Admin Law Nov 21 2015

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

1/45

ADMIN LAW NOV 21 2015 1

G.R. No. 4349 September 24, 1908

THE UNITED STATES,plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

ANICETO BARRIAS,defendant-appellant.

Ortigas & Fisher for appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta for appellee.

TRACE, J.:

In the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila the defendant was charged within a

violation of paragraphs 70 and 83 of Circular o. 3!7 of the Insular Collector of

Custo"s, duly pu#lished in the $fficial %a&ette and approved #y the 'ecretary of

Finance and (ustice.)*fter a de"urrer to the co"plaint of the lighter Maude, he was

"oving her and directing her "ove"ent, when heavily laden, in the +asig iver, #y

#a"#oo poles in the hands of the crew, and without stea", sail, or any other eternal

power. +aragraph 70 of Circular o. 3!7 reads as follows

o heavily loaded casco, lighter, or other si"ilar craft shall #e per"itted to

"ove in the +asig iver without #eing towed #y stea" or "oved #y other

ade/uate power.

+aragraph 83 reads, in part, as follows

For the violation of any part of the foregoing regulations, the persons

offending shall #e lia#le to a fine of not less than + and not "ore than

+00, in the discretion of the court.

In this court, counsel for the appellant attac1ed the validity of paragraph 70 on two

grounds First that it is unauthori&ed #y section )! of *ct o. 32 and, second, that if

the acts of the +hilippine Co""ission #ear the interpretation of authori&ing the

Collector to pro"ulgate such a law, they are void, as constituting an illegal delegation

of legislative power.

he *ttorney-%eneral does not see1 to sustain the conviction #ut 4oins with the

counsel for the defense in as1ing for the discharge of the prisoner on the first ground

stated #y the defense, that the rule of the Collector cited was unauthori&ed and illegal,

epressly passing over the other /uestion of the delegation of legislative power.

5y sections ), 6, and 3 of *ct o. ))3, passed *pril 6!, )!0, the Collector of

Custo"s is authori&ed to license craft engaged in the lighterage or other eclusively

har#or #usiness of the ports of the Islands, and, with certain eceptions, all vessels

engaged in lightering are re/uired to #e so licensed. 'ections and 8 read as follows

'9C. . he Collector of Custo"s for the +hilippine Islands is here#y

authori&ed, e"powered, and directed to pro"ptly "a1e and pu#lish suita#lerules and regulations to carry this law into effect and to regulate the #usiness

herein licensed.

'9C. 8. *ny person who shall violate the provisions of this *ct, or of any rule

or regulation "ade and issued #y the Collector of Custo"s for the +hilippine

Islands, under and #y authority of this *ct, shall #e dee"ed guilty of a

"isde"eanor, and upon conviction shall #e punished #y i"prison"ent for

not "ore than si "onths, or #y a fine of not "ore than one hundred dollars,

:nited 'tates currency, or #y #oth such fine and i"prison"ent, at the

discretion of the court2 Provided, hat violations of law "ay #e punished

either #y the "ethod prescri#ed in section seven hereof, or #y thatprescri#ed in this section or #y #oth.

:nder this statute, which was not referred to on the argu"ent, or in the original #riefs,

there is no difficulty in sustaining the regulation of the Collector as co"ing within the

ter"s of section . ;ighterage, "entioned in the *ct, is the very #usiness in which this

vessel was engaged, and when heavily laden with he"p she was navigating the

+asig iver #elow the 5ridge of 'pain, in the city of Manila. his spot is near the

"outh of the river, the doc1s whereof are used for the purpose of ta1ing on and

discharging freight, and we entertain no dou#t that it was in right sense a part of the

har#or, without having recourse to the definition of paragraph 8 of Custo"s

*d"inistrative Circular o. )3, which reads as follows

he li"its of a har#or for the purpose of licensing vessels as herein

prescri#ed

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

2/45


he co"plaint in this instance was fra"ed with reference, as its authority, to sections

3)) and 3)! >)! and 3))? at o. 3 of the +hilippine Custo"s *d"inistrative *cts,

as a"ended #y *ct os. )63 and )80. :nder *ct o. )63, the Collector is not

only e"powered to "a1e suita#le regulations, #ut also to @fi penalties for violation

thereof,@ not eceeding a fine of +00.

his provision of the statute does, indeed, present a serious /uestion.

$ne of the settled "ai"s in constitutional law is, that the power conferred

upon the legislature to "a1e laws can not #e delegated #y that depart"ent

to any #ody or authority. Ahere the sovereign power of the 'tate has located

the authority, there it "ust re"ain2 only #y the constitutional agency alone

the laws "ust #e "ade until the constitution itself is changed. he power to

whose 4udg"ent, wisdo", and patriotis" this high prerogative has #een

intrusted can not relieve itself of the responsi#ility #y choosing other

agencies upon which the power shall #e developed, nor can its su#stitutes

the 4udg"ent, wisdo", and patriotis" and of any other #ody for those to

which alone the people have seen fit to confide this sovereign trust.

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

3/45


!IRST DI"ISION

#G.R. No. 4$800. De%ember 2, 1940.&

'A(I'O CA)A)ANG, Petitioner, *. A. D. +I))IA'S, ET A).,Respondents.

'-mo C// o be/5.

So/%tor Geer/ O6et 7 Att So/%tor Geer/ Ampro 5orrepo7et +//m, !rte 7 B

Ct !%/ 'b 5or te oter repo7et.

S))ABUS

). C$'I:I$*; ;*A2 C$'I:I$*;IE $F C$MM$A9*;D *C o.82 9;9%*I$ $F ;9%I';*IG9 +$A92 *:D$IE $F I9C$ $F+:5;IC A$' * '9C9*E $F +:5;IC A$' * C$MM:IC*I$'$ +$M:;%*9 :;9' * 9%:;*I$'. H he provisions of section ) ofCo""onwealth *ct o. 8 do not confer legislative power upon the irector of+u#lic Aor1s and the 'ecretary of +u#lic Aor1s and Co""unications. he authoritytherein conferred upon the" and under which they pro"ulgated the rules andregulations now co"plained of is not to deter"ine what pu#lic policy de"ands #ut"erely to carry out the legislative policy laid down #y the ational *sse"#ly in said*ct, to wit, @to pro"ote safe transit upon, and avoid o#structions on, roads and streetsdesignated as national roads #y acts of the ational *sse"#ly or #y eecutive ordersof the +resident of the +hilippines@ and to close the" te"porarily to any or all classesof traffic @whenever the condition of the road or the traffic thereon "a1es such actionnecessary or advisa#le in the pu#lic convenience and interest.@ he delegated power,if at all, therefore, is not the deter"ination of what the law shall #e, #ut "erely the

ascertain"ent of the facts and circu"stances upon which the application of said lawis to #e predicated. o pro"ulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roadsand to deter"ine when and how long a national road should #e closed to traffic, inview of the condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the re/uire"ents of pu#licconvenience and interest, is an ad"inistrative function which cannot #e directlydischarged #y the ational *sse"#ly. It "ust depend on the discretion of so"e othergovern"ent official to who" is confided the duty of deter"ining whether the proper

occasion eists for eecuting the law. 5ut it cannot #e said that the eercise of suchdiscretion is the "a1ing of the law.

6. I.2 I.2 +$;IC9 +$A92 +9'$*; ;I59E2 %$G9M9*; *:D$IE.H Co""onwealth *ct o. 8 was passed #y the ational *sse"#ly in the eerciseof the para"ount police power of the state. 'aid *ct, #y virtue of which the rules andregulations co"plained of were pro"ulgated, ai"s to pro"ote safe transit upon andavoid o#structions on national roads, in the interest and convenience of the pu#lic. Inenacting said law, therefore, the ational *sse"#ly was pro"pted #y considerationsof pu#lic convenience and welfare. It was inspired #y a desire to relieve congestion oftraffic, which is, to say the least, a "enace to pu#lic safety. +u#lic welfare, then, liesat the #otto" of the enact"ent of said law, and the state in order to pro"ote thegeneral welfare "ay interfere with personal li#erty, with property, and with #usiness

and occupations. +ersons and property "ay #e su#4ected to all 1inds of restraints and#urdens, in order to secure the general co"fort, health, and prosperity of the state

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

4/45


and para"ount o#4ective of the state of pro"oting the health, co"fort, and /uiet of allpersons, and of #ringing a#out @the greatest good to the greatest nu"#er.@

D E C I S I O N

)AURE), J.

Mai"o Calalang, in his capacity as a private citi&en and as a tapayer of Manila,#rought #efore this court this petition for a writ of prohi#ition against the respondents,*. . Aillia"s, as Chair"an of the ational raffic Co""ission2 Gicente Fragante, asirector of +u#lic Aor1s2 'ergio 5ayan, as *cting 'ecretary of +u#lic Aor1s andCo""unications2 9ulogio odrigue&, as Mayor of the City of Manila2 and (uano"ingue&, as *cting Chief of +olice of Manila.

It is alleged in the petition that the ational raffic Co""ission, in its resolution of(uly )7, )!0, resolved to reco""end to the irector of +u#lic Aor1s and to the'ecretary of +u#lic Aor1s and Co""unications that ani"al-drawn vehicles #e

prohi#ited fro" passing along osario 'treet etending fro" +la&a Calderon de la5arca to as"arias 'treet, fro" 730 a.". to )630 p.". and fro" )30 p.". to 30p.".2 and along i&al *venue etending fro" the railroad crossing at *ntipolo 'treetto 9chague 'treet, fro" 7 a.". to )) p."., fro" a period of one year fro" the date ofthe opening of the Colgante 5ridge to traffic2 that the Chair"an of the ational rafficCo""ission, on (uly )8, )!0 reco""ended to the irector of +u#lic Aor1s theadoption of the "easure proposed in the resolution afore"entioned, in pursuance ofthe provisions of Co""onwealth *ct o. 8 which authori&es said irector of +u#licAor1s, with the approval of the 'ecretary of +u#lic Aor1s and Co""unications, topro"ulgate rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic onnational roads2 that on *ugust 6, )!0, the irector of +u#lic Aor1s, in his firstindorse"ent to the 'ecretary of +u#lic Aor1s and Co""unications, reco""ended tothe latter the approval of the reco""endation "ade #y the Chair"an of the ational

raffic Co""ission as aforesaid, with the "odification that the closing of i&al*venue to traffic to ani"al-drawn vehicles #e li"ited to the portion thereof etendingfro" the railroad crossing at *ntipolo 'treet to *&carraga 'treet2 that on *ugust )0,)!0, the 'ecretary of +u#lic Aor1s and Co""unications, in his second indorse"entaddressed to the irector of +u#lic Aor1s, approved the reco""endation of the latterthat osario 'treet and i&al *venue #e closed to traffic of ani"al-drawn vehicles,#etween the points and during the hours as a#ove indicated, for a period of one yearfro" the date of the opening of the Colgante 5ridge to traffic2 that the Mayor of Manilaand the *cting Chief of +olice of Manila have enforced and caused to #e enforced therules and regulations thus adopted2 that as a conse/uence of such enforce"ent, allani"al-drawn vehicles are not allowed to pass and pic1 up passengers in the placesa#ove-"entioned to the detri"ent not only of their owners #ut of the riding pu#lic aswell.

It is contended #y the petitioner that Co""onwealth *ct o. 8 #y which the

irector of +u#lic Aor1s, with the approval of the 'ecretary of +u#lic Aor1s andCo""unications, is authori&ed to pro"ulgate rules and regulations for the regulationand control of the use of and traffic on national roads and streets is unconstitutional#ecause it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power. his contention isuntena#le. *s was o#served #y this court in u#i v. +rovincial 5oard of Mindoro

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

5/45


view of the condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the re/uire"ents of pu#licconvenience and interest, is an ad"inistrative function which cannot #e directlydischarged #y the ational *sse"#ly. It "ust depend on the discretion of so"e othergovern"ent official to who" is confided the duty of deter"ining whether the properoccasion eists for eecuting the law. 5ut it cannot #e said that the eercise of suchdiscretion is the "a1ing of the law. *s was said in ;oc1eJs *ppeal

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

6/45


In view of the foregoing, the writ of prohi#ition prayed for is here#y denied, with costsagainst the petitioner. 'o ordered.

G.R. No. 11:381 De%ember 23, 1994

;I)USANG 'AO UNO )ABOR CENTER, petitioner,

vs.

HON.

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

7/45


epart"ent $rder o. !6-872 and

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

8/45


3. More than inducing a reduction in #us fares #y

fifteen percent

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

9/45


the transport sector nearer to a #alanced longer ter" regulatory

fra"ewor12

$A, D99F$9, pursuant to the powers granted #y laws to the

$C, the following policies and principles in the econo"ic

regulation of land, air, and water transportation services are here#y

adopted

). 9ntry into and eit out of the industry. Following the

Constitutional dictu" against "onopoly, no franchise holder shall

#e per"itted to "aintain a "onopoly on any route. * "ini"u" of

two franchise holders shall #e per"itted to operate on any route.

he re/uire"ents to grant a certificate to operate, or certificate of

pu#lic convenience, shall #e proof of Filipino citi&enship, financial

capa#ility, pu#lic need, and sufficient insurance cover to protect the

riding pu#lic.

5n deter!ining publi% need) the presu!ption of need for a servi%e

shall be dee!ed in favor of the appli%ant. The burden of proving

that there is no need for a proposed servi%e shall be 'ith the

oppositors2.

In the interest of providing efficient pu#lic transport services, the

use of the @prior operator@ and the @priority of filing@ rules shall #e

discontinued. he route "easured capacity test or other si"ilar

tests of de"and for vehiclevessel fleet on any route shall #e used

only as a guide in weighing the "erits of each franchise application

and not as a li"it to the services offered.

Ahere there are li"itations in facilities, such as congested road

space in ur#an areas, or at airports and ports, the use of de"and

"anage"ent "easures in confor"ity with "ar1et principles "ay #e

considered.

he right of an operator to leave the industry is recogni&ed as a

#usiness decision, su#4ect only to the filing of appropriate notice

and following a phase-out period, to infor" the pu#lic and to

"ini"i&e disruption of services.

6. ate and Fare 'etting. Freight rates shall #e freed gradually fro"

govern"ent controls. Passenger fares shall also be deregulated)

e$%ept for the lo'est %lass of passenger servi%e nor!ally third

%lass passenger transport2 for 'hi%h the govern!ent 'ill fi$

indi%ative or referen%e fares. Operators of parti%ular servi%es !ay

fi$ their o'n fares 'ithin a range /01 above and belo' the

indi%ative or referen%e rate.

Ahere there is lac1 of effective co"petition for services, or on

specific routes, or for the transport of particular co""odities,

"ai"u" "andatory freight rates or passenger fares shall #e set

te"porarily #y the govern"ent pending actions to increase the level

of co"petition.

For unserved or single operator routes, the govern"ent shall

contract such services in the "ost advantageous ter"s to the

pu#lic and the govern"ent, following pu#lic #ids for the services.

he advisa#ility of #idding out the services or using other 1inds of

incentives on such routes shall #e studied #y the govern"ent.

3. 'pecial Incentives and Financing for Fleet *c/uisition. *s a

"atter of policy, the govern"ent shall not engage in special

financing and incentive progra"s, including direct su#sidies for fleet

ac/uisition and epansion. $nly when the "ar1et situation warrants

govern"ent intervention shall progra"s of this type #e considered.

9isting progra"s shall #e phased out gradually.

he ;and ransportation Franchising and egulatory 5oard, the

Civil *eronautics 5oard, the Mariti"e Industry *uthority are here#y

directed to su#"it to the $ffice of the 'ecretary, within forty-five

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

10/45


Chair"an of the ;F5 suggesting swift action on the adoption of rules and

procedures to i"ple"ent a#ove-/uoted epart"ent $rder o. !6-87 that laid down

deregulation and other li#erali&ation policies for the transport sector. *ttached to the

said "e"orandu" was a revised draft of the re/uired rules and procedures covering

Dence, the instant petition for %ertiorariwith an urgent prayer for issuance of a

te"porary restraining order.

he Court, on (une 60, )!!, issued a te"porary restraining order en4oining,

prohi#iting and preventing respondents fro" i"ple"enting the #us fare rate increase

as well as the /uestioned orders and "e"orandu" circulars. his "eant that

provincial #us fares were rolled #ac1 to the levels duly authori&ed #y the ;F5 prior

to March ), )!!. * "oratoriu" was li1ewise enforced on the issuance of f ranchises

for the operation of #uses, 4eepneys, and taica#s.

+etitioner M: anchors its clai" on two

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

11/45


fifteen

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

12/45


In line with the li#eral policy of this Court onlo%us standi, ordinary

tapayers, "e"#ers of Congress, and even association of planters,

and

non-profit civic organi&ations were allowed to initiate and prosecute

actions #efore this court to /uestion the constitutionality or validity

of laws, acts, decisions, rulings, or orders of various govern"ent

agencies or instru"entalities. *"ong such cases were thoseassailing the constitutionality of )!!)?2 )!?2 )!8!?2 %arcia

v. 5oard of Invest"ents, )!) 'C* 688 >)!!0?=2 )!!6?=2 and

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

13/45


hearing in accordance with the rules and provisions of this *ct,

su#4ect to the li"itations and eceptions "entioned and saving

provisions to the contrary

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

14/45


and the +u#lic 'ervice Co""ission itself cannot authori&e a pu#lic

service to enforce new rates without the prior approval of said rates

#y the co""ission. he co""ission "ust approve new rates when

they are su#"itted to it, if the evidence shows the" to #e 4ust and

reasona#le, otherwise it "ust disapprove the". Clearly, the

co""ission cannot deter"ine in advance whether or not the new

rates of the +hilippine ailway Co. will #e 4ust and reasona#le,#ecause it does not 1now what those rates will #e.

In the present case the +hilippine ailway Co. in effect as1ed for

per"ission to change its freight rates at will. It "ay change the"

every day or every hour, whenever it dee"s it necessary to do so in

order to "eet co"petition or whenever in its opinion it would #e to

its advantage. 'uch a procedure would create a "ost

unsatisfactory state of affairs and largely defeat the purposes of the

pu#lic service law.13

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

15/45


#e a citi&en of the +hilippines, or a corporation or co-partnership, association or 4oint-

stoc1 co"pany constituted and organi&ed under the laws of the +hilippines, at least

0per %entu! of its stoc1 or paid-up capital "ust #elong entirely to citi&ens of the

+hilippines2 *s one of the #asic re/uire"ents for the grant of a C+C,pu#lic convenience and necessity eists when the proposed facility or service "eets

a reasona#le want of the pu#lic and supply a need which the eisting facilities do not

ade/uately supply. he eistence or

non-eistence of pu#lic convenience and necessity is therefore a /uestion of fact that

"ust #e esta#lished #y evidence, real andor testi"onial2 e"pirical data2 statistics

and such other "eans necessary, in a pu#lic hearing conducted for that purpose. he

o#4ect and purpose of such procedure, a"ong other things, is to loo1 out for, and

protect, the interests of #oth the pu#lic and the eisting transport operators.

Gerily, the power of a regulatory #ody to issue a C+C is founded on the condition that

after full-dress hearing and investigation, it shall find, as a fact, that the proposedoperation is for the convenience of the pu#lic. 1$5asic convenience is the pri"ary

consideration for which a C+C is issued, and that fact alone "ust #e consistently

#orne in "ind. *lso, eisting operators in su#4ect routes "ust #e given an opportunity

to offer proof and oppose the application. herefore, an applicant "ust, at all ti"es,

#e re/uired to prove his capacity and capa#ility to furnish the service which he has

underta1en to

render. 18*nd all this will #e possi#le only if a pu#lic hearing were conducted for that

purpose.

$therwise stated, the esta#lish"ent of pu#lic need in favor of an applicant reverses

well-settled and institutionali&ed 4udicial, /uasi-4udicial and ad"inistrative procedures.

It allows the party who initiates the proceedings to prove, #y "ere application, his

affir"ative allegations. Moreover, the offending provisions of the ;F5

"e"orandu" circular in /uestion would in effect a"end the ules of Court #y adding

another disputa#le presu"ption in the enu"eration of 37 presu"ptions under ule

)3), 'ection of the ules of Court. 'uch usurpation of this CourtBs authority cannot

#e countenanced as only this Court is "andated #y law to pro"ulgate rules

concerning pleading, practice and procedure. 19

eregulation, while it "ay #e ideal in certain situations, "ay not #e ideal at all in our

country given the present circu"stances. *dvocacy of li#erali&ed franchising and

regulatory process is tanta"ount to an a#dication #y the govern"ent of its inherent

right to eercise police power, that is, the right of govern"ent to regulate pu#lic

utilities for protection of the pu#lic and the utilities the"selves.

Ahile we recogni&e the authority of the $C and the ;F5 to issue ad"inistrative

orders to regulate the transport sector, we find that they co""itted grave a#use of

discretion in issuing $C epart"ent $rder

o. !6-87 defining the policy fra"ewor1 on the regulation of transport services and

;F5 Me"orandu" Circular o. !6-00! pro"ulgating the i"ple"enting guidelines

on $C epart"ent $rder o. !6-87, the said ad"inistrative issuances #einga"endatory and violative of the +u#lic 'ervice *ct and the ules of Court.

Conse/uently, we rule that the twenty

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

16/45


here#y 9C;*9 contrary to law and invalid insofar as they affect provisions

therein

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

17/45


period of si

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

18/45


... >*?ll things considered, the /uestion is what is the #est for the

interest of the pu#lic. Ahether + )0) has lost its effectiveness or

not, will in no way prevent this 5oard fro" resolving the /uestion in

the sa!e %andor and spirit that +.. )0) and ;$I 37! were issued

to cope with the "ultifarious ills that plague our transport syste". ...

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

19/45


G.R. No. $44:$ 'r% 20, 198$

RESTITUTO NOT, petitioner,

vs.

INTER'EDIATE A==E))ATE COURT, THE STATION CO''ANDER,

INTEGRATED NATIONA) =O)ICE, BAROTAC NUE"O, I)OI)O 7 THE

REGIONA) DIRECTOR, BUREAU O! ANI'A) INDUSTR, REGION I", I)OI)O

CIT, respondents.

a!on A. Gonales for petitioner.

CRU, J.:

he essence of due process is distilled in the i""ortal cry of he"istocles to

*lci#iades @'tri1e H #ut hear "e firstS@ It is this cry that the petitioner in effect repeats

here as he challenges the constitutionality of 9ecutive $rder o. 6-*.

he said eecutive order reads in full as follows

AD99*', the +resident has given orders prohi#iting the

interprovincial "ove"ent of cara#aos and the slaughtering of

cara#aos not co"plying with the re/uire"ents of 9ecutive $rder

o. 6 particularly with respect to age2

AD99*', it has #een o#served that despite such orders the

violators still "anage to circu"vent the prohi#ition against inter-

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

20/45


provincial "ove"ent of cara#aos #y transporting cara#eef instead2

and

AD99*', in order to achieve the purposes and o#4ectives of

9ecutive $rder o. 6 and the prohi#ition against interprovincial

"ove"ent of cara#aos, it is necessary to strengthen the said

9ecutive $rder and provide for the disposition of the cara#aos andcara#eef su#4ect of the violation2

$A, D99F$9, I, F9I* 9. M*C$', +resident of the

+hilippines, #y virtue of the powers vested in "e #y the

Constitution, do here#y pro"ulgate the following

'9CI$ ). 9ecutive $rder o. 6 is here#y a"ended such that

henceforth, no cara#ao regardless of age, se, physical condition

or purpose and no cara#eef shall #e transported fro" one province

to another. he cara#ao or cara#eef transported in violation of this

9ecutive $rder as a"ended shall #e su#4ect to confiscation and

forfeiture #y the govern"ent, to #e distri#uted to charita#le

institutions and other si"ilar institutions as the Chair"an of the

ational Meat Inspection Co""ission "ay ay see fit, in the case of

cara#eef, and to deserving far"ers through dispersal as the

irector of *ni"al Industry "ay see fit, in the case of cara#aos.

'9CI$ 6. his 9ecutive $rder shall ta1e effect i""ediately.

one in the City of Manila, this 6th day of $cto#er, in the year of

$ur ;ord, nineteen hundred and eighty.

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

21/45


(udicial power authori&es this2 and when the eercise is de"anded, there should #e

no shir1ing of the tas1 for fear of retaliation, or loss of favor, or popular censure, or

any other si"ilar inhi#ition unworthy of the #ench, especially this Court.

he challenged "easure is deno"inated an eecutive order #ut it is really

presidential decree, pro"ulgating a new rule instead of "erely i"ple"enting an

eisting law. It was issued #y +resident Marcos not for the purpose of ta1ing care thatthe laws were faithfully eecuted #ut in the eercise of his legislative authority under

*"end"ent o. . It was provided thereunder that whenever in his 4udg"ent there

eisted a grave e"ergency or a threat or i""inence thereof or whenever the

legislature failed or was una#le to act ade/uately on any "atter that in his 4udg"ent

re/uired i""ediate action, he could, in order to "eet the eigency, issue decrees,

orders or letters of instruction that were to have the force and effect of law. *s there is

no showing of any eigency to 4ustify the eercise of that etraordinary power then,

the petitioner has reason, indeed, to /uestion the validity of the eecutive order.

evertheless, since the deter"ination of the grounds was supposed to have #een

"ade #y the +resident @in his 4udg"ent, @ a phrase that will lead to protracted

discussion not really necessary at this ti"e, we reserve resolution of this "atter until

a "ore appropriate occasion. For the nonce, we confine ourselves to the "orefunda"ental /uestion of due process.

It is part of the art of constitution-"a1ing that the provisions of the charter #e cast in

precise and un"ista1a#le language to avoid controversies that "ight arise on their

correct interpretation. hat is the Ideal. In the case of the due process clause,

however, this rule was deli#erately not followed and the wording was purposely 1ept

a"#iguous. In fact, a proposal to delineate it "ore clearly was su#"itted in the

Constitutional Convention of )!3, #ut it was re4ected #y elegate (ose +. ;aurel,

Chair"an of the Co""ittee on the 5ill of ights, who forcefully argued against it. De

was sustained #y the #ody. 10

he due process clause was 1ept intentionally vague so it would re"ain also

conveniently resilient. his was felt necessary #ecause due process is not, li1e so"e

provisions of the funda"ental law, an @iron rule@ laying down an i"placa#le and

i""uta#le co""and for all seasons and all persons. Flei#ility "ust #e the #est

virtue of the guaranty. he very elasticity of the due process clause was "eant to

"a1e it adapt easily to every situation, enlarging or constricting its protection as the

changing ti"es and circu"stances "ay re/uire.

*ware of this, the courts have also hesitated to adopt their own specific description of

due process lest they confine the"selves in a legal strait4ac1et that will deprive the"

of the el#ow roo" they "ay need to vary the "eaning of the clause whenever

indicated. Instead, they have preferred to leave the i"port of the protection open-

ended, as it were, to #e @gradually ascertained #y the process of inclusion and

eclusion in the course of the decision of cases as they arise.@ 11hus, (ustice Feli

Fran1furter of the :.'. 'upre"e Court, for ea"ple, would go no farther than to

define due process H and in so doing su"s it all up H as nothing "ore and nothing

less than @the e"#odi"ent of the sporting Idea of fair play.@ 12

Ahen the #arons of 9ngland etracted fro" their sovereign liege the reluctantpro"ise that that Crown would thenceforth not proceed against the life li#erty or

property of any of its su#4ects ecept #y the lawful 4udg"ent of his peers or the law of

the land, they there#y won for the"selves and their progeny that splendid guaranty of

fairness that is now the hall"ar1 of the free society. he sole"n vow that ing (ohn

"ade at unny"ede in )6) has since then resounded through the ages, as a

ringing re"inder to all rulers, #enevolent or #ase, that every person, when confronted

#y the stern visage of the law, is entitled to have his say in a fair and open hearing of

his cause.

he closed "ind has no place in the open society. It is part of the sporting Idea of fair

play to hear @the other side@ #efore an opinion is for"ed or a decision is "ade #y

those who sit in 4udg"ent. $#viously, one side is only one-half of the /uestion2 the

other half "ust also #e considered if an i"partial verdict is to #e reached #ased on an

infor"ed appreciation of the issues in contention. It is indispensa#le that the two

sides co"ple"ent each other, as unto the #ow the arrow, in leading to the correct

ruling after ea"ination of the pro#le" not fro" one or the other perspective only #ut

in its totality. * 4udg"ent #ased on less that this full appraisal, on the pretet that a

hearing is unnecessary or useless, is tainted with the vice of #ias or intolerance or

ignorance, or worst of all, in repressive regi"es, the insolence of power.

he "ini"u" re/uire"ents of due process are notice and hearing 13which,

generally spea1ing, "ay not #e dispensed with #ecause they are intended as a

safeguard against official ar#itrariness. It is a gratifying co""entary on our 4udicialsyste" that the 4urisprudence of this country is rich with applications of this guaranty

as proof of our fealty to the rule of law and the ancient rudi"ents of fair play. Ae have

consistently declared that every person, faced #y the aweso"e power of the 'tate, is

entitled to @the law of the land,@ which aniel Ae#ster descri#ed al"ost two hundred

years ago in the fa"ous art"outh College Case, 14as @the law which hears #efore

it conde"ns, which proceeds upon in/uiry and renders 4udg"ent only after trial.@ It

has to #e so if the rights of every person are to #e secured #eyond the reach of

officials who, out of "ista1en &eal or plain arrogance, would degrade the due process

clause into a worn and e"pty catchword.

his is not to say that notice and hearing are i"perative in every case for, to #e sure,

there are a nu"#er of ad"itted eceptions. he conclusive presu"ption, for ea"ple,

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

22/45


#ars the ad"ission of contrary evidence as long as such presu"ption is #ased on

hu"an eperience or there is a rational connection #etween the fact proved and the

fact ulti"ately presu"ed therefro". 1:here are instances when the need for

epeditions action will 4ustify o"ission of these re/uisites, as in the su""ary

a#ate"ent of a nuisanceper se)li1e a "ad dog on the loose, which "ay #e 1illed on

sight #ecause of the i""ediate danger it poses to the safety and lives of the people.

+ornographic "aterials, conta"inated "eat and narcotic drugs are inherentlypernicious and "ay #e su""arily destroyed. he passport of a person sought for a

cri"inal offense "ay #e cancelled without hearing, to co"pel his return to the country

he has fled. 1>Filthy restaurants "ay #e su""arily padloc1ed in the interest of the

pu#lic health and #awdy houses to protect the pu#lic "orals. 1$In such instances,

previous 4udicial hearing "ay #e o"itted without violation of due process in view of

the nature of the property involved or the urgency of the need to protect the general

welfare fro" a clear and present danger.

he protection of the general welfare is the particular function of the police power

which #oth restraints and is restrained #y due process. he police power is si"ply

defined as the power inherent in the 'tate to regulate li#erty and property for the

pro"otion of the general welfare. 185y reason of its function, it etends to all thegreat pu#lic needs and is descri#ed as the "ost pervasive, the least li"ita#le and the

"ost de"anding of the three inherent powers of the 'tate, far outpacing taation and

e"inent do"ain. he individual, as a "e"#er of society, is he""ed in #y the police

power, which affects hi" even #efore he is #orn and follows hi" still after he is dead

H fro" the wo"# to #eyond the to"# H in practically everything he does or owns. Its

reach is virtually li"itless. It is a u#i/uitous and often unwelco"e intrusion. 9ven so,

as long as the activity or the property has so"e relevance to the pu#lic welfare, its

regulation under the police power is not only proper #ut necessary. *nd the

4ustification is found in the venera#le ;atin "ai"s, (alus populi est supre!a

le$and (i% utere tuo ut alienu! non laedas)which call for the su#ordination of

individual interests to the #enefit of the greater nu"#er.

It is this power that is now invo1ed #y the govern"ent to 4ustify 9ecutive $rder o.

6-*, a"ending the #asic rule in 9ecutive $rder o. 6, prohi#iting the slaughter

of cara#aos ecept under certain conditions. he original "easure was issued for the

reason, as epressed in one of its Ahereases, that @present conditions de"and that

the cara#aos and the #uffaloes #e conserved for the #enefit of the s"all far"ers who

rely on the" for energy needs.@ Ae affir" at the outset the need for such a "easure.

In the face of the worsening energy crisis and the increased dependence of our far"s

on these traditional #easts of #urden, the govern"ent would have #een re"iss,

indeed, if it had not ta1en steps to protect and preserve the".

* si"ilar prohi#ition was challenged in 4nited (tates v. Toribio, 19where a law

regulating the registration, #randing and slaughter of large cattle was clai"ed to #e a

deprivation of property without due process of law. he defendant had #een convicted

thereunder for having slaughtered his own cara#ao without the re/uired per"it, and

he appealed to the 'upre"e Court. he conviction was affir"ed. he law was

sustained as a valid police "easure to prevent the indiscri"inate 1illing of cara#aos,

which were then #adly needed #y far"ers. *n epide"ic had stric1en "any of theseani"als and the reduction of their nu"#er had resulted in an acute decline in

agricultural output, which in turn had caused an incipient fa"ine. Further"ore,

#ecause of the scarcity of the ani"als and the conse/uent increase in their price,

cattle-rustling had spread alar"ingly, necessitating "ore effective "easures for the

registration and #randing of these ani"als. he Court held that the /uestioned statute

was a valid eercise of the police power and declared in part as follows

o 4ustify the 'tate in thus interposing its authority in #ehalf of the

pu#lic, it "ust appear, first, that the interests of the pu#lic generally,

as distinguished fro" those of a particular class, re/uire such

interference2 and second, that the "eans are reasona#ly necessary

for the acco"plish"ent of the purpose, and not unduly oppressiveupon individuals. ...

Fro" what has #een said, we thin1 it is clear that the enact"ent of

the provisions of the statute under consideration was re/uired #y

@the interests of the pu#lic generally, as distinguished fro" those of

a particular class@ and that the prohi#ition of the slaughter of

cara#aos for hu"an consu"ption, so long as these ani"als are fit

for agricultural wor1 or draft purposes was a @reasona#ly

necessary@ li"itation on private ownership, to protect the

co""unity fro" the loss of the services of such ani"als #y their

slaughter #y i"provident owners, te"pted either #y greed of"o"entary gain, or #y a desire to en4oy the luury of ani"al food,

even when #y so doing the productive power of the co""unity "ay

#e "easura#ly and dangerously affected.

In the light of the tests "entioned a#ove, we hold with the ori#io Case that the

cara#ao, as the poor "anBs tractor, so to spea1, has a direct relevance to the pu#lic

welfare and so is a lawful su#4ect of 9ecutive $rder o. 6. he "ethod chosen in

the #asic "easure is also reasona#ly necessary for the purpose sought to #e

achieved and not unduly oppressive upon individuals, again following the a#ove-cited

doctrine. here is no dou#t that #y #anning the slaughter of these ani"als ecept

where they are at least seven years old if "ale and eleven years old if fe"ale upon

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

23/45


issuance of the necessary per"it, the eecutive order will #e conserving those still fit

for far" wor1 or #reeding and preventing their i"provident depletion.

5ut while conceding that the a"endatory "easure has the sa"e lawful su#4ect as the

original eecutive order, we cannot say with e/ual certainty that it co"plies with the

second re/uire"ent, vi.)that there #e a lawful "ethod. Ae note that to strengthen

the original "easure, 9ecutive $rder o. 6-* i"poses an a#solute #an not ontheslaughter of the cara#aos #ut on their !ove!ent, providing that @no cara#ao

regardless of age, se, physical condition or purpose !ay see fit>is an etre"ely generous and

dangerous condition, if condition it is. It is laden with perilous opportunities for

partiality and a#use, and even corruption. $ne searches in vain for the usual standard

and the reasona#le guidelines, or #etter still, the li"itations that the said officers "ust

o#serve when they "a1e their distri#ution. here is none. heir options areapparently #oundless. Aho shall #e the fortunate #eneficiaries of their generosity and

#y what criteria shall they #e chosenT $nly the officers na"ed can supply the answer,

they and they alone "ay choose the grantee as they see fit, and in their own

eclusive discretion. efinitely, there is here a @roving co""ission,@ a wide and

sweeping authority that is not @canali&ed within #an1s that 1eep it fro" overflowing,@

in short, a clearly profligate and therefore invalid delegation of legislative powers.

o su" up then, we find that the challenged "easure is an invalid eercise of the

police power #ecause the "ethod e"ployed to conserve the cara#aos is not

reasona#ly necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive.

ue process is violated #ecause the owner of the property confiscated is denied the

right to #e heard in his defense and is i""ediately conde"ned and punished. he

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

24/45


confer"ent on the ad"inistrative authorities of the power to ad4udge the guilt of the

supposed offender is a clear encroach"ent on 4udicial functions and "ilitates against

the doctrine of separation of powers. here is, finally, also an invalid delegation of

legislative powers to the officers "entioned therein who are granted unli"ited

discretion in the distri#ution of the properties ar#itrarily ta1en. For these reasons, we

here#y declare 9ecutive $rder o. 6-* unconstitutional.

Ae agree with the respondent court, however, that the police station co""ander who

confiscated the petitionerBs cara#aos is not lia#le in da"ages for enforcing the

eecutive order in accordance with its "andate. he law was at that ti"e

presu"ptively valid, and it was his o#ligation, as a "e"#er of the police, to enforce it.

It would have #een i"pertinent of hi", #eing a "ere su#ordinate of the +resident, to

declare the eecutive order unconstitutional and, on his own responsi#ility alone,

refuse to eecute it. 9ven the trial court, in fact, and the Court of *ppeals itself did not

feel they had the co"petence, for all their superior authority, to /uestion the order we

now annul.

he Court notes that if the petitioner had not seen fit to assert and protect his rights

as he saw the", this case would never have reached us and the ta1ing of his

property under the challenged "easure would have #eco"e a faita%%o!plidespite its

invalidity. Ae co""end hi" for his spirit. Aithout the present challenge, the "atter

would have ended in that pu"p #oat in Mas#ate and another violation of the

Constitution, for all its o#viousness, would have #een perpetrated, allowed without

protest, and soon forgotten in the li"#o of relin/uished rights.

he strength of de"ocracy lies not in the rights it guarantees #ut in the courage of the

people to invo1e the" whenever they are ignored or violated. ights are #ut weapons

on the wall if, li1e epensive tapestry, all they do is e"#ellish and i"press. ights, as

weapons, "ust #e a pro"ise of protection. hey #eco"e truly "eaningful, and fulfill

the role assigned to the" in the free society, if they are 1ept #right and sharp with use#y those who are not afraid to assert the".

AD99F$9, 9ecutive $rder o. 6-* is here#y declared unconstitutional.

9cept as affir"ed a#ove, the decision of the Court of *ppeals is reversed.

he supersedeas #ond is cancelled and the a"ount thereof is ordered restored to the

petitioner. o costs.

'$ $99.

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

25/45


G.R. No. $>>33 O%tober 18, 1988

EASTERN SHI==ING )INES, INC.,petitioner,

vs.

=HI)I==INE O"ERSEAS E'=)O'ENT AD'INISTRATION =OEA, 'INISTER

O! )ABOR AND E'=)O'ENT, HEARING O!!ICER ABDU) BASAR 7

;ATH)EEN D. SACO, respondents.

*i!enea) 6ala & +aragoa 3a' Offi%e for petitioner.

The (oli%itor General for publi% respondent.

6ion 3a' Offi%e for respondent

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

26/45


alongside the petitionerBs vessel, the MG 9astern +olaris, while #erthed in a foreign

country. >

It is worth o#serving that the petitioner perfor"ed at least two acts which constitute

i"plied or tacit recognition of the nature of 'acoBs e"ploy"ent at the ti"e of his

death in )!8. he first is its su#"ission of its shipping articles to the +$9* for

processing, for"ali&ation and approval in the eercise of its regulatory power overoverseas e"ploy"ent under 9ecutive $rder $. 7!7. $he second is its

pay"ent 8of the contri#utions "andated #y law and regulations to the Aelfare Fund

for $verseas Aor1ers, which was created #y +.. o. )! @for the purpose of

providing social and welfare services to Filipino overseas wor1ers.@

'ignificantly, the office ad"inistering this fund, in the receipt it prepared for the private

respondentBs signature, descri#ed the su#4ect of the #urial #enefits as @overseas

contract wor1er Gitaliano 'aco.@ 9Ahile this receipt is certainly not controlling, it does

indicate, in the light of the petitionerBs own previous acts, that the petitioner and the

Fund to which it had "ade contri#utions considered 'aco to #e an overseas

e"ployee.

he petitioner argues that the deceased e"ployee should #e li1ened to the

e"ployees of the +hilippine *ir ;ines who, although wor1ing a#road in its

international flights, are not considered overseas wor1ers. If this #e so, the petitioner

should not have found it necessary to su#"it its shipping articles to the +$9* for

processing, for"ali&ation and approval or to contri#ute to the Aelfare Fund which is

availa#le only to overseas wor1ers. Moreover, the analogy is hardly appropriate as

the e"ployees of the +*; cannot under the definitions given #e considered sea"en

nor are their appoint"ents coursed through the +$9*.

he award of +)80,000.00 for death #enefits and +)6,000.00 for #urial epenses was

"ade #y the +$9* pursuant to its Me"orandu" Circular o. 6, which #eca"eeffective on Fe#ruary ), )!8. his circular prescri#ed a standard contract to #e

adopted #y #oth foreign and do"estic shipping co"panies in the hiring of Filipino

sea"en for overseas e"ploy"ent. * si"ilar contract had earlier #een re/uired #y the

ational 'ea"en 5oard and had #een sustained in a nu"#er of cases #y this

Court. 10he petitioner clai"s that it had never entered into such a contract with the

deceased 'aco, #ut that is hardly a serious argu"ent. In the first place, it should have

done so as re/uired #y the circular, which specifically declared that @all parties to the

e"ploy"ent of any Filipino sea"en on #oard any ocean-going vessel are advised to

adopt and use this e"ploy"ent contract effective 0) Fe#ruary )!8 and to desist

fro" using any other for"at of e"ploy"ent contract effective that date.@ In the second

place, even if it had not done so, the provisions of the said circular are nevertheless

dee"ed written into the contract with 'aco as a postulate of the police power of the

'tate. 11

5ut the petitioner /uestions the validity of Me"orandu" Circular o. 6 itself as

violative of the principle of non-delegation of legislative power. It contends that no

authority had #een given the +$9* to pro"ulgate the said regulation2 and even with

such authori&ation, the regulation represents an eercise of legislative discretionwhich, under the principle, is not su#4ect to delegation.

he authority to issue the said regulation is clearly provided in 'ection

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

27/45


what criteria shall they #e chosenT $nly the officers na"ed can

supply the answer, they and they alone "ay choose the grantee as

they see fit, and in their own eclusive discretion. efinitely, there is

here a Broving co""ission a wide and sweeping authority that is not

canali&ed within #an1s that 1eep it fro" overflowing,B in short a

clearly profligate and therefore invalid delegation of legislative

powers.

here are two accepted tests to deter"ine whether or not there is a valid delegation

of legislative power, vi, the co"pleteness test and the sufficient standard test. :nder

the first test, the law "ust #e co"plete in all its ter"s and conditions when it leaves

the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do

is enforce it. 13:nder the sufficient standard test, there "ust #e ade/uate guidelines

or stations in the law to "ap out the #oundaries of the delegateBs authority and

prevent the delegation fro" running riot. 14

5oth tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative authority to the

delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and eercise a

power essentially legislative.

he principle of non-delegation of powers is applica#le to all the three "a4or powers

of the %overn"ent #ut is especially i"portant in the case of the legislative power

#ecause of the "any instances when its delegation is per"itted. he occasions are

rare when eecutive or 4udicial powers have to #e delegated #y the authorities to

which they legally certain. In the case of the legislative power, however, such

occasions have #eco"e "ore and "ore fre/uent, if not necessary. his had led to

the o#servation that the delegation of legislative power has #eco"e the rule and its

non-delegation the eception.

he reason is the increasing co"pleity of the tas1 of govern"ent and the growingina#ility of the legislature to cope directly with the "yriad pro#le"s de"anding its

attention. he growth of society has ra"ified its activities and created peculiar and

sophisticated pro#le"s that the legislature cannot #e epected reasona#ly to

co"prehend. 'peciali&ation even in legislation has #eco"e necessary. o "any of

the pro#le"s attendant upon present-day underta1ings, the legislature "ay not have

the co"petence to provide the re/uired direct and efficacious, not to say, specific

solutions. hese solutions "ay, however, #e epected fro" its delegates, who are

supposed to #e eperts in the particular fields assigned to the".

he reasons given a#ove for the delegation of legislative powers in general are

particularly applica#le to ad"inistrative #odies. Aith the proliferation of speciali&ed

activities and their attendant peculiar pro#le"s, the national legislature has found it

"ore and "ore necessary to entrust to ad"inistrative agencies the authority to issue

rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. his is called the @power of

su#ordinate legislation.@

Aith this power, ad"inistrative #odies "ay i"ple"ent the #road policies laid down in

a statute #y @filling inB the details which the Congress "ay not have the opportunity or

co"petence to provide. his is effected #y their pro"ulgation of what are 1nown assupple"entary regulations, such as the i"ple"enting rules issued #y the epart"ent

of ;a#or on the new ;a#or Code. hese regulations have the force and effect of law.

Me"orandu" Circular o. 6 is one such ad"inistrative regulation. he "odel

contract prescri#ed there#y has #een applied in a significant nu"#er of the cases

without challenge #y the e"ployer. he power of the +$9*

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

28/45


#. +)80,000.00 for other officers, including radio

operators and "aster electrician

c. + )30,000.00 for ratings.

6. It is understood and agreed that the #enefits "entioned a#ove

shall #e separate and distinct fro", and will #e in addition towhatever #enefits which the sea"an is entitled to under +hilippine

laws. ...

3. ...

c. If the re"ains of the sea"an is #uried in the

+hilippines, the owners shall pay the

#eneficiaries of the sea"an an a"ount not

eceeding +)8,000.00 for #urial epenses.

he underscored portion is "erely a reiteration of Me"orandu" Circular o. 66,issued #y the ational 'ea"en 5oard on (uly )6,)!7, providing an follows

5n%o!e Benefits under this ule (hall be onsidered Additional

Benefits.@

*ll co"pensation #enefits under itle II, 5oo1 Four of the ;a#or

Code of the +hilippines

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

29/45


G.R. No. )@1>$04 'r% 1$, 19>2

"ICTORIAS 'I))ING CO'=AN, INC.,petitioner-appellant,

vs.

SOCIA) SECURIT CO''ISSION,respondent-appellee.

oss) (elph and arras%oso for petitioner-appellant.

Offi%e of the (oli%itor General and "rnesto T. 6uran for respondent-appellee.

BARRERA, J.:

$n $cto#er ), )!8, the 'ocial 'ecurity Co""ission issued its Circular o. 66 of

the following tenor .

9ffective ove"#er ), )!8, all 9"ployers in co"puting the pre"iu"s due

the 'yste", will ta1e into consideration and include in the 9"ployeeBs

re"uneration all #onuses and overti"e pay, as well as the cash value of

other "edia of re"uneration. *ll these will co"prise the 9"ployeeBs

re"uneration or earnings, upon which the 3-)6N and 6-)6N contri#utions

will #e #ased, up to a "ai"u" of +00 for any one "onth.

:pon receipt of a copy thereof, petitioner Gictorias Milling Co"pany, Inc., through

counsel, wrote the 'ocial 'ecurity Co""ission in effect protesting against the circular

as contradictory to a previous Circular o. 7, dated $cto#er 7, )!7 epressly

ecluding overti"e pay and #onus in the co"putation of the e"ployersB and

e"ployeesB respective "onthly pre"iu" contri#utions, and su#"itting, @In order to

assist your 'yste" in arriving at a properinterpretationof the ter" Bco"pensationB for

the purposes of@ such co"putation, their o#servations on epu#lic *ct ))) and its

a"end"ent and on the general interpretation of the words @co"pensation@,

@re"uneration@ and @wages@. Counsel further /uestioned the validity of the circular for

lac1 of authority on the part of the 'ocial 'ecurity Co""ission to pro"ulgate it

without the approval of the +resident and for lac1 of pu#lication in the $fficial %a&ette.

$verruling these o#4ections, the 'ocial 'ecurity Co""ission ruled that Circular o.

66 is not a rule or regulation that needed the approval of the +resident and

pu#lication in the $fficial %a&ette to #e effective, #ut a "ere ad"inistrative

interpretation of the statute, a "ere state"ent of general policy or opinion as to how

the law should #e construed.

ot satisfied with this ruling, petitioner co"es to this Court on appeal.

he single issue involved in this appeal is whether or not Circular o. 66 is a rule or

regulation, as conte"plated in 'ection

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

30/45


'ocial 'ecurity Co""ission @to adopt, a"end and repeal su#4ect to the approval of

the +resident such rules and regulations as "ay #e necessary to carry out the

provisions and purposes of this *ct.@

here can #e no dou#t that there is a distinction #etween an ad"inistrative rule or

regulation and an ad"inistrative interpretation of a law whose enforce"ent is

entrusted to an ad"inistrative #ody. Ahen an ad"inistrative agency pro"ulgatesrules and regulations, it @"a1es@ a new law with the force and effect of a valid law,

while when it renders an opinion or gives a state"ent of policy, it "erely interprets a

pre-eisting law

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

31/45


re"uneration in pursuance of the a"endatory law. It is true that in previous cases,

this Court has held that #onus is not de"anda#le #ecause it is not part of the wage,

salary, or co"pensation of the e"ployee. 5ut the /uestion in the instant case is not

whether #onus is de"anda#le or not as part of co"pensation, #ut whether, after the

e"ployer does, in fact, give or pay #onus to his e"ployees, such #onuses shall #e

considered co"pensation under the 'ocial 'ecurity *ct after they have #een received

#y the e"ployees. Ahile it is true that ter"s or words are to #e interpreted in

accordance with their well-accepted "eaning in law, nevertheless, when such ter" or

word is specifically defined in a particular law, such interpretation "ust #e adopted in

enforcing that particular law, for it can not #e gainsaid that a particular phrase or ter"

"ay have one "eaning for one purpose and another "eaning for so"e other

purpose. 'uch is the case that is now #efore us. epu#lic *ct ))) specifically

defined what @co"pensation@ should "ean @For the purposes of this A%t@. epu#lic

*ct )7!6 a"ended such definition #y deleting sa"e ee"ptions authori&ed in the

original *ct. 5y virtue of this epress su#stantial change in the phraseology of the law,

whatever prior eecutive or 4udicial construction "ay have #een given to the phrase in

/uestion should give way to the clear "andate of the new law.

I GI9A $F D9 F$9%$I%, the esolution appealed fro" is here#y affir"ed,with costs against appellant. 'o ordered.

G.R. No. )@1933$ September 30, 19>9

ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRA), INC.,petitioner,

vs.

CO''ISSIONER O! CUSTO'S 7 COURT O! TA( A==EA)S,respondents.

3aurea) 3aurea and Asso%iates for petitioner.

Offi%e of the (oli%itor General Arturo A. Alafri) Assistant (oli%itor General "s!eraldo

4!ali and (oli%itor (u!ilang . Bernardo for respondents.

CASTRO, J.:

his is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of a *ppeals of ove"#er

60, )!), which denied recovery of the su" of +68,6!.6, paid #y the petitioner,

under protest, in the concept of custo"s duties and special i"port ta, as well as the

petitionerBs alternative re"edy to recover the said a"ount "inus one per cent thereof

#y way of a draw#ac1 under sec. )0

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

32/45


he petitioner *sturias 'ugar Central, Inc. is engaged in the production and "illing of

centrifugal sugar for eert, the sugar so produced #eing placed in containers 1nown

as 4ute #ags. In )!7 it "ade two i"portations of 4ute #ags. he first ship"ent

consisting of ,800 4ute #ags and declared under entry 8 on (anuary 8, )!7,

entered free of custo"s duties and special i"port ta upon the petitionerBs filing of

e-eportation and 'pecial I"port a 5ond no. ) in the a"ounts of +6,088 and

+6,.0, conditioned upon the eportation of the 4ute #ags within one year fro" the

date of i"portation. he second ship"ent consisting of 7,600 4ute #ags and declared

under entry 63 on Fe#ruary 8, )!7, li1ewise entered free of custo"s duties and

special i"port ta upon the petitionerBs filing of e-eportation and 'pecial I"port a

5ond no. in the a"ounts of +6,))6 and +7,!8., with the sa"e conditions as

stated in #ond no. ).

$f the ,800 4ute #ags declared under entry 8, only 8,7 were eported within one

year fro" the date of i"portation as containers of centrifugal sugar. $f the 7,600 4ute

#ags declared under entry 63, only 6,000 were eported within the said period of

one year. In other words, of the total nu"#er of i"ported 4ute #ags only 33,7 #ags

were eported within one year after their i"portation. he re"aining 8,33 #ags

were eported after the epiration of the one-year period #ut within three years fro"their i"portation.

$n Fe#ruary , )!8 the petitioner, thru its agent heo. D. avies K Co., Far 9ast,

;td., re/uested the Co""issioner of Custo"s for a wee1Bs etension of e-

eportation and 'pecial I"port a 5ond no. which was to epire the following day,

giving the following as the reasons for its failure to eport the re"aining 4ute #ags

within the period of one year

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

33/45


o i"ple"ent the said section 63, Custo"s *d"inistrative $rder 38! dated

ece"#er , )!0 was pro"ulgated, paragraph QQGIII of which provides that @#onds

for the re-eportation of cylinders and other containers are good for )6 "onths

without etension,@ and paragraph QQQI, that @#onds for custo"s #ro1ers,

co""ercial sa"ples, repairs and those filed to guarantee the re-eportation of

cylinders and other containers are not etendi#le.@

*nd insofar as 4ute #ags as containers are concerned, Custo"s *d"inistrative $rder

dated *ugust 6, )!8 was issued, prescri#ing rules and regulations governing the

i"portation, eportation and identification thereof under section 63 of the +hilippine

ariff *ct of )!0!. 'aid ad"inistrative order provides

hat i"portation of 4ute #ags intended for use as containers of +hilippine

products for eportation to foreign countries shall #e declared in a regular

i"port entry supported #y a surety #ond in an a"ount e/ual to dou#le the

esti"ated duties, conditioned for the eportation or pay"ent of the

corresponding duties thereon within one year fro" the date of i"portation.

It will #e noted that section 63 of the +hilippine ariff *ct of )!0! and the superseding

sec. )0

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

34/45


opportunity and eperiences for discovering deficiencies, inaccuracies, or

i"prove"ents in the statute2 ... 8

If it is further considered that ee"ptions fro" taation are not favored, !and that ta

statutes are to #e construed in stri%tissi!i ,urisagainst the tapayer and li#erally in

favor of the taing authority, )0then we are hard put to sustain the petitionerBs stand

that it was entitled to an etension of ti"e within which to eport the 4ute #ags and,conse/uently, to a refund of the a"ount it had paid as custo"s duties.

In the light of the foregoing, it is our considered view that the one-year period

prescri#ed in section 63 of the +hilippine ariff *ct of )!0! is non-etendi#le and

co"pliance therewith is "andatory.

he petitionerBs argu"ent that force "a4eure andor fortuitous events prevented it

fro" eporting the 4ute #ags within the one-year period cannot #e accorded credit, for

several reasons. In the first place, in its decision of ove"#er 60, )!), the Court of

a *ppeals "ade a#solutely no "ention of or reference to this argu"ent of the

petitioner, which can only #e interpreted to "ean that the court did not #elieve that the

@typhoons, floods and pic1eting@ adverted to #y the petitioner in its #rief were of such

"agnitude or nature as to effectively prevent the eportation of the 4ute #ags within

the re/uired one-year period. In point of fact nowhere in the record does the petitioner

convincingly show that the so-called fortuitous events or force "a4eure referred to #y

it precluded the ti"ely eportation of the 4ute #ags. In the second place,

assu"ing, arguendo, that the one-year period is etendi#le, the 4ute #ags were not

actually eported within the one-wee1 etension the petitioner sought. he record

shows that although of the re"aining 8,33 4ute #ags 6),! were eported within

the period of one wee1 after the re/uest for etension was filed, the rest of the #ags,

a"ounting to a total of ,0!, were actually eported only during the period fro"

Fe#ruary ) to May 6, )!8, long after the epiration of the one-wee1 etension

sought #y the petitioner. Finally, it is clear fro" the record that the typhoons andfloods which, according to the petitioner, helped render i"possi#le the fulfill"ent of its

o#ligation to eport within the one-year period, assu"ing that they "ay #e placed in

the category of fortuitous events or force "a4eure, all occurred prior to the eecution

of the #onds in /uestion, or prior to the co""ence"ent of the one-year period within

which the petitioner was in law re/uired to eport the 4ute #ags.

6. he net argu"ent of the petitioner is that granting that Custo"s *d"inistrative

$rder 38! is valid and #inding, yet @4ute #ags@ cannot #e included in the phrase

@cylinders and other containers@ "entioned therein. It will #e noted, however, that the

+hilippine ariff *ct of )!0! and the ariff and Custo"s Code, which *d"inistrative

$rder 38! see1s to i"ple"ent, spea1 of @containers@ in general. he enu"eration

following the word @containers@ in the said statutes serves "erely to give ea"ples of

containers and not to specify the particular 1inds thereof. hus, sec. 63 of the

+hilippine ariff *ct states, @containers such as cas1s large "etals, glass or other

re%epta%les,@ and sec. )0

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

35/45


of !!N of the a"ount paid, provided the articles "entioned therein are eported

within three years fro" i"portation.

It would see" then that the %overn"ent would forego collecting duties on the articles

"entioned in section )0

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

36/45


G.R. No. )@44$1$ At 28, 198:

THE CHARTERED BAN; E'=)OEES ASSOCIATION,petitioner,

vs.

HON. B)AS !. O=)E, %p%t te I%mbet Se%retr o5 )bor, 7

THE CHARTERED BAN;,respondents.

GUTIERRE,

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

37/45


'ection . he provisions of 'ection I a#ove notwithstanding the

5* "ay revert to the si

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

38/45


Ahether or not the respondent 'ecretary of

;a#or a#used his discretion and acted contrary to

law in applying 'ec. 6, ule IG of the Integrated

ules and +olicy Instruction o. ! a#ovestated to

private respondentBs "onthly-paid e"ployees.

hird 9rror

Ahether or not the respondent 'ecretary of

;a#or, in not giving due credence to the

respondent #an1Bs practice of paying its

e"ployees #ase pay of )00N and pre"iu" pay

of 0N for wor1 done during legal holidays, acted

contrary to law and a#used his discretion in

denying the clai" of petitioners for unwor1ed

holidays and pre"iu" and overti"e pay

differentials for wor1ed holidays.

he petitioner contends that the respondent Minister of ;a#or gravely a#used his

discretion in pro"ulgating 'ection 6, ule IG, 5oo1 III of the Integrated ules and

+olicy Instruction o. ! as guidelines for the i"ple"entation of *rticles 86 and ! of

the ;a#or Code and in applying said guidelines to this case. It "aintains that while it

is true that the respondent Minister has the authority in the perfor"ance of his duty to

pro"ulgate rules and regulations to i"ple"ent, construe and clarify the ;a#or Code,

such power is li"ited #y provisions of the statute sought to #e i"ple"ented,

construed or clarified. *ccording to the petitioner, the so-called @guidelines@

pro"ulgated #y the respondent Minister totally contravened and violated the Code #y

ecluding the e"ployees"e"#ers of the petitioner fro" the #enefits of the holiday

pay, when the Code itself did not provide for their e$panding the CodeBs clear and

concise conclusion and notwithstanding the CodeBs clear and concise phraseology

defining those e"ployees who are covered and those who are ecluded fro" the

#enefits of holiday pay.

$n the other hand, the private respondent contends that the /uestioned guidelines

did not deprive the petitionerBs "e"#ers of the #enefits of holiday pay #ut "erely

classified those "onthly paid e"ployees whose "onthly salary already includes

holiday pay and those whose do not, and that the guidelines did not deprive the

e"ployees of holiday pay. It states that the /uestion to #e clarified is whether or not

the "onthly salaries of the petitionerBs "e"#ers already includes holiday pay. hus,

the guidelines were pro"ulgated to avoid confusion or "isconstruction in the

application of *rticles 86 and ! of the ;a#or Code #ut not to violate the".

espondent eplains that the rationale #ehind the pro"ulgation of the /uestioned

guidelines is to #enefit the daily paid wor1ers who, unli1e "onthly-paid e"ployees,

suffer deductions in their salaries for not wor1ing on holidays. Dence, the Doliday +ay

;aw was enacted precisely to countervail the disparity #etween daily paid wor1ers

and "onthly-paid e"ployees.

he decision in 5nsular Ban# of Asia and A!eri%a "!ployees7 4nion 5BAA"42 v.

5n%iong

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

39/45


the contet of the interactions of the three #ranches of the

govern"ent, al"ost always in situations where so"e agency of the

'tate has engaged in action that ste"s ulti"ately fro" so"e

legiti"ate area of govern"ental power

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

40/45


resting. In the a#sence of an epress provision of the C5* or the law to the contrary,

the co"putation should #e si"ilarly handled.

Ae are not un"indful of the fact that the respondentBs e"ployees are a"ong the

highest paid in the industry. It is not the intent of this Court to i"pose any undue

#urdens on an e"ployer which is already doing its #est for its personnel. we have to

resolve the la#or dispute in the light of the partiesB own collective #argaining

agree"ent and the #enefits given #y law to all wor1ers. Ahen the law provides

#enefits for @e"ployees in all esta#lish"ents and underta1ings, whether for profit or

not@ and lists specifically the e"ployees not entitled to those #enefits, the

ad"inistrative agency i"ple"enting that law cannot eclude certain e"ployees fro"

its coverage si"ply #ecause they are paid #y the "onth or #ecause they are already

highly paid. he re"edy lies in a clear redrafting of the collective #argaining

agree"ent with a state"ent that "onthly pay already includes holiday pay or an

a"end"ent of the law to that effect #ut not an ad"inistrative rule or a policy

instruction.

AD99F$9, the 'epte"#er 7, )!7 order of the pu#lic respondent is here#y

9G9'9 and '9 *'I9. he March 6, )!7 decision of the ational ;a#orelations Co""ission which affir"ed the $cto#er 30, )!7 resolution of the ;a#or

*r#iter #ut deleted interest pay"ents is 9I'*9.

'$ $99.

G.R. No. )@:230> O%tober 12, 1981

ABS@CBN BROADCASTING COR=ORATION, petitioner,vs.COURT O! TA( A==EA)S 7 THE CO''ISSIONER O! INTERNA)RE"ENUE, respondents.

'E)ENCIO@HERRERA, J.:

his is a +etition for eview on certiorari of the ecision of the Court of a *ppealsin C..*. Case o. 680!, dated ove"#er 6!, )!7!, which affir"ed the assess"ent#y the Co""issioner of Internal evenue, dated *pril ), )!7), of a deficiencywithholding inco"e ta against petitioner, *5'-C5 5roadcasting Corporation, for theyears )!, )!, )!7 and )!8 in the respective a"ounts of +7,8!.6,+!!,63!.)8, +)68,06.00 and +666, 60., or a total of +6,8!7.0.

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

41/45


uring the period pertinent to this case, petitioner corporation was engaged in the#usiness of telecasting local as well as foreign fil"s ac/uired fro" foreigncorporations not engaged in trade or #usiness within the +hilippines. for whichpetitioner paid rentals after withholding inco"e ta of 30Nof one-half of the fil"rentals.

In so far as the inco"e ta on non-resident corporations is concerned, section 6

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

42/45


In view thereof, %eneral Circular o. G-33, dated *pril )6, )!), ishere#y revo1ed and henceforth, local fil"s distri#utors andehi#itors shall deduct and withhold J01 of the enti rea!ount paya#le #y the" to non-resident foreign corporations, asfil" rental or royalty, or whatever such pay"ent "ay #edeno"inated, without any deduction whatever, pursuant to 'ection6

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

43/45


Aithholding ta duethereon

)80,38.00

;ess *"ount alreadyassessed

7),8.00

5alance )08,!00.00

*dd )6N "o. int. f r. -)-8 to -)-7)

)!,06.00

otal a"ount due Kcollecti#le

+)68,06.00

)!8

otal a"ount re"itted +88),8).!6

Aithholding ta duethereon

6!),683.00

;ess *"ount alreadyassessed

!6,88.00

5alance +)!8,7.00

*dd )6N "o. int. fr. -)-

! to -6!-7)

63,8)3.

otal a"ount due Kcollecti#le

+666,60. 1

$n May , )!7), petitioner re/uested for a reconsideration and withdrawal of theassess"ent. Dowever, without acting thereon, respondent, on *pril , )!7, issued awarrant of distraint and levy over petitionerBs personal as well as real properties. hepetitioner then filed its +etition for eview with the Court of a *ppeals whoseecision, dated ove"#er 6!, )!7!, is, in turn, the su#4ect of this review. he aCourt held

For the reasons given, the Court finds the assess"ent issued #yrespondent on *pril ), )!7) against petitioner in the a"ounts of+7,8!.6, + !!,63!.)8, +)68,06.00 and +666,60. or a totalof +6,8!7.0 as deficiency withholding inco"e ta for the years)!, )!, )!7 and )!8, respectively, in accordance with law.*s prayed for, the petition for review filed in this case is dis"issed,and petitioner *5'-C5 5roadcasting Corporation is here#yordered to pay the su" of +6,8!7.0 to respondentCo""issioner of Internal evenue as deficiency withholdinginco"e ta for the taa#le years )! thru )!8, plus the surchargeand interest which have accrued thereon incident to delin/uencypursuant to 'ection )

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

44/45


in the a"ount of + 6,8!7.0 as deficiency withholding inco"e tafor the years )!, )!, )!7 and )!8.

II. Ahether or not the right of the Co""issioner of Internalevenue to assess the deficiency withholding inco"e ta for theyear )!, has prescri#ed. 3

:pon the facts and circu"stances of the case, review is warranted.

In point is 'ec. 338-*

7/23/2019 Admin Law Nov 21 2015

45/45


gains, profits and inco"e, * C*+I*; %*I', a ta e/ual tothirtyper %entu! of su%h a!ount. >

Date post:	13-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	alyssa-clarizze-malaluan
View:	227 times
Download:	0 times

Admin Law Nov 21 2015

Documents