ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES MIDTERM - EXAMINATION

OPLE VERSUS TORRES ID SYSTEM ISSUE : WON AO 308 ID SYSTEM IS BEYOND THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO ISSUE HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE OBITER DICTA : Legislative power is "the authority, under the Constitution, to make laws, and to alter and repeal them." The Constitution, as the will of the people in their original, sovereign and unlimited capacity, has vested this power in the Congress of the Philippines. As head of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief Executive. He represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has control over the executive department, bureaus and offices. Sec. 3. Administrative Orders. Acts of the President which relate to particular aspects of governmental operation in pursuance of his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in administrative orders. An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy. RATIO DECIDENDI : Regulations are not supposed to be a substitute for the general policy-making that Congress enacts in the form of a public law. Although administrative regulations are entitled to respect, the authority to prescribe rules and regulations is not an independent source of power to make laws.

REPUBLIC VERSUS EXPRESS TELECOM CERTIFICATE OF CONVINIENCE AND NESSESITY ISSUE : WON NTC EXCERCISED DUE PROCESS HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE IN PUBLICATION OF THE 1993 RULES OF PROCEDURE OBITER DICTA : This Court, in Taada vs. Tuvera (G.R. No. L-63915, December 29, 1986, 146 SCRA 446) stated, thus: We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative power or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative Rules and Regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. RATIO DECIDENDI : Publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation is a condition sine qua non before statutes, rules or regulations can take effect.

IN NOTICE AND HEARING OBITER DICTA : In Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan (166 SCRA 316 [1988]), we held that the right to be heard does not only refer to the right to present verbal arguments in court. A party may also be heard through his pleadings, where opportunity to be heard is accorded either through oral arguments or pleadings, there is no denial of procedural due process.

ISSUE : WON THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : Clearly, Extelcom violated the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies when it went directly to the Court of Appeals on a petition for certiorari and prohibition from the Order of the NTC dated May 3, 2000, without first filing a motion for reconsideration. It is well-settled that the filing of a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to the filing of a special civil action for certiorari. The general rule is that, in order to give the lower court the opportunity to correct itself, a motion for reconsideration is a prerequisite to certiorari. It also basic that petitioner must exhaust all other available remedies before resorting to certiorari. This rule, however, is subject to certain exceptions such as any of the following: (1) the issues raised are purely legal in nature, (2) public interest is involved, (3) extreme urgency is obvious or (4) special circumstances warrant immediate or more direct action. ISSUE : WON THE CA CAN INTERFERE WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE NTC HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The general rule is that purely administrative and discretionary functions may not be interfered with by the courts. The established exception to the rule is where the issuing authority has gone beyond its statutory authority, exercised unconstitutional powers or clearly acted arbitrarily and without regard to his duty or with grave abuse of discretion.

ECHEGARAY VERSUS JUSTICE SECRETARY SUPREME COURT - FINAL AND EXECUTORY ISSUE : WON THE SC STILL HAS JURISDICTION AFTER A DECISION BECOMES FINAL AND EXECUTORY HELD : THE COURT RULED IN THE POSITIVE OBITER DICTA : Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx xxx xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. RATIO DECIDENDI : If the manifest intent of the 1987 Constitution is to strengthen the independence of the judiciary, it is inutile to urge, as public respondents do, that this Court has no jurisdiction to control the process of execution of its decisions, a power conceded to it and which it has exercised since time immemorial. ISSUE : WON THE SC CAN GRANT REPRIEVES HELD : THE COURT RULED IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The suspension of such a death sentence is undisputably an exercise of judicial power. It is not a usurpation of the presidential power of reprieve though its effects are the same the temporary suspension of the execution of the death convict. For the public respondents therefore to contend that only the Executive can protect the right to life of an accused after his final conviction is to violate the principle of co-equal and coordinate powers of the three branches of our government.

TAXI CAB OPERATORS OF METRO MANILA VERSUS BOT SIX YEARS PHASE OUT OF TAXI ISSUE : WON BOT EXERCISED DUE PROCESS HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE ON THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RATIO DECIDENDI : It is not mandatory that it should first call a conference or require the submission of position papers or other documents from operators or persons who may be affected, this being only one of the options open to the Board, which is given wide discretionary authority. Petitioners cannot justifiably claim, therefore, that they were deprived of procedural due process. Neither can they state with certainty that public respondents had not availed of other sources of inquiry prior to issuing the challenged Circulars. Operators of public conveyances are not the only primary sources of the data and information that may be desired by the BOT. ON THE CEILING OF SIX YEARS BEING ARBITRARY RATIO DECIDENDI : A reasonable standard must be adopted to apply to vehicles affected uniformly, fairly, and justly. The span of six years supplies that reasonable standard. The product of experience shows that by that time taxis have fully depreciated, their cost recovered, and a fair return on investment obtained. They are also generally dilapidated and no longer fit for safe and comfortable service to the public specially considering that they are in continuous operation practically 24 hours everyday in three shifts of eight hours per shift. With that standard of reasonableness and absence of arbitrariness, the requirement of due process has been met.

AIR MANILA VERSUS BALATBAT AIR CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVINENCE & NECESSITY ISSUE : WON THERE WAS A WHIMSICAL EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE BOARD HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : For, under the law, the Civil Aeronautics Board is not only empowered to grant certificates of public convenience and necessity; it can also issue, deny, revise, alter, modify, cancel, suspend or revoke, in whole or in part, any temporary operating permit, upon petition or complaint of another or even at its own initiative. The exercise of the power, of course, is supposed to be conditioned upon the paramount consideration of public convenience and necessity, and nothing has been presented in this case to prove that the disputed action by the Board has been prompted by a cause other than the good of the service.

ABS-CBN VERSUS CTA RETROACTIVITY OF TAX CIRCULARS ISSUE : WON ADMINISTRATIVE RULINGS CAN BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENTI : It is clear from the foregoing that rulings or circulars promulgated by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue have no retroactive application where to so apply them would be prejudicial to taxpayers. The prejudice to petitioner of the retroactive application of Memorandum Circular No. 4-71 is beyond question. ISSUE : WON GC V334 IS A NULLITY HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The principle of legislative approval of administrative interpretation by reenactment clearly obtains in this case. It provides that "the re-enactment of a statute substantially unchanged is persuasive indication of the adoption by Congress of a prior executive construction.

ARTEZUELA VERSUS MADERAZO IBP LAWYER ISSUE : WON THE IBP EXERCISED SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : In administrative cases, the requirement of notice and hearing does not connote full adversarial proceedings, as actual adversarial proceedings become necessary only for clarification or when there is a need to propound searching questions to witnesses who give vague testimonies. Due process is fulfilled when the parties were given reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence in support of their arguments. In the case at bar, records show that respondent repeatedly sought the postponement of the hearings, prompting the Investigating Commissioner to receive complainants evidence ex parte and to set the case for resolution after the parties have submitted their respective memorandum.

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES VERSUS POEA DEATH OF HUSBAND ISSUE : WON THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : Ordinarily, the decisions of the POEA should first be appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, on the theory inter alia that the agency should be given an opportunity to correct the errors, if any, of its subordinates. This case comes under one of the exceptions, however, as the questions the petitioner is raising are essentially questions of law. ISSUE : WON THERE WAS UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE OBITER DICTA : There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power, viz, the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms 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. Under the sufficient standard test, there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. With the proliferation of specialized activities and their attendant peculiar problems, the national legislature has found it more and more necessary to entrust to administrative agencies the authority to issue rules to carry out the general provisions of the statute. This is called the "power of subordinate legislation." With this power, administrative bodies may implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by "filling in' the details which the Congress may not have the opportunity or competence to provide. This is effected by their promulgation of what are known as supplementary regulations, such as the implementing rules issued by the Department of Labor on the new Labor Code. These regulations have the force and effect of law.

ISSUE : WON THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS FOR POEA PROMULGATED THE RULES AND ALSO ISSUED THE RULINGS HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : Administrative agencies are vested with two basic powers, the quasi-legislative and the quasi-judicial. The first enables them to promulgate implementing rules and regulations, and the second enables them to interpret and apply such regulations. Examples abound: the Bureau of Internal Revenue adjudicates on its own revenue regulations, the Central Bank on its own circulars, the Securities and Exchange Commission on its own rules, as so too do the Philippine Patent Office and the Videogram Regulatory Board and the Civil Aeronautics Administration and the Department of Natural Resources and so on ad infinitumon their respective administrative regulations. Such an arrangement has been accepted as a fact of life of modern governments and cannot be considered violative of due process as long as the cardinal rights laid down by Justice Laurel in the landmark case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations are observed.

KMU LABOR CENTER VERSUS GARCIA LOCAL BUS OPERATORS WAS GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO SET PRICES ISSUE : WON THERE WAS UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : In the case at bench, the authority given by the LTFRB to the provincial bus operators to set a fare range over and above the authorized existing fare, is illegal and invalid as it is tantamount to an undue delegation of legislative authority. Potestas delegata non delegari potest. What has been delegated cannot be delegated. This doctrine is based on the ethical principle that such a delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another. ISSUE : WON NOTICE AND HEARING IS NEEDED IN RATE FIXING HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE OBITER DICTA : The present administrative procedure, to our mind, already mirrors an orderly and satisfactory arrangement for all parties involved. To do away with such a procedure and allow just one party, an interested party at that, to determine what the rate should be, will undermine the right of the other parties to due process. The purpose of a hearing is precisely to determine what a just and reasonable rate is. Discarding such procedural and constitutional right is certainly inimical to our fundamental law and to public interest.

FORTITCH VERSUS CORONA WIN WIN RESOLUTION FINAL & EXECUTORY ISSUE : WON A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS THE PROPER REMEDY FOR ERROR OF JURISDICTION IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : It is true that under Rule 43, appeals from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of any quasi-judicial agency exercising quasi-judicial functions, including the Office of the President, may be taken to the Court of Appeals by filing a verified petition for review within fifteen (15) days from notice of the said judgment, final order or resolution, whether the appeal involves questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. However, we hold that, in this particular case, the remedy prescribed in Rule 43 is inapplicable considering that the present petition contains an allegation that the challenged resolution is patently illegal and was issued with grave abuse of discretion and beyond his jurisdictionwhen said resolution substantially modified the earlier OP Decision of March 29, 1996 which had long become final and executory. In other words, the crucial issue raised here involves an error of jurisdiction, not an error of judgment which is reviewable by an appeal under Rule 43. Thus, the appropriate remedy to annul and set aside the assailed resolution is an original special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, as what the petitioners have correctly done.

ISSUE : WON THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT CAN CHANGE A DECISION WHICH HAS BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations. The noble purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all.This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which there would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who wield the power of adjudication. Any act which violates such principle must immediately be struck down. Thus, the act of the Office of the President in re-opening the case and substantially modifying its March 29,1996 Decision which had already become final and executory, was in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that accord finality to administrative determinations.

JOSON VERSUS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY REMOVAL IN ELECTIVE POSITION ISSUE : WON DILG - OP HAS JURISDICTION OVER DISCIPLINE CASES OF LOCAL OFFICIALS HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE OBITER DICTUM : Jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary actions against elective local officials is lodged in two authorities: the Disciplining Authority and the Investigating Authority. This is explicit from A.O. No. 23, to wit: Disciplining Authority. All administrative complaints, duly verified, against elective local officials mentioned in the preceding Section shall be acted upon by the President. The President, who may act through the Executive Secretary, shall hereinafter be referred to as the Disciplining Authority." Investigating Authority. The Secretary of the Interior and Local Government is hereby designated as the Investigating Authority. He may constitute an Investigating Committee in the Department of the Interior and Local Government for the purpose. The Disciplining Authority may, however, in the interest of the service, constitute a Special Investigating Committee in lieu of the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government." "Sec. 4. The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local governments. Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to component barangays shall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions." The power of supervision means "overseeing or the authority of an officer to see that the subordinate officers perform their duties." If the subordinate officers fail or neglect to fulfill their duties, the official may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties. "Sec. 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. Control is said to be the very heart of the power of the presidency. As head of the Executive Department, the President, however, may delegate some of his powers to the Cabinet members except when he is required by the Constitution to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he acts personally. The members of Cabinet may act for and in behalf of the President in certain matters because the President cannot be expected to exercise his control (and supervisory) powers personally all the time. Each head of a department is, and must be, the President's alter ego in the matters of that department where the President is required by law to exercise authority.

ISSUE : WON HEARING CAN BE SUBSTITUTED IN THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ELECTIVE OFFICIALS HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The provisions for administrative disciplinary actions against elective local officials are markedly different from appointive officials.The rules on the removal and suspension of elective local officials is more stringent. The procedure of requiring position papers in lieu of a hearing in administrative cases is expressly allowed with respect to appointive officials but not to those elected An elective official, elected by popular vote, is directly responsible to the community that elected him. The official has a definite term of office fixed by law which is relatively of short duration. Suspension and removal from office definitely affects and shortens this term of office. When an elective official is suspended or removed, the people are deprived of the services of the man they had elected. Implicit in the right of suffrage is that the people are entitled to the services of the elective official of their choice. Suspension and removal are thus imposed only after the elective official is accorded his rights and the evidence against him strongly dictates their imposition.

EVANGELISTA VERSUS JARENCIO PARGO SUBPOENA TO INVESTIGATE ISSUE :WON ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES HAS THE POWER OF SUBPOENA HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : Rightly, administrative agencies may enforce subpoenas issued in the course of investigations, whether or not adjudication is involved, and whether or not probable cause is shown and even before the issuance of a complaint. The administrative agency has the power of inquisition which is not dependent upon a case or controversy in order to get evidence, but can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated or even just because it wants assurance that it is not. When investigative and accusatory duties are delegated by statute to an administrative body, it, too may take steps to inform itself as to whether there is probable violation of the law. In sum, it may be stated that a subpoena meets the requirements for enforcement if the inquiry is (1) within the authority of the agency; (2) the demand is not too indefinite; and (3) the information is reasonably relevant.

MONTES VERSUS CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF APPEALS WATCHMAN IN PORTS DREDGE SUNK ISSUE : WON THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The doctrine of exhaustion, of administrative remedies requires where an administrative remedy is provided by statute, as in this case, relief must be sought by exhausting this remedy before the courts will act. The doctrine is a device based on considerations of comity and convenience. If a remedy is still available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to the courts, not only to give the administrative agency opportunity to decide the matter by itself correctly, but also to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to the courts.

US VERSUS ANG TANG HO RICE RATE FIXIG AND ECAME A CRIME ISSUE : WON THERE WAS UNDUE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE OBITER DICTA : Completeness Test & Self Sufficeincy Test RATIO DECIDENDI : ACTS OF THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IS NOT IN RELATION WITH THE ENABLING LAW This opinion is confined to the particular question here involved, which is the right of the Governor-General, upon the terms and conditions stated in the Act, to fix the price of rice and make it a crime to sell it at a higher price, and which holds that portions of the Act unconstitutional.

SMGC VERSUS OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT HOUSE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD OF SPECIAL LAW ISSUE : WON THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD OF 30 DAYS MUST BE FOLLOWED HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE As pointed out by public respondent, the aforecited administrative order allows aggrieved party to file its appeal with the Office of the President within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision complained of. Nonetheless, such thirty-day period is subject to the qualification that there are no other statutory periods of appeal applicable. If there are special laws governing particular cases which provide for a shorter or longer reglementary period, the same shall prevail over the thirty-day period provided for in the administrative order. This is in line with the rule in statutory construction that an administrative rule or regulation, in order to be valid, must not contradict but conform to the provisions of the enabling law.

ROMULO VERSUS HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND WAIVER OF FUND COVERAGE BECAUSE OF SUPERIOR RETIREMENT PLAN ISSUE : WON THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE DELEGATED RULE MAKING POWER HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : It is without doubt that the HDMF Board has rule~making power as provided in Section 5 of R.A. No. 7742 and Section 13 of P.D. No. 1752. However, it is well~settled that rules and regulations, which are the product of a delegated power to create new and additional legal provisions that have the effect of law, should be within the scope of the statutory authority granted by the legislature to the administrative agency. It is required that the regulation be germane to the objects and purposes of the law, and be not in contradiction to, but in conformity with, the standards prescribed by law. In the present case, when the Board of Trustees of the HDMF required in Section 1, Rule VII of the 1995 Amendments to the Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 7742 that employers should have both provident/retirement and housing benefits for all its employees in order to qualify for exemption from the Fund, it effectively amended Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752. And when the Board subsequently abolished that exemption through the 1996 Amendments, it repealed Section 19 of P.D. No. 1752. Such amendment and subsequent repeal of Section 19 are both invalid, as they are not within the delegated power of the Board. The HDMF cannot, in the exercise of its rule~making power, issue a regulation not consistent with the law it seeks to apply. Indeed, administrative issuances must not override, supplant or modify the law, but must remain consistent with the law they intend to carry out. Only Congress can repeal or amend the law.

LEDESMA VERSUS CA DEFAMATORY LETTER PROSECUTOR ISSUE : WON THE PROSECUTOR HAS THE POWER OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is judicially recognized as an executive function and is made by the prosecutor. The primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to free a respondent from the inconvenience, expense, ignominy and stress of defending himself/herself in the course of a formal trial, until the reasonable probability of his or her guilt has been passed upon in a more or less summary proceeding by a competent officer designated by law for that purpose. Secondarily, such summary proceeding also protects the state from the burden of unnecessary expense and effort in prosecuting alleged offenses and in holding trials arising from false, frivolous or groundless charges. Such investigation is not a part of the trial. A full and exhaustive presentation of the parties evidence is not required, but only such as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. By reason of the abbreviated nature of preliminary investigations, a dismissal of the charges as a result thereof is not equivalent to a judicial pronouncement of acquittal. Hence, no double jeopardy attaches.

OBITER DICTUM : In Crespo vs. Mogul, the Court emphasized the cardinal principle that the public prosecutor controls and directs the prosecution of criminal offenses thus: It is a cardinal principle that all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal. The institution of a criminal action depends upon the sound discretion of the fiscal. He may or may not file the complaint or information, follow or not follow that presented by the offended party, according to whether the evidence in his opinion, is sufficient or not to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The reason for placing the criminal prosecution under the direction and control of the fiscal is to prevent malicious or unfounded prosecution by private persons. It cannot be controlled by the complainant. Prosecuting officers under the power vested in them by law, not only have the authority but also the duty of prosecuting persons who, according to the evidence received from the complainant, are shown to be guilty of a crime committed within the jurisdiction of their office. They have equally the legal duty not to prosecute when after an investigation they become convinced that the evidence adduced is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case. In the same case, the Court added that where there is a clash of views between a judge who did not investigate and a fiscal who conducted a reinvestigation, those of the prosecutor should normally prevail:

ISSUE : WON RESPONDENT CAN APPEAL TO THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : Decisions or resolutions of prosecutors are subject to appeal to the secretary of justice who, under the Revised Administrative Code, exercises the power of direct control and supervision over said prosecutors; and who may thus affirm, nullify, reverse or modify their rulings. Supervision and control of a department head over his subordinates have been defined in administrative law as follows: In administrative law supervision means overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. If the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them, the former may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform such duties. Control, on the other hand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for that of the latter. OBITER DICTUM : SEC. 4. Non-Appealable Cases; Exceptions.--No appeal may be taken from a resolution of the Chief State Prosecutor/Regional State Prosecutor/Provincial or City Prosecutor finding probable cause except upon showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion. Notwithstanding the showing of manifest error or grave abuse of discretion, no appeal shall be entertained where the appellant had already been arraigned. If the appellant (is) arraigned during the pendency of the appeal, x x x appeal shall be dismissed motu proprio by the Secretary of Justice.

INC VERSUS CA X RATING OF TV SHOW ISSUE : WON THE MTRCB HAS JURISDICTION HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : The law gives the Board the power to screen, review and examine all television programs. By the clear terms of the law, the Board has the power to approve, delete x x x and/or prohibit the x x x exhibition and/or television broadcast of x x x television programs x x x. The law also directs the Board to apply contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard to determine those which are objectionable for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs, injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines and its people, or with a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of violence or of a wrong or crime. Clear & Present Danger Rule Any restraint of such right can be justified like other restraints on freedom of expression on the ground that there is a clear and present danger of any substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent. In Victoriano vs.Elizalde Rope Workers Union, we further ruled that x x x it is only where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be justified, and only to the smallest extent necessary to avoid the danger.

BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION VERSUS ALFONSO SCHOOL IS INADEQUATE ISSUE : WON THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE RATIO DECIDENDI :
Resort to the Courts to obtain a reversal of the determination by the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports that the College is unfit to continue its operations is in this case clearly unavailing. There is, to begin with, no law authorizing an appeal from decisions or orders of the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports to this Court or any other Court. It is not the function of this Court or any other Court to review the decisions and orders of the Secretary on the issue of whether or not an educational institution meets the norms and standards required for permission to operate and to continue operating as such. On this question, no Court has the power or prerogative to substitute its opinion for that of the Secretary. Indeed, it is obviously not expected that any Court would have the competence to do so. The, only authority reposed in the Courts in the matter is the determination of whether or not the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports has acted within the scope of powers granted him by law and the Constitution. As long as it appears that he has done so, any decision rendered by him should not and will not be subject to review and reversal by any court. Of course, if it should be made, to appear to the Court that those powers were in a case exercised so whimsically, capriciously, oppressively, despotically or arbitrarily as to call for peremptory correction or stated otherwise, that the Secretary had acted with grave abuse of discretion, or had unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty, or excluded another from the use or enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled it becomes the Court's duty to rectify such action through the extraordinary remedies of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus, whichever may properly apply. It is well-settled doctrine that courts of justice should not generally interfere with purely administrative and discretionary functions; that courts have no supervisory power over the proceedings and actions of the administrative departments of the government; involving the exercise of judgment and findings of facts, because by reason of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction, the latter are in a better position to pass judgment on such matters andn their findings of facts in that regard are generally accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts.

SMC VERSUS SECRETARY OF LABOR ISSUE : WON THE SC HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE HELD : THE COURT HELD IN THE POSITIVE RATIO DECIDENDI : That contention is a flagrant error. It is generally understood that as to administrative agencies exercising quasi-judicial or legislative power there is an underlying power in the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though no right of review is given by statute. The purpose of judicial review is to keep the administrative agency within its jurisdiction and protect substantial rights of parties affected by its decisions. It is part of the system of checks and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust adjudications. Judicial review is proper in case of lack of jurisdiction, grave abuse of discretion, error of law, fraud or collusion. The courts may declare an action or resolution of an administrative authority to be illegal (1) because it violates or fails to comply with some mandatory provision of the law or (2) because it is corrupt, arbitrary or capricious.