"er
the $ilitary.
DENR VS DENR EMPLOYEES
FACTS:
D>N8 8eg 2 >$#loyees :led a #etition %or nullity o% the $e$orandu$ order issued by the 8egional >'ec.
Director o% D>N8, directing the i$$ediate trans%er o%
the D>N8 2 8egional Gces %ro$ otabato to
Foronadal ity. +he $e$orandu$ was issued
#ursuant to D>N8 >'ecuti"e rder issued by the
D>N8 Secretary.
Iss#:
hether or not D>N8 Secretary has the authority toreorganie the D>N8 8egion 2 Gce.
HELD:
+he ;uali:ed #olitical agency doctrine, all e'ecuti"e
and ad$inistrati"e organiations are ad0uncts o% the
>'ecuti"e De#art$ent, and the acts o% the Secretaries
o% such de#art$ents, #er%or$ed and #ro$ulgated in
the regular course o% business, are, unless
disa##ro"ed or re#robated by the hie% >'ecuti"e, are
#resu$#ti"ely the acts o% the hie% >'ecuti"e. It is
corollary to the control #ower o% the President as
#ro"ided %or under Art. JII Sec. 7 o% the 9*7
onstitutionM +he President shall ha"e control o% all
the e'ecuti"e de#art$ents, bureaus, and oGces. e
shall ensure that the laws be %aith%ully e'ecuted.
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
8/18
In the case at bar, the D>N8 Secretary can "alidly
reorganie the D>N8 by ordering the trans%er o% the
D>N8 TII 8egional Gces %ro$ otabato ity to
Foronadal, South otabato. +he e'ercise o% this
authority by the D>N8 Secretary, as an alter ego, is
#resu$ed to be the acts o% the President %or the latter
had not e'#ressly re#udiated the sa$e.
CARINO VS. CHR
FACTS:
So$e * #ublic school teachers undertoo @$ass
concerted actionsE to #rotest the alleged %ailure o%
#ublic authorities to act u#on their grie"ances. +he
@$ass actionsE consisted in staying away %ro$ their
classes, con"erging at the 5iwasang oni%acio,gathering in #eacable asse$blies, etc. +he Secretary
o% >ducation ser"ed the$ with an order to return to
wor within 2H hours or %ace dis$issal. 4or %ailure to
heed the return1to1wor order, eight teachers at the
8a$on 3agsaysay igh School were ad$inistrati"ely
charged, #re"enti"ely sus#ended %or 9 days
#ursuant to sec. H, P.D. *7 and te$#orarily
re#laced. An in"estigation co$$ittee was
conse;uently %or$ed to hear the charges.
hen their $otion %or sus#ension was denied by the
In"estigating o$$ittee, said teachers staged a
walout signi%ying their intent to boycott the entire
#roceedings. >"entually, Secretary arino decreed
dis$issal %ro$ ser"ice o% >sber and the sus#ension %or
9 $onths o% abaran, udoy and del astillo. In the
$eanti$e, a case was :led with 8+, raising the issue
o% "iolation o% the right o% the striing teachers= to due
#rocess o% law. +he case was e"entually ele"ated to
S. Also in the $eanti$e, the res#ondent teachers
sub$itted sworn state$ents to o$$ission on
u$an 8ights to co$#lain that while they were
#artici#ating in #eace%ul $ass actions, they suddenlylearned o% their re#lace$ent as teachers, allegedly
without notice and conse;uently %or reasons
co$#letely unnown to the$.
hile the case was #ending with 8, S
#ro$ulgated its resolution o"er the cases :led with it
earlier, u#holding the Sec. arino=s act o% issuing the
return1to1wor orders. Des#ite this, 8 continued
hearing its case and held that the @striing teachersE
@were denied due #rocess o% lawBthey should notha"e been re#laced without a chance to re#ly to the
ad$inistrati"e chargesBE there had been "iolation o%
their ci"il and #olitical rights which the o$$ission is
e$#owered to in"estigate.E
ISSUE:
hether or not 8 has 0urisdiction to try and hear
the issues in"ol"ed
HELD:
+he ourt declares the o$$ission on u$an 8ights
to ha"e no such #owerB and that it was not $eant by
the %unda$ental law to be another court or ;uasi1
0udicial agency in this country, or du#licate $uch less
tae o"er the %unctions o% the latter.
+he $ost that $ay be conceded to the o$$ission in
the way o% ad0udicati"e #ower is that it $ay
in"estigate, i.e., recei"e e"idence and $ae :ndings
o% %act as regards clai$ed hu$an rights "iolations
in"ol"ing ci"il and #olitical rights. ut %act :nding is
not ad0udication, and cannot be liened to the 0udicial%unction o% a court o% 0ustice, or e"en a ;uasi10udicial
agency or oGcial. +he %unction o% recei"ing e"idence
and ascertaining there%ro$ the %acts o% a contro"ersy
is not a 0udicial %unction, #ro#erly s#eaing. +o be
considered such, the %aculty o% recei"ing e"idence and
$aing %actual conclusions in a contro"ersy $ust be
acco$#anied by the authority o% a##lying the law to
those %actual conclusions to the end that the
contro"ersy $ay be decided or deter$ined
authoritati"ely, :nally and de:niti"ely, sub0ect to such
a##eals or $odes o% re"iew as $ay be #ro"ided by
law. +his %unction, to re#eat, the o$$ission does not
ha"e.
Power to In"estigate
+he onstitution clearly and categorically grants to
the o$$ission the #ower to in"estigate all %or$s o%
hu$an rights "iolations in"ol"ing ci"il and #olitical
rights. It can e'ercise that #ower on its own initiati"e
or on co$#laint o% any #erson. It $ay e'ercise that
#ower #ursuant to such rules o% #rocedure as it $ay
ado#t and, in cases o% "iolations o% said rules, cite %or
conte$#t in accordance with the 8ules o% ourt. In the
course o% any in"estigation conducted by it or under
its authority, it $ay grant i$$unity %ro$ #rosecution
to any #erson whose testi$ony or whose #ossession
o% docu$ents or other e"idence is necessary or
con"enient to deter$ine the truth. It $ay also re;uest
the assistance o% any de#art$ent, bureau, oGce, or
agency in the #er%or$ance o% its %unctions, in the
conduct o% its in"estigation or in e'tending such
re$edy as $ay be re;uired by its :ndings.
ut it cannot try and decide cases (or hear and
deter$ine causes) as courts o% 0ustice, or e"en ;uasi1
0udicial bodies do. +o in"estigate is not to ad0udicate
or ad0udge. hether in the #o#ular or the technical
sense, these ter$s ha"e well understood and ;uite
distinct $eanings.
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
9/18
@In"estigateE "s. @Ad0udicateE
In"estigate, co$$only understood, $eans to
e'a$ine, e'#lore, in;uire or del"e or #robe into,
research on, study. +he dictionary de:nition o%
in"estigate is to obser"e or study closelyM in;uire
into syste$atically. to search or in;uire intoM . . . to
sub0ect to an oGcial #robe . . .M to conduct an oGcial
in;uiry. +he #ur#ose o% in"estigation , o% course, is to
disco"er, to :nd out, to learn, obtain in%or$ation.
Nowhere included or inti$ated is the notion o%
settling, deciding or resol"ing a contro"ersy in"ol"ed
in the %acts in;uired into by a##lication o% the law to
the %acts established by the in;uiry.
+he legal $eaning o% in"estigate is essentially the
sa$eM (t)o %ollow u# ste# by ste# by #atient in;uiry
or obser"ation. +o trace or tracB to search intoB to
e'a$ine and in;uire into with care and accuracyB to
:nd out by care%ul in;uisitionB e'a$inationB the taing
o% e"idenceB a legal in;uiryB to in;uireB to $ae an
in"estigation, in"estigation being in turn describe
as (a)n ad$inistrati"e %unction, the e'ercise o% which
ordinarily does not re;uire a hearing. 2 A$ ?2d Ad$ 5
Sec. 2&7B . . . an in;uiry, 0udicial or otherwise, %or the
disco"ery and collection o% %acts concerning a certain
$atter or $atters.
Ad0udicate, co$$only or #o#ularly understood,
$eans to ad0udge, arbitrate, 0udge, decide,
deter$ine, resol"e, rule on, settle. +he dictionary
de:nes the ter$ as to settle :nally (the rights and
duties o% the #arties to a court case) on the $erits o%
issues raisedM . . . to #ass 0udg$ent onM settle
0udiciallyM . . . act as 0udge. And ad0udge $eans to
decide or rule u#on as a 0udge or with 0udicial or
;uasi10udicial #owersM . . . to award or grant 0udicially
in a case o% contro"ersy . . . .
In the legal sense, ad0udicate $eansM +o settle in
the e'ercise o% 0udicial authority. +o deter$ine :nally.
Synony$ous with ad0udge in its strictest senseB and
ad0udge $eansM +o #ass on 0udicially, to decide,
settle or decree, or to sentence or conde$n. . . .
I$#lies a 0udicial deter$ination o% a %act, and the
entry o% a 0udg$ent.
ence it is that the o$$ission on u$an 8ights,
ha"ing $erely the #ower to in"estigate, cannot and
should not try and resol"e on the $erits
(ad0udicate) the $atters in"ol"ed in Striing +eachers
8 ase No. 9177&, as it has announced it $eans
to doB and it cannot do so e"en i% there be a clai$ that
in the ad$inistrati"e disci#linary #roceedings against
the teachers in ;uestion, initiated and conducted by
the D>S, their hu$an rights, or ci"il or #olitical rights
had been transgressed. 3ore #articularly, the
o$$ission has no #ower to resol"e on the $erits
the ;uestion o% (a) whether or not the $ass concerted
actions engaged in by the teachers constitute and are
#rohibited or otherwise restricted by lawB (b) whether
or not the act o% carrying on and taing #art in those
actions, and the %ailureo% the teachers to discontinue
those actions, and return to their classes des#ite theorder to this education,
constitute in%ractions o% rele"ant rules and regulations
warranting ad$inistrati"e disci#linary sanctions, or
are 0usti:ed by the grie"ances co$#lained o% by
the$B and (c) what where the #articular acts done by
each indi"idual teacher and what sanctions, i% any,
$ay #ro#erly be i$#osed %or said acts or o$issions.
ho has Power to Ad0udicateK
+hese are $atters within the original 0urisdiction o%
the Sec. o% >ducation, being within the sco#e o% the
disci#linary #owers granted to hi$ under the i"il
Ser"ice 5aw, and also, within the a##ellate 0urisdiction
o% the S.
3anner o% A##eal
Now, it is ;uite ob"ious that whether or not the
conclusions reached by the Secretary o% >ducation in
disci#linary cases are correct and are ade;uately
based on substantial e"idenceB whether or not the
#roceedings the$sel"es are "oid or de%ecti"e in not
ha"ing accorded the res#ondents due #rocessB and
whether or not the Secretary o% >ducation had in truth
co$$itted hu$an rights "iolations in"ol"ing ci"il and
#olitical rights, are $atters which $ay be #assed
u#on and deter$ined through a $otion %or
reconsideration addressed to the Secretary >ducationhi$sel%, and in the e"ent o% an ad"erse "erdict, $ay
be re"iewed by the i"il Ser"ice o$$ission and
e"entually the Su#re$e ourt.
TECSON VS. SALAS& (" SCRA /5
FACTS:
?ose . +ecson, Su#erintendent o% Dredging, ureau o%
Public ors, was assigned to the Gce o% the
President to assist inthe San 4ernando Port Pro0ect
through a directi"e %ro$ the >'ecuti"e Secretary
worded as %ollowsM 3r. ?ose -. +ecson,
Su#erintendent o% Dredging ureau o% Public ors, is
hereby detailed to the Gce o% the President,
e
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
10/18
o$$odore Santiago Nu"al Presidential Assistant on
Ports and arbors. It was clearly set %orth therein
that it was issued by authority o% the President.
ISSUE:
hether or not the assign$ent o% herein #etitioner on
te$#orary detail to the oGce o% o$$odore Santiago
Nu"al, Presidential Assistant on Ports and arbors, by
the President o% the Phili##ines thru the >'ecuti"e
Secretary, constitutes re$o"al %ro$ oGce without
cause.
RULING:
According to #aragra#h , section 2, Article JII, o%
our onstitution, all e'ecuti"e and ad$inistrati"eorganiations are ad0uncts o% the >'ecuti"e
De#art$ent, the heads o% the "arious e'ecuti"e
de#art$ents are assistants and agents o% the hie%
>'ecuti"e, and, e'ce#t in cases where the hie%
>'ecuti"e is re;uired by the onstitution or the law to
act in #erson or the e'igencies o% the situation
de$and that he act #ersonally, the $ulti%arious
e'ecuti"e and ad$inistrati"e %unctions o% the hie%
>'ecuti"e are #er%or$ed by and through the
e'ecuti"e de#art$ent and the acts o% the secretaries
o% such de#art$ents, #er%or$ed and #ro$ulgated in
the regular course o% business, are, unless
disa##ro"ed or re#robated by the hie% >'ecuti"e,
#resu$#ti"ely the acts o% the hie% >'ecuti"e. +he
detail o% #etitioner to the Gce o% the President is
unob0ectionable. y no stretch o% the i$agination
could it be considered a re$o"al. It was not e"en a
trans%er. >"en i% it could be so "iewed, the sa$e
conclusion would e$erge, as such was allowable
under the i"il Ser"ice Act #ro"ision then in %orce, so
long as there be no reduction in ran or salary, such
trans%er there%ore not being considered disci#linary
when $ade in the interest o% #ublic ser"ice. Nor is
there any $erit to the assertion $ade in the brie% o%
#etitioner that the directi"e o% the >'ecuti"eSecretary, acting u#on authority o% the President,
needed the a##ro"al o% the i"il Ser"ice o$$ission
and the o$$issioner o% the udget %or its
en%orce$ent. Such a thought is re#ugnant to the "ery
conce#t o% a single, not a #lural, e'ecuti"e in who$ is
"ested the whole #ano#ly o% e'ecuti"e #ower. It is not
only illogical, but it does not $ae sense, to re;uire
as a #rere;uisite to its "alidity the a##ro"al o%
subordinate to an action taen by their su#erior, the
President, who tinder the onstitution is the
>'ecuti"e, all #rerogati"es attaching to such branch
being "ested in hi$ solely. In that sense, %or those
discharging #urely e'ecuti"e %unction in the nationalgo"ern$ent, he lie gi"es orders to all and taes
orders %ro$ none.
CORONA VS. UNITED HARBOR PILOTS
ASSOCIATION
FACTS:
In issuing Ad$inistrati"e rder No. H192 (PPA1A No.
H192), li$iting the ter$ o% a##oint$ent o% harbor
#ilots to one year sub0ect to yearly renewal or
cancellation.
n August 2, 992, res#ondents Lnited arbor Pilots
Association and the 3anila Pilots Association, through
a#t. Alberto . o$#as, ;uestioned PPA1A No. H1
92 be%ore the De#art$ent o% +rans#ortation and
o$$unication, but they were in%or$ed by then
D+ Secretary ?esus . -arcia that @the $atter o%
re"iewing, recalling or annulling PPA=s ad$inistrati"e
issuances lies e'clusi"ely with its oard o% Directors
as its go"erning body.E
n Dece$ber 2!, 992, the P issued an order
directing the PPA to hold in abeyance the
i$#le$entation o% PPA1A No. H192. In its answer,
the PPA countered that said ad$inistrati"e order was
issued in the e'ercise o% its ad$inistrati"e control and
su#er"ision o"er harbor #ilots under Section /1a ("iii),
Article IJ o% P. D. No. *&7, as a$ended, and it, along
with its i$#le$enting guidelines, was intended to
restore order in the #orts and to i$#ro"e the ;uality
o% #ort ser"ices.
n 3arch 7, 99!, the P, through then Assistant
>'ecuti"e Secretary %or 5egal A
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
11/18
+he ourt is con"inced that PPA1A No. H192 was
issued in star disregard o% res#ondents= right against
de#ri"ation o% #ro#erty without due #rocess o% law. In
order to %all within the aegis o% this #ro"ision, two
conditions $ust concur, na$ely, that there is a
de#ri"ation and that such de#ri"ation is done without
#ro#er obser"ance o% due #rocess. hen one s#eas
o% due #rocess o% law, howe"er, a distinction $ust be
$ade between $atters o% #rocedure and $atters o% substance. In essence, #rocedural due #rocess
@re%ers to the $ethod or $anner by which the law is
en%orced,E while substanti"e due #rocess @re;uires
that the law itsel%, not $erely the #rocedures by
which the law would be en%orced, is %air, reasonable,
and 0ust.E PPA1A No. H192 $ust be e'a$ined in
light o% this distinction. In the #er%or$ance o% its
e'ecuti"e or legislati"e %unctions, such as issuing
rules and regulations, an ad$inistrati"e body need
not co$#ly with the re;uire$ents o% notice and
hearing.
+here is no dis#ute that #ilotage as a #ro%ession has
taen on the nature o% a #ro#erty right. >"en
#etitioner orona recognied this when he stated in
his 3arch 7, 99!, decision that @(t)he e'ercise o%
one=s #ro%ession %alls within the constitutional
guarantee against wrong%ul de#ri"ation o%, or
inter%erence with, #ro#erty rights without due
#rocess.E e $erely e'#ressed the o#inion that @(i)n
the li$ited conte't o% this case, PPA1A H192 does
not constitute a wrong%ul inter%erence with, let alone a
wrong%ul de#ri"ation o%, the #ro#erty rights o% thosea
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
12/18
YNOT VS. IAC
FACTS:
+here had been an e'isting law which #rohibited the
slaughtering o% carabaos (> /2/). +o strengthen the
law, 3arcos issued > /2/1A which not only banned
the $o"e$ent o% carabaos %ro$ inter#ro"inces but as
well as the $o"e$ent o% carabee%. n ! ?an 9*H,
not was caught trans#orting / carabaos %ro$
3asbate to Iloilo. e was then charged in "iolation o%
> /2/1A. not a"erred > /2/1A as unconstitutional
%or it "iolated his right to be heard or his right to due
#rocess. e said that the authority #ro"ided by >
/2/1A to outrightly con:scate carabaos e"en without
being heard is unconstitutional. +he lower court ruled
against not ruling that the > is a "alid e'ercise o% #olice #ower in order to #ro$ote general wel%are so
as to curb down the indiscri$inate slaughter o%
carabaos.
ISSUE:
hether or not the law is "alid.
HELD:
+he S ruled that the > is not "alid as it indeed
"iolates due #rocess. > /2/1A created a #resu$#tion
based on the 0udg$ent o% the e'ecuti"e. +he
$o"e$ent o% carabaos %ro$ one area to the other
does not $ean a subse;uent slaughter o% the sa$e
would ensue. not should be gi"en to de%end hi$sel%
and e'#lain why the carabaos are being trans%erred
be%ore they can be con:scated. +he S %ound that the
challenged $easure is an in"alid e'ercise o% the
#olice #ower because the $ethod e$#loyed to
conser"e the carabaos is not reasonably necessary to
the #ur#ose o% the law and, worse, is unduly
o##ressi"e. Due #rocess is "iolated because the
owner o% the #ro#erty con:scated is denied the right
to be heard in his de%ense and is i$$ediately
conde$ned and #unished. +he con%er$ent on the
ad$inistrati"e authorities o% the #ower to ad0udge the
guilt o% the su##osed on"iron$ent and Natural 8esources
(D>N8) %or the e"aluation o% ele"en ()
go"ern$ent re%orestation o#erations in Pangasinan.
+he e"aluation #ro0ect was #art o% the co$$it$ent o%
the Asian De"elo#$ent an (AD) under theADR>4 4orestry Sector Progra$ 5oan to the
8e#ublic o% the Phili##ines and was one a$ong
identical #ro0ect agree$ents entered into by the
D>N8 with si'teen (/) other state uni"ersities.
n / ?anuary 9*9, #er ad"ice o% the PSL Auditor1in1
harge with res#ect to the #ay$ent o% honoraria and
#er die$s o% PSL #ersonnel engaged in the re"iew
and e"aluation #ro0ect, PSL Jice President %or
8esearch and >'tension and Assistant Pro0ect DirectorJictorino P. >s#ero re;uested the Gce o% the
President, PSL, to ha"e the Lni"ersitys oard o%
8egents (8) con:r$ the a##oint$ents or
designations o% in"ol"ed PSL #ersonnel including the
rates o% honoraria and #er die$s corres#onding to
their s#eci:c roles and %unctions.
+he 8 a##ro"ed the 3A on ! ?anuary 9*9 and
on 4ebruary 9*9, PSL issued Joucher
No. *927 re#resenting the a$ount o% P7, !7& %or
#ay$ent o% honoraria to PSL #ersonnel engaged in
the #ro0ect. 5ater, howe"er, the a##ro"ed honoraria
rates were %ound to be so$ewhat higher than the
rates #ro"ided %or in the guidelines o% National
o$#ensation ircular (N) No. &!. Accordingly,
the a$ounts were ad0usted downwards to con%or$ to
N No. &!. Ad0ust$ents were $ade by deducting
a$ounts %ro$ subse;uent disburse$ents o%
honoraria. y ?une 9*9, N No. &! was being
co$#lied with.
n / ?uly 9*9, oni%acio Icu, A resident auditor at
PSL, alleging that there were e'cess #ay$ents o%
honoraria, issued a Notice o% Disallowance
disallowing P/H,92& %ro$ the a$ount o% P7,!7 stated
in Joucher No. *927, $entioned earlier. +he
resident auditor based his action on the #re$ise that
o$#ensation Policy -uidelines (P-) No. *1H,
dated 7 August 9*, issued by the De#art$ent o%
udget and 3anage$ent which #ro"ided %or lower
rates than N No. &! dated 2 ?une 9**, also
issued by the De#art$ent o% udget and
3anage$ent, was the schedule %or honoraria and #er
die$s a##licable to wor done under the 3A o% 9
Dece$ber 9** between the PSL and the D>N8.
ISSUE:
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
13/18
hether or not the e"aluation #ro0ect is in %act a
s#ecial #ro0ect and that there were e'cess o%
#ay$ents o% honoraria
HELD:
+he instant e"aluation #ro0ect being a 4oreign1
Assisted Pro0ect, the PSL #ersonnels in"ol"ed in the
#ro0ect shall be #aid according to the udget >sti$ate
schedule o% the 3A.
A, under its constitutional $andate, is not
authoried to substitute its own 0udg$ent %or any
a##licable law or ad$inistrati"e regulation with the
wisdo$ or #ro#riety o% which, howe"er, it does not
agree, at least not be%ore such law or regulation is set
aside by the authoried agency o% go"ern$ent Q i.e.,the courts Q as unconstitutional or illegal and "oid.
+he A, lie all other go"ern$ent agencies, $ust
res#ect the #resu$#tion o% legality and
constitutionality to which statutes and ad$inistrati"e
regulations are entitled until such statute or
regulation is re#ealed or a$ended, or until set aside
in a##ro#riate case by a co$#etent court and
ulti$ately the Su#re$e ourt.
TOLEDO VS. CSC
FACTS:
Atty. Augusto +oledo was a##ointed by then o$elec
hair$an 8a$on 4eli#e as 3anager o% the >ducation
and In%or$ation De#art$ent o% the o$elec on 3ay
9*/, at which ti$e +oledo was already $ore than &7
years old. +oledo=s a##oint$ent #a#ers and his oath
o% oGce were endorsed by the o$elec to the S on
?une 9*/ %or a##ro"al and attestation. owe"er, no
#rior re;uest %or e'e$#tion %ro$ the #ro"isions o%
Section 22, 8ule III o% the S8PAPVwhich #rohibits the
a##oint$ent o% #ersons &7 years old or abo"e into
go"ern$ent ser"ice without #rior S a##ro"alVwas
secured. Petitioner then re#orted %or wor.
o$elec, u#on disco"ery o% the lac o% authority
re;uired under S8PAP, and S 3e$o ircular &
issued 8esolution No. 2//, which declared "oid %ro$
the beginning +oledo=s a##oint$ent. Petitioner
a##ealed to S, which considered hi$ a de %actooGcer and his a##oint$ent "oidable, and $o"ed %or
reconsideration but was denied, hence the #resent
#etition %or certiorari.
ISSUE:
hether or not S8PAP #ro"ision is "alid.
HELD:
No. +he i"il Ser"ice Act o% 9&9 (8A 22/), which
established the S, contained no #ro"ision
#rohibiting a##oint$ent or reinstate$ent into
go"ern$ent ser"ice o% any #erson already &7 years
old. Sec & 8ule / o% the 8e"ised i"il Ser"ice 8ules,
which #rohibits such, was #urely the creation o% S.
3arcos=s PD *7 (i"il Ser"ice Decree), which
established a new S and su#erseded 8A 22/, also
#ro"ided that rules and regulations shall beco$e
e
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
14/18
#ersonally and directly #re#ared by the Director and
signed by hi$.E +hese #roceedings re%er to the
hearing o% o##osition to the registration o% a $ar or
trade na$e, inter%erence #roceeding instituted %or the
#ur#ose o% deter$ining the ;uestion o% #riority o%
ado#tion and use o% a trade1$ar, trade na$e or
ser"ice1$ar, and cancellation o% registration o% a
trade1$ar or trade na$e #ending at the Patent
Gce. Petitioners :led their ob0ections to theauthority o% the hearing oGcers to hear their cases,
alleging that the a$end$ent o% the 8ule is illegal and
"oid because under the law the Director $ust
#ersonally hear and decide inter #artes case. Said
ob0ections were o"erruled by the Director o% Patents,
hence, the #resent #etition %or $anda$us, to co$#el
the Director o% Patents to #ersonally hear the cases o%
#etitioners, in lieu o% the hearing oGcers.
ISSUE:
hether or not the hearing done by hearing oGcers
are within due #rocess.
HELD:
+he S ruled that the #ower to decide resides solely
in the ad$inistrati"e agency "ested by law, this doesnot #reclude a delegation o% the #ower to hold a
hearing on the basis o% which the decision o% the
ad$inistrati"e agency will be $ade. +he rule that
re;uires an ad$inistrati"e oGcer to e'ercise his own
0udg$ent and discretion does not #reclude hi$ %ro$
utiliing, as a $atter o% #ractical ad$inistrati"e
#rocedure, the aid o% subordinates to in"estigate and
re#ort to hi$ the %acts, on the basis o% which the
oGcer $aes his decisions. It is suGcient that the
0udg$ent and discretion :nally e'ercised are those o%
the oGcer authoried by law. Neither does due
#rocess o% law nor the re;uire$ents o% %air hearing
re;uire that the actual taing o% testi$ony be be%orethe sa$e oGcer who will $ae the decision in the
case. As long as a #arty is not de#ri"ed o% his right to
#resent his own case and sub$it e"idence in su##ort
thereo%, and the decision is su##orted by the
e"idence in the record, there is no ;uestion that the
re;uire$ents o% due #rocess and %air trial are %ully
$et. In short, there is no abnegation o% res#onsibility
on the #art o% the oGcer concerned as the actual
decision re$ains with and is $ade by said oGcer. It
is, howe"er, re;uired that to @gi"e the substance o% a
hearing, which is %or the #ur#ose o% $aing
deter$inations u#on e"idence the oGcer who $aes
the deter$inations $ust consider and a##raise the
e"idence which 0usti:es the$.E
PHIL COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORP. VS.
ALCUAZ
FACTS:
y "irtue o% 8A &&H, Phili##ine o$$unications
Satellite or#oration was granted @a %ranchise to
establish, construct, $aintain and o#erate in the
Phili##ines, at such #laces as the grantee $ay select,
station or stations and associated e;ui#$ent and
%acilities %or international satellite co$$unications.E
Lnder this %ranchise, it was liewise granted the
authority to @construct and o#erate such ground
%acilities as needed to deli"er teleco$$unications
ser"ices %ro$ the co$$unications satellite syste$
and ground ter$inal or ter$inals.E Lnder Sec & o% the
sa$e law, Philo$Sat was e'e$#t %ro$ the
0urisdiction, control and regulation o% the Public
Ser"ice o$$ission later nown as the National
+eleco$$unications o$$ission. owe"er, > 9/
was later #roclai$ed and the sa$e has #laced
Philo$Sat under the 0urisdiction o% N+.
onse;uently, Philo$Sat has to ac;uire #er$it to
o#erate %ro$ N+ in order to continue o#erating its
e'isting satellites. N+ ga"e the necessary #er$it but
it howe"er directed Philo$Sat to reduce its current
rates by &W. N+ based its #ower to :' the rates on
> &H/. Philo$Sat assailed the said directi"e and
holds that the enabling act (> &H/) o% res#ondent
N+ e$#owering it to :' rates %or #ublic ser"ice
co$$unications does not #ro"ide the necessary
standards constitutionally re;uired hence there is an
undue delegation o% legislati"e #ower, #articularly the
ad0udicatory #owers o% N+. Philo$Sat asserts that
nowhere in the #ro"isions o% > &H/, #ro"iding %or thecreation o% res#ondent N+ and granting its rate1
:'ing #owers, nor o% > 9/, #lacing #etitioner under
the 0urisdiction o% res#ondent N+, can it be in%erred
that res#ondent N+ is guided by any standard in the
e'ercise o% its rate1:'ing and ad0udicatory #owers.
Philo$Sat subse;uently clari:ed its said sub$ission
to $ean that the order $andating a reduction o%
certain rates is undue delegation not o% legislati"e but
o% ;uasi10udicial #ower to res#ondent N+, the
e'ercise o% which allegedly re;uires an e'#ress
con%er$ent by the legislati"e body.
ISSUE:
hether or not there is an undue delegation o% #ower.
HELD:
4unda$ental is the rule that delegation o% legislati"e
#ower $ay be sustained only u#on the ground that
so$e standard %or its e'ercise is #ro"ided and that
the legislature in $aing the delegation has
#rescribed the $anner o% the e'ercise o% the
delegated #ower. +here%ore, when the ad$inistrati"e
agency concerned, N+ in this case, establishes a
rate, its act $ust both be non1con:scatory and $ust
ha"e been established in the $anner #rescribed by
the legislatureB otherwise, in the absence o% a :'ed
standard, the delegation o% #ower beco$es
unconstitutional. In case o% a delegation o% rate1:'ing
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
15/18
#ower, the only standard which the legislature is
re;uired to #rescribe %or the guidance o% the
ad$inistrati"e authority is that the rate be reasonable
and 0ust. owe"er, it has been held that e"en in the
absence o% an e'#ress re;uire$ent as to
reasonableness, this standard $ay be i$#lied. In the
case at bar, the :'ed rate is %ound to be o% $erit and
reasonable.
RIZAL EMPIRE INSURANCE GROUP VS. NLRC
FACTS
In August, 977, herein #ri"ate res#ondent 8ogelio 8.
oria was hired by herein #etitioner 8ial >$#ire
Insurance -rou# as a casual e$#loyee with a salary
o% P. a day. n ?anuary , 97*, he was $ade aregular e$#loyee, ha"ing been a##ointed as cler1
ty#ist, with a $onthly salary o% P!.. eing a
#er$anent e$#loyee, he was %urnished a co#y o%
#etitioner co$#anys -eneral In%or$ation, Gce
eha"ior and ther 8ules and 8egulations. In the
sa$e year, without change in his #osition1
designation, he was trans%erred to the lai$s
De#art$ent and his salary was increased to PH&,
a $onth. In 9*, he was trans%erred to the
Lnderwriting De#art$ent and his salary was
increased to P&*. a $onth #lus cost o% li"ing
allowance, until he was trans%erred to the 4ire
De#art$ent as :ling cler. In ?uly, 9*!, he was $ade
an ins#ector o% the 4ire Di"ision with a $onthly salary
o% P/*&. #lus allowances and other bene:ts.
n ctober &, 9*!, #ri"ate res#ondent 8ogelio 8.
oria was dis$issed %ro$ wor, allegedly, on the
grounds o% tardiness and une'cused absences.
Accordingly, he :led a co$#laint with the 3inistry o%
5abor and >$#loy$ent (35>), and in a Decision
dated 3arch H, 5abor Arbiter +eodorico 5. 8ui
reinstated hi$ to his #osition with bac wages.
ISSUE:
hether or not it is still within the 0urisdiction o% the
Su#re$e ourt.
HELD:
+he record shows that the e$#loyer (#etitioner
herein) recei"ed a co#y o% the decision o% the 5abor
Arbiter on A#ril , 9*&. It :led a 3otion %or >'tension
o% +i$e to 4ile 3e$orandu$ o% A##eal on A#ril ,
9*& and :led the 3e$orandu$ o% A##eal on A#ril
22, 9*&. Pursuant to the no e'tension #olicy o% the
National 5abor 8elations o$$ission, a%oresaid
$otion %or e'tension o% ti$e was denied in its
resolution dated No"e$ber &, 9*& and the a##eal
was dis$issed %or ha"ing been :led out o% ti$e.
It will be noted howe"er, that the %oregoing #ro"ision
re%ers to the 8ules o% ourt. n the other hand, the
8e"ised 8ules o% the National 5abor 8elations
o$$ission are clear and e'#licit and lea"e no roo$
%or inter#retation.
3oreo"er, it is an ele$entary rule in ad$inistrati"e
law that ad$inistrati"e regulations and #olicies
enacted by ad$inistrati"e bodies to inter#ret the law
which they are entrusted to en%orce, ha"e the %orce o%
law, and are entitled to great res#ect.
Lnder the abo"e1;uoted #ro"isions o% the 8e"ised
N58 8ules, the decision a##ealed %ro$ in this case
has beco$e :nal and e'ecutory and can no longer be
sub0ect to a##eal.
MAKATI STOCK E+CHANGE INC VS SEC
FACTS: +he S> in its resolution, denied the 3aati Stoc>'change, Inc #er$ission to o#erate a stoc e'changeunless it agreed not to list %or trading on its board,securities already listed in the 3anila Stoc >'change.
b0ecting to the re;uire$ent, 3aati Stoc >'change,Inc. ontends that the o$$ission has no #ower to
i$#ose it and that anyway, it is illegal, discri$inatoryand un0ust. +he o$$ission=s order or resolutionwould $ae i$#ossible, %or all #ractical #ur#oses, %orthe 3aati Stoc >'change to o#erate, such that its@#er$issionE a$ounted to @#rohibitionE.
ISSUE:Does the o$$ission ha"e the authority to#ro$ulgate the rule in ;uestionK
HELD:None.
+est %or deter$ining the e'istence o% authority@+he co$$ission cites no #ro"ision o% law e'#ressly
su##orting its rule against double listing. It suggeststhat the #ower is necessary %or the e'ecution o% the%unctions "ested in it. It argues that said rule wasa##ro"ed by the De#art$ent ead be%ore the war andit is not in conCict with the #ro"isions o% the SecuritiesAct. +he a##ro"al o% the De#art$ent, by itsel%, addsno weight in 0udicial litigation.
+he test is not whether the Act %orbids o$$ission%ro$ i$#osing a #rohibition but whether it e$#owersthe o$$ission to #rohibit.
o$$ission without #ower to i$#ose #rohibition@+he o$$ission #ossesses no #ower to i$#ose the
condition o% the rule which results in discri$inationand "iolation o% constitutional rights. It is %unda$entalthat an ad$inistrati"e oGcer has such #owers as aree'#ressly granted to hi$ by statute, and thosenecessarily i$#lied in the e'ercise thereo%.Accordingly, the license o% 3aati Stoc >'change isa##ro"ed without such condition against doublelisting.
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
16/18
HOLY SPIRIT HOMEO0NERS ASSOCIATION VS
SEC DEFENSOR
FACTS:
Prior to the #assage o% 8.A. No. 927, a nu$ber o%
#residential issuances authoried the creation and
de"elo#$ent o% what is now nown as the National
-o"ern$ent enter (N-). n 3arch &, 972, %or$erPresident 4erdinand 3arcos issued Procla$ation No.
*2/, reser"ing a #arcel o% land in onstitution ills,
Uueon ity, co"ering a little o"er HH hectares as a
national go"ern$ent site to be nown as the N-. n
August , 9*7, then President oraon A;uino
issued Procla$ation No. !7, e'cluding & o% the HH
hectares o% the reser"ed site %ro$ the co"erage o%
Procla$ation No. *2/ and authoriing instead the
dis#osition o% the e'cluded #ortion by direct sale to
the bona :de residents therein.
In "iew o% the ra#id increase in #o#ulation density in
the #ortion e'cluded by Procla$ation No. !7 %ro$the co"erage o% Procla$ation No. *2/, %or$er
President 4idel 8a$os issued Procla$ation No. 2H* on
Se#te$ber 7, 99!, authoriing the "ertical
de"elo#$ent o% the e'cluded #ortion to $a'i$ie the
nu$ber o% %a$ilies who can e
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
17/18
0udicial or $inisterial %unctions, ordering
said entity or #erson to desist %ro$ %urther
#roceedings when said #roceedings are without or in
e'cess o% said entity=s or #erson=s 0urisdiction, or are
acco$#anied with gra"e abuse o% discretion, and
there is no a##eal or any other #lain, s#eedy and
ade;uate re$edy in the ordinary course o% law.X2Y
X2Y
Prohibition lies against 0udicial or $inisterial %unctions,but not against legislati"e or ;uasi1legislati"e
%unctions. -enerally, the #ur#ose o% a writ o%
#rohibition is to ee# a lower court within the li$its o%
its 0urisdiction in order to $aintain the ad$inistration
o% 0ustice in orderly channels. Prohibition is the #ro#er
re$edy to a8>48>, the instant #etition %or #rohibition is
DIS3ISS>D.
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE
E+PORTERS VS TORRES
FACTS:
D5> Secretary 8uben D. +orres issued De#art$ent
rder No. / Series o% 99 te$#orarily sus#ending
the recruit$ent by #ri"ate e$#loy$ent agencies o%
@4ili#ino do$estic hel#ers going to ong FongE. As a
result o% the de#art$ent order D5>, through the
P>A too o"er the business o% de#loying ong Fong
bound worers.
+he #etitioner, PAS>I, the largest organiation o%
#ri"ate e$#loy$ent and recruit$ent agencies duly
licensed and authoried by the P>A to engage in the
business o% obtaining o"erseas e$#loy$ent %or
4ili#ino land1based worers :led a #etition %or
#rohibition to annul the a%ore$entioned order and to
#rohibit i$#le$entation.
ISSUES:
whether or not res#ondents acted with gra"e abuse o%
discretion andRor in e'cess o% their rule1$aing
authority in issuing said circularsB
whether or not the assailed D5> and P>A circulars
are contrary to the onstitution, are unreasonable,
un%air and o##ressi"eB and
whether or not the re;uire$ents o% #ublication and
:ling with the Gce o% the National Ad$inistrati"e
8egister were not co$#lied with.
HELD:
4I8S+, the res#ondents acted well within in their
authority and did not co$$it gra"e abuse o%
discretion. +his is because Article !/ (5) clearly
grants the 5abor Secretary to restrict and regulate
recruit$ent and #lace$ent acti"ities, to witM
Art. !/. 8egulatory Power. V +he Secretary o% 5abor
shall ha"e the #ower to restrict and regulate the
recruit$ent and #lace$ent acti"ities o% all agencies
within the co"erage o% this title X8egulation o%
8ecruit$ent and Place$ent Acti"itiesY and is hereby
authoried to issue orders and #ro$ulgate rules and
regulations to carry out the ob0ecti"es and i$#le$ent
the #ro"isions o% this title.
S>ND, the "esture o% ;uasi1legislati"e and ;uasi1 0udicial #owers in ad$inistrati"e bodies is
constitutional. It is necessitated by the growing
co$#le'ities o% the $odern society.
+I8D, the orders and circulars issued are howe"er,
in"alid and unen%orceable. +he reason is the lac o%
#ro#er #ublication and :ling in the Gce o% the
National Ad$inistrati"e 8egistrar as re;uired in Article
2 o% the i"il ode to witM
Art. 2. 5aws shall tae e
8/16/2019 Admin Law Case Digests - Part i
18/18
(&) days %ro$ the date o% :ling as abo"e #ro"ided
unless a di