G.R. No. L-19180 October 31, 1963NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs.THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF MANILA, respondent-appellant.Ross, Selph and Carrascoso for petitioners-appellees.Office of the Solicitor General for respondent-appellant.BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:The National Development Company which is engaged in the shipping business under the name of "Philippine National Lines" is the owner of steamship "S.S. Doa Nati" whose local agent in Manila is A. V. Rocha. On August 4, 1960, the Collector of Customs sent a notice to C.F. Sharp & Company as alleged operator of the vessel informing it that said vessel was apprehended and found to have committed a violation of the customs laws and regulations in that it carried an unmanifested cargo consisting of one RCA Victor TV set 21" in violation of Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Inserted in said notice is a note of the following tenor: "The above article was being carried away by Dr. Basilio de Leon y Mendez, official doctor of M/S "Doa Nati" who readily admitted ownership of the same." C.F. Sharp & Company was given 48 hours to show cause why no administrative fine should be imposed upon it for said violation.C.F. Sharp & Company, not being the agent or operator of the vessel, referred the notice to A. V. Rocha, the agent and operator thereof, who on August 8, 1960, answered the notice stating, among other things, that the television set referred to therein was not a cargo of the vessel and, therefore, was not required by law to be manifested. Rocha stated further: "If this explanation is not sufficient, we request that this case be set for investigation and hearing in order to enable the vessel to be informed of the evidence against it to sustain the charge and to present evidence in its defense."The Collector of Customs replied to Rocha on August 9, 1960 stating that the television set in question was a cargo on board the vessel and that he does not find his explanation satisfactory enough to exempt the vessel from liability for violating Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code. In said letter, the collector imposed a fine of P5,000.00 on the vessel and ordered payment thereof within 48 hours with a threat that he will deny clearance to said vessel and will issue a warrant of seizure and detention against it if the fine is not paid.And considering that the Collector of Customs has exceeded his jurisdiction or committed a grave abuse of discretion in imposing the fine of P5,000.00 on the vessel without the benefit of an investigation or hearing as requested by A. V. Rocha, the National Development Company, as owner of the vessel, as well as A. V. Rocha as agent and operator thereof, filed the instant special civil action of certiorari with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Manila against the official abovementioned. The court, finding the petition for injunction sufficient in form and substance, issued ex parte the writ prayed for upon the filing of a bond in the amount of P5,00.00.Respondent set up the following special defenses: (1) the court a quo has no jurisdiction to act on matters arising from violations of the Customs Law, but the Court of Tax Appeals; (2) assuming that it has, petitioners have not exhausted all available administrative remedies, one of which is to appeal to the Commissioner of Customs; (3) the requirements of administrative due process have already been complied with in that the written notice given by respondent to petitioner Rocha clearly specified the nature of the violation complained of and that the defense set up by Rocha constitute merely a legal issue which does not require further investigation; and (4) the investigation conducted by the customs authorities showed that the television set in question was unloaded by the ship's doctor without going thru the custom house as required by law and was not declared either in the ship's manifest or in the crew declaration list.On the basis of the stipulation of facts submitted by the parties, the court a quo rendered decision setting aside the ruling of respondent which imposes a fine of P5,000.00 on the vessel Doa Nati payable within 48 hours from receipt thereof. The court stated that said ruling appears to be unjust and arbitrary because the party affected has not been accorded the investigation it requested from the Collector of Customs.Respondent interposed the present appeal.When the customs authorities found that the vessel Doa Nati carried on board an unmanifested cargo consisting of one RCA Victor TV set 21" in violation of Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code, respondent sent a written notice to C. F. Sharp & Company, believing it to be the operator or agent of the vessel, and when the latter referred the notice to A. V. Rocha, the real operator of the vessel, for such step as he may deem necessary to be taken the latter answered the letter stating that the television set was not cargo and so was not required by law to be manifested, and he added to his answer the following: "If this explanation is not sufficient, we request that this case be set for investigation and hearing in order to enable the vessel to be informed of the evidence against it to sustain the charge and to present evidence in its defense. "Respondent, however, replied to this letter saying that said television was a cargo within the meaning of the law and so he does not find his explanation satisfactory and then and there imposed on the vessel a fine of P5,00.00. Respondent even went further. He ordered that said fine be paid within 48 hours from receipt with a threat that the vessel would be denied clearance and a warrant of seizure would be issued if the fine will not be paid. Considering this to be a grave abuse of discretion, petitioners commenced the present action for certiorari before the court a quo.We find this action proper for it really appears that petitioner Rocha was not given an opportunity to prove that the television set complained of is not a cargo that needs to be manifested as required by Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Under said section, in order that an imported article or merchandise may be considered a cargo that should be manifested it is first necessary that it be so established for the reason that there are other effects that a vessel may carry that are excluded from the requirement of the law, among which are the personal effects of the members of the crew. The fact that the set in question was claimed by the customs authorities not to be within the exception does not automatically make the vessel liable. It is still necessary that the vessel, its owner or operator, be given a chance to show otherwise. This is precisely what petitioner Rocha has requested in his letter. Not only was he denied this chance, but respondent collector immediately imposed upon the vessel the huge fine of P5,000.00. This is a denial of the elementary rule of due process.True it is that the proceedings before the Collector of Customs insofar as the determination of any act or irregularity that may involve a violation of any customs law or regulation is concerned, or of any act arising under the Tariff and Customs Code, are not judicial in character, but merely administrative, where the rules of procedure are generally disregarded, but even in the administrative proceedings due process should be observed because that is a right enshrined in our Constitution. The right to due process is not merely statutory. It is a constitutional right. Indeed, our Constitution provides that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law", which clause epitomize the principle of justice which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. That this principle applies with equal force to administrative proceedings was well elaborated upon by this Court in the Ang Tibay case as follows:... The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial Relations may be said to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean that it can, in justiciable case coming before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character.... There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character. The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its decision. No only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it. (Ang Tibay, et al. v. The Court of Industrial Relations, et al., 40 O.G., No. 11, Supp. p. 29).There is, therefore, no point in the contention that the court a quo has no jurisdiction over the present case because what is here involved is not whether the imposition of the fine by the Collector of Customs on the operator of the ship is correct or not but whether he acted properly in imposing said fine without first giving the operator an opportunity to be heard. Here we said that he acted improvidently and so the action taken against him is in accordance with Rule 67 of our Rules of Court.Another point raised is that petitioners have brought this action prematurely for they have not yet exhausted all the administrative remedies available to them, one of which is to appeal the ruling to the Commissioner of Customs. This may be true, but such step we do not consider a plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law as would prevent petitioners from taking the present action, for it is undisputed that respondent collector has acted in utter disregard of the principle of due process.WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed. No costs.G.R. No. L-21685 April 30, 1966CLETO ASPREC, petitioner-appellant, vs.VICTORIANO ITCHON, JOSE SUGUITAN, FELIPE P. CRUZ, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NICANOR G. JORGE, ANTONIO NOBLEJAS,1 and JACINTO HERNANDEZ, respondents-appellees.Tabora and Concon for petitioner-appellant.Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General A. G. Ibarra and Solicitor C. P. Padua for respondents-appellees.SANCHEZ, J.:The case on hand had its incipiency in an administrative complaint2 for unprofessional conduct lodged with the Board of Examiners for Surveyors3 by respondent Jacinto Hernandez against petitioner Cleto Asprec. There, Hernandez charged that petitioner undertook to survey Hernandez' lot in Port Junction, Ragay, Camarines Sur; deliver to him a plan approved by the Director of Lands within three months after completion of the survey, and procure the issuance of a certificate of title to the lot thus surveyed within six months after the plan's approval; and that he (Hernandez) paid the consideration agreed upon but that petitioner did not deliver the agreed plan, the lapse of four years notwithstanding. Petitioner Asprec averred compliance by allegedly executing and delivering plan Psu-148774 (Ap-2419) duly approved. But Hernandez' reply asserted that Psu-148774 is the plan of a survey made by Asprec for one Damian Alhambra; that plan Ap-2419 is merely a certified copy of sheet 2 of said plan Psu-148774; and that petitioner's contractual obligation was to deliver to him the plan of an original survey not a mere copy. The Board found for Hernandez and declared; that no actual survey of Hernandez' land was made; but that money was paid on his belief that Asprec really surveyed the land for him; that Asprec was guilty of deceit and thus violated the Code of Ethics for surveyors. The Board's unanimous decision of October 27, 1959 revoked, and required surrender of, Asprec's certificate of registration as a private land surveyor. On December 1, 1959, the Assistant Executive Secretary, by authority of the President of the Philippines, approved the Board's decision. On February 12, 1960, the Board's chairman demanded surrender of said certificate in five days. Petitioner's motion to reconsider of March 16, 1960 was denied by the Office of the President on October 31, 1960. Meanwhile, on March 22, 1960, respondent Jorge directed all offices under the Bureau of Lands to return to petitioner Asprec unacted all surveys executed or corrected by the latter on or after October 27, 1959.Petitioner, charging grave abuse of discretion, came to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur on certiorari to annul the orders revoking his surveyor's certificate of registration; mandamus to compel the Board to conduct a formal hearing of the complaint against him; and prohibition, to stop execution of the orders to surrender said certificate. The preliminary injunction prayed for was rejected below.Upon a stipulations of facts, the Camarines Sur court rendered judgment on August 14, 1962, dismissing the petition, with costs. We are now asked to review said decision.We will now discuss seriatim the questions raised.1. Petitioner's trenchant claim is that he was denied his day in court.4 Resolution of this problem necessitates a considerate examination of the following that transpired before the Board: (a) Hearing of March 31, 1958: Petitioner raised the legal point that the complaint was not under oath. The Board directed Hernandez to submit a verified complaint. Hearing was postponed to May 12, 1958.(b) Hearing of May 12, 1958: Upon the averment that the verified complaint sets forth "new facts", petitioner asked for a 10-day period to answer. On June 6, instead of an answer, petitioner's counsel filed a motion to dismiss.(c) Hearing of August 18, 1958. Petitioner prayed that hearing be held in abeyance until the board shall have resolved his motion to dismiss. The hearing was reset for March 11, 1959.(d) Hearing of March 11, 1959: This did not pull through although both parties and their respective attorneys were present, because Asprec's counsel was not feeling well. They all agreed to transfer the hearing to May 11, 1959.(e) Hearing of May 11, 1959: Hernandez and counsel appeared. But petitioner and counsel were absent. The Board was not apprised by petitioner of the cause of his or his counsel's failure to appear. At this juncture, counsel for Hernandez manifested to the Board that "since all evidence available against the respondent has already been submitted he would now rest his case." He then filed with the Board a motion for judgment on the pleadings.5If the foregoing have any meaning at all, they funnel down to one concrete fact: petitioner has had more than ample opportunity to defend himself before the Board. As he and counsel did not appear at the last and stipulated date of bearing, he cannot look to the law or to a judicial tribunal to whipsaw the Board into giving him a new one. He cannot raise his voice in protest against the act of the Board in proceeding in his and his counsel's absence. And this because without cause or reason, without any excuse at all, counsel and client have chosen to shy away from the trial. Presence of a party at a trial, petitioner concedes, is not always of the essence of due process. Really, all that the law requires to satisfy adherence to this constitutional precept is that the parties be given notice of the trial, an opportunity to be heard. Petitioner had notice of the trial of May 11th. More than this, that date of trial (May 11) had been previously agreed upon by the parties and their counsel. Petitioner cannot now charge that he received less-than-a-fair-treatment. He has forfeited his right to be heard in his defense.6On top of all, petitioner did not as much as bother to inquire as to what happened on May 11. He bestirred himself only on April 16 the following year. Surely enough, this patent in attention better termed gross negligence will not carry the day for him. Indeed, no reason exists why the other party should be hard put to realize that he will have to undergo further expense and trouble. After all, due process is merely "the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play."72. But petitioner insists that the proceeding before the Board are quasi-criminal in nature. From this he proceeds to draw the conclusion that no valid trial could proceed even if he absented himself therefrom. We do not see eye to eye with this view. It is best answered by a reference to the opinion of the court below, thus:The rule applies even to quasi-criminal or criminal proceedings. So, where the respondent in a petition for contempt failed to appear on the date set for the hearing, of which he was previously notified, it was held that he was not deprived of his day in court when the judge ordered him arrested unless he pay the support he was adjudged to give, he having been given an opportunity to be heard. Embate vs. Penolio, G.R. No. L-4942.8 Similarly, the defendant's failure to appear with the counsel of his choice at the trial, notwithstanding repeated postponements and the warning that failure to appear would be deemed a waiver of the right to present evidence in his defense and the case will be submitted for decision on the evidence submitted by the prosecution, was a sufficient justification for the court to proceed and render judgment upon the evidence before it. People vs. Angco, 54 Off. Gaz. 5703.3. Appellant decries the fact that the Board's decision was rendered upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings presented on the date of trial, May 11, 1959. He claims that there was no basis for such decision.A rule so long respected, because it is buttressed upon reason and authority, is that technical rules of court practice, procedure and evidence are not to be applied with rigidity in administrative proceedings. We should have in mind the nature of administrative bodies, the character of the duties they are required to perform, the purposes for which they are organized and the persons who compose them. Here, we are concerned with members of a board of surveyors technical men but not necessarily trained law men. In this posture, it is quite reasonable to assume that their proceedings may not be conducted with that degree of exactness or with such scrupulous observance of the complex technical rules expected in a legal battle before a court of justice. Their acts should not be measured by the same yardstick exacted of a judge of a court of law. So much leeway is given an investigating administrative body.9With the foregoing legal tenet as guide, let us now examine the facts of this case. There was indeed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. But not without reason. Petitioner admits that he executed the plan, sent it to complainant. But this plan (Ap-2419) is not the plan of an original survey. Because it was merely copied from another plan. Petitioner received compensation 10 on the basis of a plan drawn from a survey, not from a copy. Besides, the plans the original and copied plans were before the Board. So it is, that when counsel for Hernandez manifested at the hearing of May 11, 1959 that all the evidence against petitioner was submitted to the Board and that for that reason he was resting his case, he evidently had in mind the admissions in the pleadings and the plans and decision and report here noted. And, the motion for judgment on the pleadings was a mere follow-up of the manifestation just adverted to. As the trial court well observed, counsel for respondent Hernandez did not present a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the strict sense of the word, 11 but "a motion which for lack of another expression, he called a motion for judgment on the pleadings." Lack of observance of this technicality which does not quarrel with a fair concept of justice should be overlooked. 12 There was evidence before the Board and the Board had acted thereon. The Board's decision was propped up by facts.1wph1.t4. A review of the record fails to elicit any representation on the part of petitioner that if the Board's decision and the decision of the Court below be reversed, a different result may be obtained. He does not advance any fact or circumstance which would constitute a substantial defense. He does not even offer a new matter which would tilt the scales of justice in his favor. The net result is that if error of procedure there was, as he claims, such error is reduced to the level of non-prejudicial. It is because of all of these that we now say that a reversal of the judgment below or a new hearing before the Board would be but an empty ceremony. Courts do not demand or, for that matter, suggest the performance of the unnecessary. If only for this alone, there is no cause or reason why the machinery administrative or judicial should be allowed to grind anew. 135. Petitioner would want to make a point out of Surveyor's Administrative Order No. 1, dated November 26, 1934 (which implemented Act 3626 as amended by Act No. 3889), section 19 (g) of which provides that "Any surveyor who has been suspended three (3) times shall no longer be authorized to practice surveying in the Philippine Islands". Petitioner now asserts that the Board's decision revoking his license is an illegality. This argument overlooks the express statutory provision contained in Section 10 of Act 3626 as amended by Act 3889 aforesaid, as follows:The Board of Examiners may suspend or revoke the license or certificate as practising surveyor granted to any person in case the same has been convicted by any court of a crime involving moral turpitude, if he has been guilty of immoral and dishonest conduct, if he is mentally incapacitated, or for unprofessional conduct. The decision of the Board shall be rendered after an investigation in which the accused shall be heard, and said accused may appeal to the Department head, whose decision shall be final administratively.This law does not state that the surveyor's license may be revoked, only after the said surveyor has been suspended three times. The plain import of the law is that ample discretion is given the Board to suspend or revoke the license. The Board has elected to revoke. It acted within the law. For, a familiar rule is that in a clash between statute and administrative order issued in pursuance thereof, the former prevails.In the end, we say that the proceedings before the Board were not infused with such unfairness or tainted with so grave an abuse of authority as to call for the exercise by this Court of its corrective powers.Upon the view we take of this case, the decision is hereby affirmed. Costs against petitioner.G.R. No. 111953 December 12, 1997HON. RENATO C. CORONA, in his capacity as Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs, HON. JESUS B. GARCIA, in his capacity as Acting Secretary, Department of Transportation and Communications, and ROGELIO A. DAYAN, in his capacity as General Manager of Philippine Ports Authority, petitioners, vs.UNITED HARBOR PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES and MANILA PILOTS ASSOCIATION, respondents.ROMERO, J.:In issuing Administrative Order No. 04-92 (PPA-AO No. 04-92), limiting the term of appointment of harbor pilots to one year subject to yearly renewal or cancellation, did the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) violate respondents' right to exercise their profession and their right to due process of law?The PPA was created on July 11, 1974, by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 505. On December 23, 1975, Presidential Decree No. 857 was issued revising the PPA's charter. Pursuant to its power of control, regulation, and supervision of pilots and the pilotage profession, 1 the PPA promulgated PPA-AO-03-85 2 on March 21, 1985, which embodied the "Rules and Regulations Governing Pilotage Services, the Conduct of Pilots and Pilotage Fees in Philippine Ports." These rules mandate, inter alia, that aspiring pilots must be holders of pilot licenses 3 and must train as probationary pilots in outports for three months and in the Port of Manila for four months. It is only after they have achieved satisfactory performance 4 that they are given permanent and regular appointments by the PPA itself 5 to exercise harbor pilotage until they reach the age of 70, unless sooner removed by reason of mental or physical unfitness by the PPA General Manager. 6 Harbor pilots in every harbor district are further required to organize themselves into pilot associations which would make available such equipment as may be required by the PPA for effective pilotage services. In view of this mandate, pilot associations invested in floating, communications, and office equipment. In fact, every new pilot appointed by the PPA automatically becomes a member of a pilot association and is required to pay a proportionate equivalent equity or capital before being allowed to assume his duties, as reimbursement to the association concerned of the amount it paid to his predecessor.Subsequently, then PPA General Manager Rogelio A. Dayan issued PPA-AO No. 04-92 7 on July 15, 1992, whose avowed policy was to "instill effective discipline and thereby afford better protection to the port users through the improvement of pilotage services." This was implemented by providing therein that "all existing regular appointments which have been previously issued either by the Bureau of Customs or the PPA shall remain valid up to 31 December 1992 only" and that "all appointments to harbor pilot positions in all pilotage districts shall, henceforth, be only for a term of one (1) year from date of effectivity subject to yearly renewal or cancellation by the Authority after conduct of a rigid evaluation of performance."On August 12, 1992, respondents United Harbor Pilots Association and the Manila Pilots Association, through Capt. Alberto C. Compas, questioned PPA-AO No. 04-92 before the Department of Transportation and Communication, but they were informed by then DOTC Secretary Jesus B. Garcia that "the matter of reviewing, recalling or annulling PPA's administrative issuances lies exclusively with its Board of Directors as its governing body."Meanwhile, on August 31, 1992, the PPA issued Memorandum Order No. 08-92 8 which laid down the criteria or factors to be considered in the reappointment of harbor pilot, viz.: (1) Qualifying Factors: 9 safety record and physical/mental medical exam report and (2) Criteria for Evaluation: 10 promptness in servicing vessels, compliance with PPA Pilotage Guidelines, number of years as a harbor pilot, average GRT of vessels serviced as pilot, awards/commendations as harbor pilot, and age.Respondents reiterated their request for the suspension of the implementation of PPA-AO No. 04-92, but Secretary Garcia insisted on his position that the matter was within the jurisdiction of the Board of Directors of the PPA. Compas appealed this ruling to the Office of the President (OP), reiterating his arguments before the DOTC.On December 23, 1992, the OP issued an order directing the PPA to hold in abeyance the implementation of PPA-AO No. 04-92. In its answer, the PPA countered that said administrative order was issued in the exercise of its administrative control and supervision over harbor pilots under Section 6-a (viii), Article IV of P.D. No. 857, as amended, and it, along with its implementing guidelines, was intended to restore order in the ports and to improve the quality of port services.On March 17, 1993, the OP, through then Assistant Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs Renato C. Corona, dismissed the appeal/petition and lifted the restraining order issued earlier. 11 He concluded that PPA-AO No. 04-92 applied to all harbor pilots and, for all intents and purposes, was not the act of Dayan, but of the PPA, which was merely implementing Section 6 of P.D. No. 857, mandating it "to control, regulate and supervise pilotage and conduct of pilots in any port district."On the alleged unconstitutionality and illegality of PPA-AO No. 04-92 and its implementing memoranda and circulars, Secretary Corona opined that:The exercise of one's profession falls within the constitutional guarantee against wrongful deprivation of, or interference with, property rights without due process. In the limited context of this case. PPA-AO 04-92 does not constitute a wrongful interference with, let alone a wrongful deprivation of, the property rights of those affected thereby. As may be noted, the issuance aims no more than to improve pilotage services by limiting the appointment to harbor pilot positions to one year, subject to renewal or cancellation after a rigid evaluation of the appointee's performance.PPA-AO 04-92 does not forbid, but merely regulates, the exercise by harbor pilots of their profession in PPA's jurisdictional area. (Emphasis supplied)Finally, as regards the alleged "absence of ample prior consultation" before the issuance of the administrative order, Secretary Corona cited Section 26 of P.D. No. 857, which merely requires the PPA to consult with "relevant Government agencies." Since the PPA Board of Directors is composed of the Secretaries of the DOTC, the Department of Public Works and Highways, the Department of Finance, and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, as well as the Director-General of the National Economic Development Agency, the Administrator of the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA), and the private sector representative who, due to his knowledge and expertise, was appointed by the President to the Board, he concluded that the law has been sufficiently complied with by the PPA in issuing the assailed administrative order.Consequently, respondents filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and damages, before Branch 6 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 93-65673. On September 6, 1993, the trial court rendered the following judgment: 12WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing, this Court hereby rules that:1. Respondents (herein petitioners) have acted excess jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion and in a capricious, whimsical and arbitrary manner in promulgating PPA Administrative Order 04-92 including all its implementing Memoranda, Circulars and Orders;2. PPA Administrative Order 04-92 and its implementing Circulars and Orders are declared null and void;3. The respondents are permanently enjoined from implementing PPA Administrative Order 04-92 and its implementing Memoranda, Circulars and Orders.No costs.SO ORDERED.The court a quo pointed out that the Bureau of Customs, the precursor of the PPA, recognized pilotage as a profession and, therefore, a property right under Callanta v. Carnation Philippines, Inc. 13 Thus, abbreviating the term within which that privilege may be exercised would be an interference with the property rights of the harbor pilots. Consequently, any "withdrawal or alteration" of such property right must be strictly made in accordance with the constitutional mandate of due process of law. This was apparently not followed by the PPA when it did not conduct public hearings prior to the issuance of PPA-AO No. 04-92; respondents allegedly learned about it only after its publication in the newspapers. From this decision, petitioners elevated their case to this Court on certiorari.After carefully examining the records and deliberating on the arguments of the parties, the Court is convinced that PPA-AO No. 04-92 was issued in stark disregard of respondents' right against deprivation of property without due process of law. Consequently, the instant petition must be denied.Section 1 of the Bill of Rights lays down what is known as the "due process clause" of the Constitution, viz.:Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, . . .In order to fall within the aegis of this provision, two conditions must concur, namely, that there is a deprivation and that such deprivation is done without proper observance of due process. When one speaks of due process of law, however, a distinction must be made between matters of procedure and matters of substance. In essence, procedural due process "refers to the method or manner by which the law is enforced," while substantive due process "requires that the law itself, not merely the procedures by which the law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable, and just." 14 PPA-AO No. 04-92 must be examined in light of this distinction.Respondents argue that due process was not observed in the adoption of PPA-AO No. 04-92 allegedly because no hearing was conducted whereby "relevant government agencies" and the pilots themselves could ventilate their views. They are obviously referring to the procedural aspect of the enactment. Fortunately, the Court has maintained a clear position in this regard, a stance it has stressed in the recent case of Lumiqued v. Hon. Exevea, 15 where it declared that "(a)s long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity to be heard is the very essence of due process. Moreover, this constitutional mandate is deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of."In the case at bar, respondents questioned PPA-AO No. 04-92 no less than four times 16 before the matter was finally elevated to this Tribunal. Their arguments on this score, however, fail to persuade. While respondents emphasize that the Philippine Coast Guard, "which issues the licenses of pilots after administering the pilots' examinations," was not consulted, 17 the facts show that the MARINA, which took over the licensing function of the Philippine Coast Guard, was duly represented in the Board of Directors of the PPA. Thus, petitioners correctly argued that, there being no matters of naval defense involved in the issuance of the administrative order, the Philippine Coast Guard need not be consulted. 18Neither does the fact that the pilots themselves were not consulted in any way taint the validity of the administrative order. As a general rule, notice and hearing, as the fundamental requirements of procedural due process, are essential only when an administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial function. In the performance of its executive or legislative functions, such as issuing rules and regulations, an administrative body need not comply with the requirements of notice and hearing. 19Upon the other hand, it is also contended that the sole and exclusive right to the exercise of harbor pilotage by pilots is a settled issue. Respondents aver that said right has become vested and can only be "withdrawn or shortened" by observing the constitutional mandate of due process of law. Their argument has thus shifted from the procedural to one of substance. It is here where PPA-AO No. 04-92 fails to meet the condition set by the organic law.There is no dispute that pilotage as a profession has taken on the nature of a property right. Even petitioner Corona recognized this when he stated in his March 17, 1993, decision that "(t)he exercise of one's profession falls within the constitutional guarantee against wrongful deprivation of, or interference with, property rights without due process." 20 He merely expressed the opinion the "(i)n the limited context of this case, PPA-AO 04-92 does not constitute a wrongful interference with, let alone a wrongful deprivation of, the property rights of those affected thereby, and that "PPA-AO 04-95 does not forbid, but merely regulates, the exercise by harbor pilots of their profession." As will be presently demonstrated, such supposition is gravely erroneous and tends to perpetuate an administrative order which is not only unreasonable but also superfluous.Pilotage, just like other professions, may be practiced only by duly licensed individuals. Licensure is "the granting of license especially to practice a profession." It is also "the system of granting licenses (as for professional practice) in accordance with establishment standards." 21 A license is a right or permission granted by some competent authority to carry on a business or do an act which, without such license, would be illegal. 22Before harbor pilots can earn a license to practice their profession, they literally have to pass through the proverbial eye of a needle by taking, not one but five examinations, each followed by actual training and practice. Thus, the court a quo observed:Petitioners (herein respondents) contend, and the respondents (herein petitioners) do not deny, the here (sic) in this jurisdiction, before a person can be a harbor pilot, he must pass five (5) government professional examinations, namely, (1) For Third Mate and after which he must work, train and practice on board a vessel for at least a year; (2) For Second Mate and after which he must work, train and practice for at least a year; (3) For Chief Mate and after which he must work, train and practice for at least a year; (4) For a Master Mariner and after which he must work as Captain of vessel for at least two (2) years to qualify for an examination to be a pilot; and finally, of course, that given for pilots.Their license is granted in the form of an appointment which allows them to engage in pilotage until they retire at the age 70 years. This is a vested right. Under the terms of PPA-AO No. 04-92, "(a)ll existing regular appointments which have been previously issued by the Bureau of Customs or the PPA shall remain valid up to 31 December 1992 only," and "(a)ll appointments to harbor pilot positions in all pilotage districts shall, henceforth, be only for a term of one (1) year from date of effectivity subject to renewal or cancellation by the Authority after conduct of a rigid evaluation of performance."It is readily apparent that PPA-AO No. 04-92 unduly restricts the right of harbor pilots to enjoy their profession before their compulsory retirement. In the past, they enjoyed a measure of security knowing that after passing five examinations and undergoing years of on-the-job training, they would have a license which they could use until their retirement, unless sooner revoked by the PPA for mental or physical unfitness. Under the new issuance, they have to contend with an annual cancellation of their license which can be temporary or permanent depending on the outcome of their performance evaluation. Veteran pilots and neophytes alike are suddenly confronted with one-year terms which ipso facto expire at the end of that period. Renewal of their license is now dependent on a "rigid evaluation of performance" which is conducted only after the license has already been cancelled. Hence, the use of the term "renewal." It is this pre-evaluation cancellation which primarily makes PPA-AO No. 04-92 unreasonable and constitutionally infirm. In a real sense, it is a deprivation of property without due process of law.The Court notes that PPA-AO No. 04-92 and PPA-MO No. 08-92 are already covered by PPA-AO No. 03-85, which is still operational. Respondents are correct in pointing out that PPA-AO No. 04-92 is a "surplusage" 23 and, therefore, an unnecessary enactment. PPA-AO 03-85 is a comprehensive order setting forth the "Rules and Regulations Governing Pilotage Services, the Conduct of Pilots and Pilotage Fees in Philippine Ports." It provides, inter alia, for the qualification, appointment, performance evaluation, disciplining and removal of harbor pilots matters which are duplicated in PPA-AO No. 04-92 and its implementing memorandum order. Since it adds nothing new or substantial, PPA-AO No. 04-92 must be struck down.Finally, respondents' insinuation that then PPA General Manager Dayan was responsible for the issuance of the questioned administrative order may have some factual basis; after all, power and authority were vested in his office to propose rules and regulations. The trial court's finding of animosity between him and private respondents might likewise have a grain of truth. Yet the number of cases filed in court between private respondents and Dayan, including cases which have reached this Court, cannot certainly be considered the primordial reason for the issuance of PPA-AO No. 04-92. In the absence of proof to the contrary, Dayan should be presumed to have acted in accordance with law and the best of professional motives. In any event, his actions are certainly always subject to scrutiny by higher administrative authorities.WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed decision of the court a quo dated September 6, 1993, in Civil Case No. 93-65673 is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 110379 November 28, 1997HON. ARMAND FABELLA, in his capacity as SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS; John Doe (not his real name), in his capacity as REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DECS-NCR; DR. BIENVENIDO ICASIANO, in his capacity as the SUPERINTENDENT OF THE QUEZON CITY SCHOOLS DIVISION; ALMA BELLA O. BAUTISTA, AURORA C. VALENZUELA and TERESITA V. DIMAGMALIW, petitioners, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS, ROSARITO A. SEPTIMO, ERLINDA B. DE LEON, CLARISSA T. DIMAANO, WILFREDO N. BACANI, MARINA R. VIVAR, VICTORIA S. UBALDO, JENNIE L. DOGWE, NORMA L. RONGCALES, EDITA C. SEPTIMO, TERESITA E. EVANGELISTA, CATALINA R. FRAGANTE, REBECCA D. BAGDOG, MARILYNNA C. KU, MARRISA M. SAMSON, HENEDINA B. CARILLO, NICASIO C. BRAVO, RUTH F. LACANILAO, MIRASOL C. BALIGOD, FELISA S. VILLACRUEL, MA. VIOLETA ELIZABETH Y. HERNANDEZ, ANTONIO C. OCAMPO, ADRIANO S. VALENCIA and ELEUTERIO S. VARGAS, respondents.PANGANIBAN, J.:Due process of law requires notice and hearing. Hearing, on the other hand, presupposes a competent and impartial tribunal. The right to be heard and, ultimately, the right to due process of law lose meaning in the absence of an independent, competent and impartial tribunal.Statement of the CaseThis principium is explained by this Court as it resolves this petition for review on certiorari assailing the May 21, 1993 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals 2 in CA-G.R.. SP No. 29107 which affirmed the trial court's decision, 3 as follows:WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED and the appeal is DISMISSED.The Hon. Armand Fabella is hereby ORDERED substituted as respondent-appellant in place of former Secretary Isidro Cario and henceforth this fact should be reflected in the title of this case.SO ORDERED. 4The Antecedent FactsThe facts, as found by Respondent Court, are as follows:On September 17, 1990, then DECS Secretary Cario issued a return-to-work order to all public school teachers who had participated in walk-outs and strikes on various dates during the period September 26, 1990 to October 18, 1990. The mass action had been staged to demand payment of 13th month differentials, clothing allowances and passage of a debt-cap bill in Congress, among other things.On October 18, 1990, Secretary Cario filed administrative cases against herein petitioner-appellees, who are teachers of the Mandaluyong High School. The charge sheets required petitioner-appellees to explain in writing why they should not be punished for having taken part in the mass action in violation of civil service laws and regulations, to wit:1. grave misconduct;2. gross neglect of duty;3. gross violation of Civil Service Law and rules on reasonable office regulations;4. refusal to perform official duty;5. conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.6. absence without leave (AWOL)At the same time, Secretary Cario ordered petitioner-appellee to be placed under preventive suspension.The charges were subsequently amended by John Doe (not his real name)on November 7, 1990 to include the specific dates when petitioner-appellees allegedly took part in the strike.Administrative hearings started on December 20, 1990. Petitioner-appellees' counsel objected to the procedure adopted by the committee and demanded that he be furnished a copy of the guidelines adopted by the committee for the investigation and imposition of penalties. As he received no response from the committee, counsel walked out. Later, however, counsel, was able to obtain a copy of the guidelines.On April 10, 1991, the teachers filed a an injunctive suit (Civil Case No. 60675) with the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City, charging the committee appointed by Secretary Cario with fraud and deceit and praying that it be stopped from further investigating them and from rendering any decision in the administrative case. However, the trial court denied them a restraining order.They then amended their complaint and made it one for certiorari and mandamus. They alleged that the investigating committee was acting with grave abuse of discretion because its guidelines for investigation place the burden of proof on them by requiring them to prove their innocence instead of requiring Secretary Cario and his staff to adduce evidence to prove the charges against the teachers.On May 30, 1991, petitioner-appellee Adriano S. Valencia of the Ramon Magsaysay High School filed a motion to intervene, alleging that he was in the same situation as petitioners since he had likewise been charged and preventively suspended by respondent-appellant Cario for the same grounds as the other petitioner-appellees and made to shoulder the burden of proving his innocence under the committee's guidelines. The trial court granted his motion on June 3, 1991 and allowed him to intervene.On June 11, 1991, the Solicitor General answered the petitioner for certiorari and mandamus in behalf of respondent DECS Secretary. In the main he contended that, in accordance with the doctrine of primary resort, the trial court should not interfere in the administrative proceedings.The Solicitor General also asked the trial court to reconsider its order of June 3, 1991, allowing petitioner-appellee Adriano S. Valencia to intervene in the case.Meanwhile, the DECS investigating committee rendered a decision on August 6, 1991, finding the petitioner-appellees guilty, as charged and ordering their immediate dismissal.On August 15, 1991, the trial court dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus for lack of merit. Petitioner-appellees moved for a reconsideration, but their motion was denied on September 11, 1991.The teachers then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court which, on February 18, 1992, issued a resolution en banc declaring void the trial court's order of dismissal and reinstating petitioner-appellees' action, even as it ordered the latter's reinstatement pending decision of their case.Accordingly, on March 25, 1992, the trial court set the case for hearing. June 8, 1992, it issued a pre-trial order which reads:As prayed for by Solicitor Bernard Hernandez, let this case be set for pre-trial conference on June 17, 1992 at 1:30 p.m., so as to expedite the proceedings hereof. In which case, DECS Secretary Isidro Cario, as the principal respondent, is hereby ordered to PERSONALLY APPEAR before this Court on said date and time, with a warning that should he fail to show up on said date, the Court will declare him as IN DEFAULT. Stated otherwise, for the said Pre-Trial Conference, the Court will not recognize any representative of his.By agreement of the parties, the trial conference was reset on June 26, 1992. However, Secretary Cario failed to appear in court on the date set. It was explained that he had to attend a conference in Maragondon, Cavite. Instead, he was represented by Atty. Reno Capinpin, while the other respondents were represented by Atty. Jocelyn Pili. But the court just the same declared them as in default. The Solicitor General moved for a reconsideration, reiterating that Cario could not personally come on June 26, 1992 because of prior commitment in Cavite. It was pointed out that Cario was represented by Atty. Reno Capinpin, while the other respondents were represented by Atty. Jocelyn Pili, both of the DECS-NCR and that both had special powers of attorney. But the Solicitor General's motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court. In its order of July 15, 1992, the court stated:The "Motion For Reconsideration" dated July 3, 1992 filed by the respondents thru counsel, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. It appears too obvious that respondents simply did not want to comply with the lawful orders of the Court.The respondents having lost their standing in Court, the "Manifestation and Motion," dated July 3, 1992 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General is hereby DENIED due course.SO ORDERED.On July 3, 1992, the Solicitor General informed the trial court that Cario had ceased to be DECS Secretary and asked for his substitution. But the court failed to act on his motion.The hearing of the case was thereafter conducted ex parte with only the teachers allowed to present their evidence.On August 10, 1992, the trial court rendered a decision, in which it stated:The Court is in full accord with petitioners' contention that Rep. Act No. 4670 otherwise known as the "Magna Carta for Public School Teachers" is the primary law that governs the conduct of investigation in administrative cases filed against public school teachers, with Pres. Decree No. 807 as its supplemental law. Respondents erred in believing and contending that Rep. Act No. 4670 has already been superseded by the applicable provisions of Pres. Decree No. 807 and Exec. Order No. 292. Under the Rules of Statutory Construction, a special law, Rep. Act. No. 4670 in the case at bar, is not regarded as having been replaced by a general law, Pres. Decree No. 807, unless the intent to repeal or alter the same is manifest. A perusal of Pres. Decree No. 807 reveals no such intention exists, hence, Rep. Act No. 4670 stands. In the event that there is conflict between a special and a general law, the former shall prevail since it evidences the legislator's intent more clearly than that of the general statute and must be taken as an exception to the General Act. The provision of Rep. Act No. 4670 therefore prevails over Pres. Decree No. 807 in the composition and selection of the members of the investigating committee. Consequently, the committee tasked to investigate the charges filed against petitioners was illegally constituted, their composition and appointment being violative of Sec. 9 of Rep. Act No. 4670 hence all acts done by said body possess no legal color whatsoever.Anent petitioners' claim that their dismissal was effected without any formal investigation, the Court, after consideration of the circumstances surrounding the case, finds such claim meritorious. Although it cannot be gain said that respondents have a cause of action against the petitioner, the same is not sufficient reason to detract from the necessity of basic fair play. The manner of dismissal of the teachers is tainted with illegality. It is a dismissal without due process. While there was a semblance of investigation conducted by the respondents their intention to dismiss petitioners was already manifest when it adopted a procedure provided for by law, by shifting the burden of proof to the petitioners, knowing fully well that the teachers would boycott the proceedings thereby giving them cause to render judgment ex-parte.The DISMISSAL therefore of the teachers is not justified, it being arbitrary and violative of the teacher's right to due process. Due process must be observed in dismissing the teachers because it affects not only their position but also their means of livelihood.WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby GRANTED and all the questioned orders/decisions of the respondents are hereby declared NULL and VOID and are hereby SET ASIDE.The reinstatement of the petitioners to their former positions without loss of seniority and promotional rights is hereby ORDERED.The payment, if any, of all the petitioners' back salaries, allowances, bonuses, and other benefits and emoluments which may have accrued to them during the entire period of their preventive suspension and/or dismissal from the service is hereby likewise ORDERED.SO ORDERED. 5From this adverse decision of the trial court; former DECS Secretary Isidro Cario filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals raising the following grounds:I. The trial court seriously erred in declaring appellants as in default.II. The trial court seriously erred in not ordering the proper substitution of parties.III. The trial court seriously erred in holding that R.A. No. 4670, otherwise known as "Magna Carta for Public School Teachers", should govern the conduct of the investigation conducted.IV. The trial court seriously erred in ruling that the dismissal of the teachers are without due process. 6As mentioned earlier, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, holding in the main that private respondents were denied due process in the administrative proceedings instituted against them.Hence, this petition for review. 7The IssuesBefore us, petitioners raise the following issues:IWhether or not Respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in holding in effect that private respondents were denied due process of law.IIWhether or not Respondent Court of Appeals seriously erred and committed grave abuse of discretion in applying strictly the provision of R.A. No. 4670 in the composition of the investigating committee.IIIWhether or not Respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal and in affirming the trial court's decision. 8These issues, all closely related, boil down to a single question: whether private respondents were denied due process of law.The Court's RulingThe petition is bereft of merit. We agree with the Court of Appeals that private respondents were denied due process of law.Denial of Due ProcessAt the outset, we must stress that we are tasked only to determine whether or not due process of law was observed in the administrative proceedings against herein private respondents. We note the Solicitor General's extensive disquisition that government employees do not have the right to strike. 9 On this point, the Court, in the case of Bangalisan vs. Court of Appeals, 10 has recently pronounced, through Mr. Justice Florenz D. Regalado:It is the settled rule in this jurisdiction that employees in the public service may not engage in strikes. While the Constitution recognizes the right of government employees to organize, they are prohibited from staging strikes, demonstrations mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or disruption of public services. The right of government employees to organize is limited only to the formation of unions or associations, without including the right to strike.More recently, in Jacinto vs. Court of Appeals, 11 the Court explained the schoolteachers' right to peaceful assembly vis-a-vis their right to mass protest:Moreover, the petitioners here, except Merlinda Jacinto, were not penalized for the exercise of their right to assemble peacefully and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Rather, the Civil Service Commission found them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for having absented themselves without proper authority, from their schools during regular school days, in order to participate in the mass protest, their absence ineluctably resulting in the non-holding of classes and in the deprivation of students of education, for which they were responsible. Had petitioners availed themselves of their free time recess, after classes, weekends or holidays to dramatize their grievances and to dialogue with the proper authorities within the bounds of law, no one not the DECS, the CSC or even this Court could have held them liable for the valid exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. As it was, the temporary stoppage of classes resulting from their activity necessarily disrupted public services, the very evil sought to be forestalled by the prohibition against strikes by government workers. Their act by its nature was enjoined by the Civil Servicelaw, rules and regulations, for which they must, therefore, be made answerable. 12 In the present case, however, the issue is not whether the private respondents engaged in any prohibited activity which may warrant the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against them as a result of administrative proceedings. As already observed, the resolution of this case revolves around the question of due process of law, not on the right of government workers to strike. The issue is not whether private respondents may be punished for engaging in a prohibited action but whether, in the course of the investigation of the alleged proscribed activity, their right to due process has been violated. In short, before they can be investigated and meted out any penalty, due process must first be observed.In administrative proceedings, due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent's legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one's favor, and to defend one's rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected. 13The legislature enacted a special law, RA 4670 known as the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, which specifically covers administrative proceedings involving public schoolteachers. Section 9 of said law expressly provides that the committee to hear public schoolteachers' administrative cases should be composed of the school superintendent of the division as chairman, a representative of the local or any existing provincial or national teachers' organization and a supervisor of the division. The pertinent provisions of RA 4670 read:Sec. 8. Safeguards in Disciplinary Procedure. Every teacher shall enjoy equitable safeguards at each stage of any disciplinary procedure and shall have:a: the right to be informed, in writing, of the charges;b. the right to full access to the evidence in the case;c. the right to defend himself and to be defended by a representative of his choice and/or by his organization, adequate time being given to the teacher for the preparation of his defense; andd. the right to appeal to clearly designated authorities. No publicity shall be given to any disciplinary action being taken against a teacher during the pendency of his case.Sec. 9. Administrative Charges. Administrative charges against teacher shall be heard initially by a committee composed of the corresponding School Superintendent of the Division or a duly authorized representative who would at least have the rank of a division supervisor, where the teacher belongs, as chairman, a representative of the local or, in its absence, any existing provincial or national teacher's organization and a supervisor of the Division, the last two to be designated by the Director of Public Schools. The committee shall submit its findings, and recommendations to the Director of Public Schools within thirty days from the termination of the hearings: Provided, however, That where the school superintended is the complainant or an interested party, all the members of the committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of Education.The foregoing provisions implement the Declaration of Policy of the statute; that is, to promote the "terms of employment and career prospects" of schoolteachers.In the present case, the various committees formed by DECS to hear the administrative charges against private respondents did not include "a representative of the local or, in its absence, any existing provincial or national teacher's organization" as required by Section 9 of RA 4670. Accordingly, these committees were deemed to have no competent jurisdiction. Thus, all proceedings undertaken by them were necessarily void. They could not provide any basis for the suspension or dismissal of private respondents. The inclusion of a representative of a teachers' organization in these committees was indispensable to ensure an impartial tribunal. It was this requirement that would have given substance and meaning to the right to be heard. Indeed, in any proceeding, the essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard. 14Petitioners argue that the DECS complied with Section 9 of RA 4670, because "all the teachers who were members of the various committees are members of either the Quezon City Secondary Teachers Federation or the Quezon City Elementary Teachers Federation" 15 and are deemed to be the representatives of a teachers' organization as required by Section 9 of RA 4670.We disagree. Mere membership of said teachers in their respective teachers' organizations does not ipso facto make them authorized representatives of such organizations as contemplated by Section 9 of RA 4670. Under this section, the teachers' organization possesses the right to indicate its choice of representative to be included by the DECS in the investigating committee. Such right to designate cannot be usurped by the secretary of education or the director of public schools or their underlings. In the instant case, there is no dispute that none of the teachers appointed by the DECS as members of its investigating committee was ever designated or authorized by a teachers' organization as its representative in said committee.Contrary to petitioners' asseverations, 16 RA 4670 is applicable to this case. It has not been expressly repealed by the general law PD 807, which was enacted later, nor has it been shown to be inconsistent with the latter. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that "repeals by implication are not favor. An implied repeal will not be allowed unless it is convincingly and unambiguously demonstrated that the two laws are so clearly repugnant and patently inconsistent that they cannot co-exist. This is based on the rationale that the will of the legislature cannot be overturned by the judicial function of construction and interpretation. Courts cannot take the place of Congress in repealing statutes. Their function is to try to harmonize, as much as possible, seeming conflicts in the laws and resolve doubts in favor of their validity and co-existence." 17 Thus, a subsequent general law does not repeal a prior special law, "unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest, although the terms of the general law are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the special law." 18The aforementioned Section 9 of RA 4670, therefore, reflects the legislative intent to impose a standard and a separate set of procedural requirements in connection with administrative proceedings involving public schoolteachers. Clearly, private respondents' right to due process of law requires compliance with these requirements laid down by RA 4670. Verba legis non est recedendum.Hence, Respondent Court of Appeals, through Mr. Justice Vicente V. Mendoza who is now a member of this Court, perceptively and correctly stated:Respondent-appellants argue that the Magna Carta has been superseded by the Civil Service Decree (P.D. No. 807) and that pursuant to the latter law the head of a department, like the DECS secretary, or a regional director, like the respondent-appellant John Doe (not his real name), can file administrative charges against a subordinate, investigate him and take disciplinary action against him if warranted by his findings. Respondent-appellants cite in support of their argument the following provisions of the Civil Service Decree (P.D. No. 807).Sec. 37. Disciplinary Jurisdiction. xxx xxx xxxb) The heads of departments, agencies and instrumentalities. . . shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. . . .Sec. 38. Procedure in Administrative Cases Against Non-Presidential Appointees. a) Administrative Proceedings may be commenced against a subordinate officer or the employee by the head of department or officer of equivalent rank, or head of local government, or chiefs of agencies, or regional directors, or upon sworn, written complaint of any other persons.There is really no repugnance between the Civil Service Decree and the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. Although the Civil Service Decree gives the head of department or the regional director jurisdiction to investigate and decide disciplinary matters, the fact is that such power is exercised through committees. In cases involving public school teachers, the Magna Carta provides that the committee be constituted as follows:Sec. 9. Administrative Charges. Administrative charges against a teacher shall be heard initially by a committee composed of the corresponding School Superintendent of the Division or a duly authorized representative who would at least have the rank of a division supervisor, where the teacher belongs, as chairman, a representative of the local or, in its absence, any existing provincial or national teacher's organization and a supervisor of the Division, the last two to be designated by the Director of Public Schools. The committee shall submit its findings, and recommendations to the Director of Public Schools within thirty days from the termination of the hearings: Provided, however, that where the school superintendent is the complainant or an interested party, all the members of the committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of Education.Indeed, in the case at bar, neither the DECS [s]ecretary nor the DECS-NCR regional director personally conducted the investigation but entrusted it to a committee composed of a division supervisor, secondly and elementary school teachers, and consultants. But there was no representative of a teachers organization. This is a serious flaw in the composition of the committee because the provision for the representation of a teachers organization is intended by law for the protection of the rights of teachers facing administrative charges.There is thus nothing in the Magna Carta that is in any way inconsistent with the Civil Service Decree insofar as procedures for investigation is concerned. To the contrary, the Civil Service Decree, [S]ec. 38(b) affirms the Magna Carta by providing that the respondent in an administrative case may ask for a "formal investigation," which was what the teachers did in this case by questioning the absence of a representative of a teachers organization in the investigating committee.The administrative committee considered the teachers to have waived their right to a hearing after the latter's counsel walked out of the preliminary hearing. The committee should not have made such a ruling because the walk out was staged in protest against the procedures of the committee and its refusal to give the teachers' counsel a copy of the guidelines. The committee concluded its investigation and ordered the dismissal of the teachers without giving the teachers the right to full access of the evidence against them and the opportunity to defend themselves. Its predisposition to find petitioner-appellees guilty of the charges was in fact noted by the Supreme Court when in its resolution in G.R. No. 101943 (Rosario Septimo v. Judge Martin Villarama, Jr.) it stated:The facts and issues in this case are similar to the facts and issues in Hon. Isidro Cario, et al. v. Hon. Carlos C. Ofilada, et al. G.R. No. 100206, August 22, 1961.As in the Cario v. Ofilada case, the officials of the Department of Culture and Education are predisposed to summarily hold the petitioners guilty of the charges against them. In fact, in this case Secretary Cario, without awaiting formal administrative procedures and on the basis of reports and "implied admissions" found the petitioners guilty as charged and dismissed them from the service in separate decisions dated May 16, 1997 and August 6, 1991. The teachers went to court. The Court dismissed the case. 19Furthermore, this Court sees no valid reason to disregard the factual findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals. It is not our function "to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties particularly where, such as here, the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court coincide." 20It is as clear as day to us that the Court of Appeals committed to reversible error in affirming the trial court's decision setting aside the questioned orders of petitioners; and ordering the unqualified reinstatement of private respondents and the payment of them of salaries, allowances, bonuses and other benefitsthat accrued to their benefit during the entire duration of their suspension or dismissal. 21 Because the administrative proceedings involved in this case are void, no delinquency or misconduct may be imputed to private respondents. Moreover, the suspension or dismissal meted on them is baseless. Private respondents should, as a consequence, be reinstated 22 and awarded all monetary benefits that may have accrued to them during the period of their unjustified suspension or dismissal. 23 This Court will never countenance a denial of the fundamental right to due process, which is a cornerstone of our legal system.WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED for its utter failure to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals. The assailed Decision is thus AFFIRMED.SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 85439 January 13, 1992KILUSANG BAYAN SA PAGLILINGKOD NG MGA MAGTITINDA NG BAGONG PAMILIHANG BAYAN NG MUNTINLUPA, INC. (KBMBPM), TERESITA A. FAJARDO, NADYESDA B. PONSONES, MA. FE V. BOMBASE, LOIDA D. LUCES, MARIO S. FRANCISCO, AMADO V. MANUEL and ROLANDO G. GARCIA, incumbent members of the Board, AMADO G. PEREZ and MA. FE V. BOMBASE, incumbent General Manager and Secretary-Treasurer, respectively, petitioners, vs.HON. CARLOS G. DOMINGUEZ, Secretary of Agriculture, Regional Director of Region IV of the Department of Agriculture ROGELIO P. MADRIAGA, RECTO CORONADO and Municipal Mayor IGNACIO R. BUNYE, both in his capacity as Municipal Mayor of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila and as Presiding Officer of Sangguniang Bayan ng Muntinglupa, and JOHN DOES, respondents.G.R. No. 91927 January 13, 1992IGNACIO R. BUNYE, JAIME R. FRESNEDI, CARLOS G. TENSUAN, VICTOR E. AGUINALDO, ALEJANDRO I. MARTINEZ, EPIFANIO A. ESPELETA, REY E. BULAY, LUCIO B. CONSTANTINO, ROMAN E. NIEFES, NEMESIO O. MOZO, ROGER SMITH, RUFINO B. JOAQUIN, NOLASCO I. DIAZ, RUFINO IBE and NESTOR SANTOS, petitioners, vs.THE SANDIGANBAYAN, THE OMBUDSMAN and ROGER C. BERBANO, Special Prosecutor III, respondents.Jose O. Villanueva and Roberto B. Romanillos for petitioners in G.R. No. 85439.Alampay & Manhit Law Offices for petitioners in G.R. No. 91927.DAVIDE, JR., J.:These cases have been consolidated because they are closely linked with each other as to factual antecedents and issues.The first case, G.R. No. 85439 (hereinafter referred to as the Kilusang Bayan case), questions the validity of the order of 28 October 1988 of then Secretary of Agriculture Hon. Carlos G. Dominguez which ordered: (1) the take-over by the Department of Agriculture of the management of the petitioner Kilusang Bayan sa Paglilingkod Ng Mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntilupa, Inc. (KBMBPM) pursuant to the Department's regulatory and supervisory powers under Section 8 of P.D. No. 175, as amended, and Section 4 of Executive Order No. 13, (2) the creation of a Management Committee which shall assume the management of KBMBPM upon receipt of the order, (3) the disbandment of the Board of Directors, and (4) the turn over of all assets, properties and records of the KBMBPM the Management Committee.The second case. G.R. No. 91927 (hereinafter referred to as the Bunye case), seeks the nullification of the Resolution of 4 January 1990 of the Sandiganbayan admitting the Amended Information against petitioners in Criminal Case No. 13966 and denying their motion to order or direct preliminary investigation, and its Resolution of 1 February 1990 denying the motion to reconsider the former.The procedural and factual antecedents are not disputed.On 2 September 1985, the Municipal Government of Muntinlupa (hereinafter, Municipality), Metro Manila, thru its then Mayor Santiago Carlos, Jr., entered into a contract with the KILUSANG BAYAN SA PAGLILINGKOD NG MGA MAGTITINDA SA BAGONG PAMILIHANG BAYAN NG MUNTINLUPA, INC. (KBMBPM) represented by its General Manager, Amado Perez, for the latter's management and operation of the new Muntinlupa public market. The contract provides for a twenty-five (25) year term commencing on 2 September 1985, renewable for a like period, unless sooner terminated and/or rescinded by mutual agreement of the parties, at a monthly consideration of Thirty-Five Thousand Pesos (P35,000) to be paid by the KBMBPM within the first five (5) days of each month which shall, however, be increased by ten percent (10%) each year during the first five (5) years only. 1The KBMBPM is a service cooperative organized by and composed of vendors occupying the New Muntinlupa Public Market in Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 175 and Letter of Implementation No. 23; its articles of incorporation and by-laws were registered with the then Office of the Bureau of Cooperatives Development (thereafter the Bureau of Agricultural Cooperatives Development or BACOD and now the Cooperative Development Authority). 2Following his assumption into office as the new mayor succeeding Santiago Carlos, Jr., petitioner Ignacio Bunye, claiming to be particularly scandalized by the "virtual 50-year term of the agreement, contrary to the provision of Section 143, paragraph 3 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 337," and the "patently inequitable rental," directed a review of the aforesaid contract. 3 He sought opinions from both the Commission on Audit and the Metro Manila Commission (MMC) on the validity of the instrument. In separate letters, these agencies urged that appropriate legal steps be taken towards its rescission. The letter of Hon. Elfren Cruz of the MMC even granted the Municipality authority "to take the necessary legal steps for the cancellation/recission of the above cited contract and make representations with KBMBPM for the immediate transfer/takeover of the possession, management and operation of the New Muntinlupa Market to the Municipal Government of Muntinlupa." 4Consequently, upon representations made by Bunye with the Municipal Council, the latter approved on 1 August 1988 Resolution No. 45 abrogating the contract. To implement this resolution, Bunye, together with his co-petitioners and elements of the Capital Command of the Philippine Constabulary, proceeded, on 19 August 1986, to the public market and announced to the general public and the stallholders thereat that the Municipality was taking over the management and operation of the facility, and that the stallholders should henceforth pay their market fees to the Municipality, thru the Market Commission, and no longer to the KBMBPM. 5On 22 August 1988, the KBMBPM filed with Branch 13 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati a complaint for breach of contract, specific performance and damages with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction against the Municipality and its officers, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 88-1702. 6 The complaint was premised on the alleged illegal take-over of the public market effected "in excess of his (Bunye's) alleged authority" and thus "constitutes breach of contract and duty as a public official."The writ applied for having been denied, 7 the KBMBPM officers resisted the attempts of Bunye and company to complete the take-over; they continued holding office in the KBS building, under their respective official capacities. The matter having been elevated to this Court by way of certiorari, 8 We remanded the same to the Court of Appeals which docketed it as C.A.-G.R. No. L-16930. 9On 26 August 1988, Amado Perez filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a letter-complaint charging Bunye and his co-petitioners with oppression, harassment, abuse of authority and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act 10 for taking over the management and operation of the public market from KBMBPM. 11In a subpoena dated 7 October 1988, prosecutor Mothalib C. Onos of the Office of the Special Prosecutor directed Bunye and his co-petitioners to submit within ten (10) days from receipt thereof counter-affidavits, affidavits of their witnesses and other supporting documents. 12 The subpoena and letter-complaint were received on 12 October 1988.On 20 October 1988, two (2) days before the expiration of the period granted to file said documents, Bunye, et al. filed by mail an urgent motion for extension of "at least fifteen (15) days from October 22, 1988" within which to comply 13 with the subpoena.Thereafter, the following transpired which subsequently gave rise to these petitions:G.R. No. 85439In the early morning of 29 October 1988, a Saturday, respondent Madriaga and Coronado, allegedly accompanied by Mayor Bunye and the latters' heavily armed men, both in uniform and in civilian clothes, together with other civilians, namely: Romulo Bunye II, Alfredo Bunye, Tomas Osias, Reynaldo Camilon, Benjamin Taguibao, Benjamin Bulos and other unidentified persons, allegedly through force, violence and intimidation, forcibly broke open the doors of the offices of petitioners located at the second floor of the KBS Building, new Muntinlupa Public Market, purportedly to serve upon petitioners the Order of respondent Secretary of Agriculture dated 28 October 1988, and to implement the same, by taking over and assuming the management of KBMBPM, disbanding the then incumbent Board of Directors for that purpose and excluding and prohibiting the General Manager and the other officers from exercising their lawful functions as such. 14 The Order of the Secretary reads as follows: 15O R D E RWHEREAS, the KILUSANG BAYAN SA PAGLILINGKOD NG MGA MAGTITINDA NG BAGONG PAMILIHANG BAYAN NG MUNTINLUPA, INC., (KBMBPM), Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila is a Cooperative registered under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 175, as amended;WHEREAS, the Department of Agriculture is empowered to regulate and supervise cooperatives registered under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 175, as amended;WHEREAS, the general membership of the KBMBPM has petitioned the Department of Agriculture for assistance in the removal of the members of the Board of Directors who were not elected by the general membership of said cooperative;WHEREAS, the on-going financial and management audit of the Department of Agriculture auditors show (sic) that the management of the KBMBPM is not operating that cooperative in accordance with PD. 175, LOI No. 23, the Circulars issued by DA/BACOD and the provisions of the by-laws of KBMBPM;WHEREAS, the interest of the public so demanding it is evident and urgently necessary that the KBMBPM MUST BE PLACED UNDER MANAGEMENT TAKE-OVER of the Department of Agriculture in order to preserve the financial interest of the members of the cooperative and to enhance the cooperative development program of the government;WHEREAS, it is ordered that the Department of Agriculture in the exercise of its regulatory and supervisory powers under Section 8 of PD 175, as amended, and Section 4 of Executive Order No. 113, take over the management of KBMBPM under the following directives:1. THAT a Management Committee is hereby created composed of the following:a) Reg. Dir. or OIC RD DA Region IVb) Atty. Rogelio P. Madriaga BACODc) Mr. Recto Coronado KBMBPMd) Mrs. Nadjasda Ponsones KBMBPMe) One (1) from the Municipal Government of Muntinlupa to be designated by the Sangguniang Pambayan ng Muntinlupa;2. THAT the Management Committee shall, upon receipt of this Order, assume the management of KBMBPM;3. THAT the present Board of Directors is hereby disbanded and the officers and Manager of the KBMBPM are hereby directed to turnover all assets, properties and records of the KBMBPM to the Management Committee herein created;4. THAT the Management Committee is hereby empowered to promulgate rules of procedure to govern its workings as a body;5. THAT the Management Committee shall submit to the undersigned thru the Director of BACOD monthly reports on the operations of KBMBPM;6. THAT the Management Committee shall call a General Assembly of all registered members of the KBMBPM within Ninety (90) days from date of this Order to decide such matters affecting the KBMBPM, including the election of a new set of Board of Director (sic).This Order takes effect immediately and shall continue to be in force until the members of the Board of Directors shall have been duly elected and qualified.Done this 28th day of October, 1988 at Quezon City.As claimed by petitioners, the Order served on them was not written on the stationary of the Department, does not bear its seal and is a mere xerox copy.The so-called petition upon which the Order is based appears to be an unverified petition dated 10 October 1988 signed, according to Mayor Bunye, 16 by 371 members of the KBMBPM.On 2 November 1988, petitioners filed the petition in this case alleging, inter alia, that:(a) Respondent Secretary acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Order for he arrogated unto himself a judicial function by determining the alleged guilt of petitioners on the strength of a mere unverified petition; the disbandment of the Board of Directors was done without authority of law since under Letter of Implementation No. 23, removal of officers, directors or committee members could be done only by the majority of the members entitled to vote at an annual or special general assembly and only after an opportunity to be heard at said assembly.(b) Respondent Secretary acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary and despotic manner, so patent and gross that it amounted to a grave abuse of discretion.(c) The Order is a clear violation of the By-Laws of KBMBPM and is likewise illegal and unlawful for it allows or tolerates the violation of the penal provisions under paragraph (c), Section 9 of P.D. No. 175.(d) The Order is a clear violation of the constitutional right of the individual petitioners to be heard. 17They pray that upon the filing of the petition, respondents, their agents, representatives or persons acting on their behalf be ordered to refrain, cease and desist from enforcing and implementing the questioned Order or from excluding the individual petitioners from the exercise of their rights as such officers and, in the event that said acts sought to be restrained were already partially or wholly done, to immediately restore the management and operation of the public market to petitioners, order respondents to vacate the premises and, thereafter, preserve the status quo; and that, finally, the challenged Order be declared null and void.In the Resolution of 9 October 1988, 18 We required the respondents to Comment on the petition. Before any Comment could be filed, petitioners filed on 2 January 1989 an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion praying that respondent Atty. Rogelio Madriaga, who had assumed the position of Chairman of the Management Committee, be ordered to stop and/or cancel the scheduled elections of the officers of the KBMBPM on 6 January 1989 and, henceforth, desist from scheduling any election of officers or Members of the Board of Directors thereof until further orders on the Court. 19 The elections were, nevertheless, held and a new board of directors was elected. So, on 19 January 1989, petitioners filed a supplemental motion 20 praying that respondent Madriaga and the "newly elected Board of Directors be ordered to cease and desist from assuming, performing or exercising powers as such, and/or from removing or replacing the counsels of petitioners as counsels for KBMBPM and for Atty. Fernando Aquino, Jr., to cease and desist from unduly interfering with the affairs and business of the cooperative."Respondent Bunye, by himself, filed his Comment on 23 January 1989. 21 He denies the factual allegations in the petition and claims that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies. A reply thereto was filed by petitioners on 7 February 1989. 22Respondent Recto Coronado filed two (2) Comments. The first was filed on 6 February 1989 23 by his counsel, Atty. Fernando Aquino, Jr., and the second, which is for both him and Atty. Madriaga, was filed by the latter on 10 February 1989. 24On 20 February 1989, petitioners filed a Reply to the first Comment of Coronado 25 and an Ex-Parte Motion for the immediate issuance of a cease and desist order 26 praying that the so-called new directors and officers of KBMBPM, namely: Tomas M. Osias, Ildefonso B. Reyes, Paulino Moldez, Fortunato M. Medina, Aurora P. del Rosario, Moises Abrenica, and Lamberto Casalla, be ordered to immediately cease and desist from filing notices of withdrawals or motions to dismiss cases filed by the Cooperative now pending before the courts, administrative offices and the Ombudsman and Tanodbayan, and that if such motions or notices were already filed, to immediately withdraw and desist from further pursuing the same until further orders of this Court. The latter was precipitated by the Resolution No. 19 of the "new" board of directors withdrawing all cases filed by its predecessors against Bunye, et al., and more particularly the following cases: (a) G.R. No. 85439 (the instant petition), (b) Civil Case No. 88-1702, (c) OSP Case No. 88-2110 before the Ombudsman, (d) IBP Case No. 88-0119 before the Tanodbayan, and Civil Case No. 88-118 for Mandamus. 27On 1 March 1989, We required the Solicitor General to file his Comment to the petition and the urgent motion for the immediate issuance of a cease and desist order. 28A motion to dismiss the instant petition was filed on 30 March 1989. 29 On 19 April 1989, We resolved to dismiss the case and consider it closed and terminated. 30 Thereupon, after some petitioners filed a motion for clarification and reconsideration, We set aside the dismissal order and required the new directors to comment on the Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed by the former. 31The new board, on 14 June 1989, prayed that its Manifestation of 6 June 1989 and Opposition dated 9 June 1989, earlier submitted it response to petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the instant petition, be treated as its Comment. 32 Both parties then continued their legal fencing, serving several pleadings on each other.In Our Resolution of 9 August 1989, 33 We gave the petition due course and required the parties to submit their respective Memoranda.On 14 August 1989, petitioners filed an urgent ex-parte motion for the immediate issuance of a cease and desist order 34 in view of the new board's plan to enter into a new management contract; the motion was noted by this Court on 23 August 1989. A second ex-parte motion, noted on 18 October 1989, was filed on 19 September 1989 asking this court to consider the "Invitation to pre-qualify and bid" for a new contract published by respondent Bunye. 35In a belated Comment 36 for the respondent Secretary of Agriculture filed on 22 September 1989, the Office of the Solicitor General asserts that individual petitioners, who were not allegedly elected by the members or duly designated by the BACOD Director, have no right or authority to file this case; the assailed Order of the Secretary was issued pursuant to P.D. No. 175, more particularly Section 8 thereof which authorizes him "(d) to suspend the operation or cancel the registration of any cooperative after hearing and when in its judgment and based on findings, such cooperative is operating in violation of this Decree, rules and regulations, existing laws as well as the by-laws of the cooperative itself;" the Order is reasonably necessary to correct serious flaws in the cooperative and provide interim measures until election of regular members to the board and officers thereof; the elections conducted on 6 January 1989 are valid; and that the motion to dismiss filed by the new board of directors bind